Page 104 of 112 FirstFirst ... 45494102103104105106 ... LastLast
Results 1,031 to 1,040 of 1111

Thread: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

  1. #1031
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    No, it's obviously true. If you believe differently, I will give you the same challenge that I have given others... and not one person has accepted the challenge. Produce one piece of application paperwork or one law that indicates that procreation is a requirement for marriage in the history of the US.
    Well this is a rather late development in our discussion. There is nothing there apart from precedents from the cultures from which the United States was established, and which have been around for centuries, so its not much of a challenge. There is probably many things that aren't listed in the law books which are socially unacceptable but we follow those rules and customs anyway.

    Because the onus of the proof is on you. You claim that the purpose of marriage is for procreation.
    I said the history of marriage is about procreation and, i could add, the responsibility of each partner..

    You need to prove that.
    Why would I have to prove a point that I never made?

    I have countered your claim with the statement that "procreation has never been on an application or part of a legal construct for marriage". You want to prove your position it is as simple as finding any documentation that counters my claim.
    I've never mentioned that that is on the marriage application. It might be a good idea t start using quotes.

    If you look at this statement it is NOT about procreation... it is about why the state currently sanctions marriage... the rearing of children, stability, financial stability, and health, all things that support the state.
    Perhaps you should read the statement again, quote it, and tell me the part with which you disagree.

    Which is, again, an appeal to history logical fallacy and does not support your position.
    I'm not sure where you're going with this. What is the position you believe I have?

  2. #1032
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    There is no question that you have an extraordinary capacity for redundancy. If that won arguments, you'd be a killer in debates.
    when facts are repeated it does kill thats why he is winning. He presents facts and others present fantasy or opinions pushed as facts and they fail.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  3. #1033
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,626

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Well this is a rather late development in our discussion. There is nothing there apart from precedents from the cultures from which the United States was established, and which have been around for centuries, so its not much of a challenge. There is probably many things that aren't listed in the law books which are socially unacceptable but we follow those rules and customs anyway.
    We are talking about the legality of such. If one claims that marriage is based, legally on procreation, one needs to prove that with documentation. If it ain't listed, it ain't legal. So, no, your position is obviously false.

    I said the history of marriage is about procreation and, i could add, the responsibility of each partner..
    And you asked what was the difference between your argument and mine in the context of the logical fallacy. I demonstrated the difference. In that context, your comment above makes no sense.

    Why would I have to prove a point that I never made?
    Because you certainly did make it. Here is what you said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    You said "Procreation has never been on an application or part of a legal construct for marriage" when that is obviously false.
    You have been arguing that procreation has been the purpose for marriage by using history as your substantiation and the above as a point to support your position. And I have been demonstrating that your position is false.

    I've never mentioned that that is on the marriage application. It might be a good idea t start using quotes.
    Sure you did. Here's your quote:

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    You said "Procreation has never been on an application or part of a legal construct for marriage" when that is obviously false.
    Perhaps you should read the statement again, quote it, and tell me the part with which you disagree.
    I'll quote it again:

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    You said "Procreation has never been on an application or part of a legal construct for marriage" when that is obviously false.
    I placed in bold the part that I disagree with.

    I'm not sure where you're going with this. What is the position you believe I have?
    What you said and what you have been stating. That procreation is the purpose of marriage, and that the fact that procreation has existed on some application of legal construct for marriage.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  4. #1034
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    We are talking about the legality of such. If one claims that marriage is based, legally on procreation, one needs to prove that with documentation. If it ain't listed, it ain't legal. So, no, your position is obviously false.
    I can see you know how to use quotes so please use them properly. Find where i said "marriage is based, legally on procreation" then identify the quote and use it.

    And you asked what was the difference between your argument and mine in the context of the logical fallacy. I demonstrated the difference. In that context, your comment above makes no sense.
    There is every indication that you really don't understand what is being said here.

    You said "Procreation has never been on an application or part of a legal construct for marriage" when that is obviously false.
    It has always been part of the legal construct of marriage. Whoever fathers the children has to be responsible for those children. That goes back centuries and is pretty much universal. Or are you saying that procreation has never appeared on an application for marriage, for example that those getting married must have children? In that you would be correct.
    You have been arguing that procreation has been the purpose for marriage by using history as your substantiation and the above as a point to support your position. And I have been demonstrating that your position is false.
    Here is what I said. "Actually the history of marriage is very important and the word 'matrimony' itself is from the Latin word for 'mother' and that, of course, is all about procreation. We can debate about Gays marrying but we should understand that history and culture always play an important role in any society".

    What you said and what you have been stating. That procreation is the purpose of marriage, and that the fact that procreation has existed on some application of legal construct for marriage.
    I explained what the word 'matrimony' comes from. It comes from the word 'mother', Can you see how 'matrimony' and 'mother' are connected?

    Is it your position that procreation has not been a factor in this centuries old ceremony? Do you think that marriage has traditionally been between men and men, women and women, or men and women, or that the bearing and raising of children wasn't a consideration? Wasn't the purpose of marriage, at one time, to have a family with children?

  5. #1035
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-17 @ 02:13 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,127

    Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    I don't think it would have made a difference. It wasn't the Obama voters. It was the Mormon lies.
    You must be a disney dude.. you believe in fantasies.
    Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office. H.L Mencken

  6. #1036
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,626

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    I can see you know how to use quotes so please use them properly. Find where i said "marriage is based, legally on procreation" then identify the quote and use it.
    I can see that you are not taking responsibility for your positions. If you didn't like them, why post them?


    There is every indication that you really don't understand what is being said here.
    There is every indication that you are backtracking on what you said here.

    It has always been part of the legal construct of marriage. Whoever fathers the children has to be responsible for those children. That goes back centuries and is pretty much universal.[/quote]

    Which is irrelevant to marriage.

    Or are you saying that procreation has never appeared on an application for marriage, for example that those getting married must have children? In that you would be correct.
    Thank you. I thought I was quite clear on this issue the first time. Does this mean that you are now admitting that the following quote of yours was wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    You said "Procreation has never been on an application or part of a legal construct for marriage" when that is obviously false.
    Here is what I said. "Actually the history of marriage is very important and the word 'matrimony' itself is from the Latin word for 'mother' and that, of course, is all about procreation. We can debate about Gays marrying but we should understand that history and culture always play an important role in any society".
    Yes, I read it the first time.

    I explained what the word 'matrimony' comes from. It comes from the word 'mother', Can you see how 'matrimony' and 'mother' are connected?
    I know the definition and it's origins.

    Is it your position that procreation has not been a factor in this centuries old ceremony? Do you think that marriage has traditionally been between men and men, women and women, or men and women, or that the bearing and raising of children wasn't a consideration? Wasn't the purpose of marriage, at one time, to have a family with children?
    No, my position is that using saying that "things have been this way for a long time" doesn't prove that that particular thing is correct, and is an appeal to tradition logical fallacy. I think I was pretty clear about THAT, too.

    Any other questions?
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  7. #1037
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,714

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Actually the history of marriage is very important and the word 'matrimony' itself is from the Latin word for 'mother' and that, of course, is all about procreation. We can debate about Gays marrying but we should understand that history and culture always play an important role in any society.
    Can my "culture" be used to deny you rights? Is my moral disapproval of your posting on this internet forum grounds to restrict your right to free speech?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  8. #1038
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:59 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,777

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    History shows us that "property" was as big a part of marriage in the past as the need for procreation
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  9. #1039
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Can my "culture" be used to deny you rights? Is my moral disapproval of your posting on this internet forum grounds to restrict your right to free speech?
    it is funny to hear conservatives talk about the importance of culture and tradition, when it was conservatives and religious folks that tried to destroy pagan traditions and culture by having "Christian" holidays on pagan holidays.

    So to many conservatives the only important traditions and culture worth saving are things THEY deem important and not anyone else's.

  10. #1040
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    it is funny to hear conservatives talk about the importance of culture and tradition, when it was conservatives and religious folks that tried to destroy pagan traditions and culture by having "Christian" holidays on pagan holidays.

    So to many conservatives the only important traditions and culture worth saving are things THEY deem important and not anyone else's.
    If you can stop giggling to yourself long enough to give a little thought to this, there are two things for you to think about.

    1. No conservative or "religious folks" alive today were busy trying to destroy pagan culture by overlaying religious holidays centuries ago, so the humor in this "irony" is thin, at best.

    2. Conservatives are no different than anyone else; it's what YOU deem important that YOU want to save. Why you would giggle that conservatives feel that way when everyone else does, too, beats the hell out of me unless, of course, it's just that you're very easily amused.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •