Page 105 of 112 FirstFirst ... 55595103104105106107 ... LastLast
Results 1,041 to 1,050 of 1111

Thread: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

  1. #1041
    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 Somerville View Post
    History shows us that "property" was as big a part of marriage in the past as the need for procreation
    The property rights were in support of families/procreation. Virtually everything in marriage is fruit of the tree of procreation. Property rights, survivorship rights, etc. etc. etc. were all for the sake of a new family and it's procreation. Property rights are actually more about divorce than marriage. And you'd have a point if you argued that divorce laws are more about property than procreation.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  2. #1042
    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 Papa bull View Post
    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.
    I won't lie, you conservatives provide me with all the entertainment I need. The cons that demonstrate ignorance, stupidity, arrogance, and self-superiority make me laugh all day long. Please continue with your demonstrations lol.

  3. #1043
    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 Papa bull View Post
    The property rights were in support of families/procreation. Virtually everything in marriage is fruit of the tree of procreation. Property rights, survivorship rights, etc. etc. etc. were all for the sake of a new family and it's procreation. Property rights are actually more about divorce than marriage. And you'd have a point if you argued that divorce laws are more about property than procreation.
    And yet there are exceptions are there not? Just like gay marriage is an exception and those that cannot reproduce are exceptions. Exceptions are not something bad.

  4. #1044
    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 CaptainCourtesy View Post
    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.
    It is not a fallacy when the question is: "What was the purpose of marriage". Your logical fallacy only applies to "X is right because X is how it was always done". In this case, X was the purpose for the creation of a state sanctioned marriage and the question is whether the proposal that homosexuals be permitted to engage in "marriage" actually furthers X (the purpose). Or, it can be argued that the purpose has changed.... that's what the homosexual advocates are rightly setting about to argue and it's going to be interesting to see if they can win the argument that we should forget about why we had marriage in the first place and think of it more as just an agreement between two consenting people with or without monogamy, with or without intent to raise a family, with or without reasonable biological pairings, with or without anything but an agreement to cohabitate under the general conditions of "marriage". And before you argue on the point of monogamy, let's face it. One of the dirty little secrets here is that for many "gay marriages", monogamy is tossed in the rubbish heap. It's not about monogamy. That's optional. Here's a link in advance just to short circuit any arguments about this: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us...etro.html?_r=0 (yes, from that bastion of right wing propaganda, the New York Times, LOL).
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  5. #1045
    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
    And yet there are exceptions are there not? Just like gay marriage is an exception and those that cannot reproduce are exceptions. Exceptions are not something bad.
    Exceptions aren't the issue. The issue is whether homosexual pairings actually fit the purpose/meaning/description of marriage. Look, you can put horses in a pig pen and you can put pigs in a stable, but that doesn't mean that horses actually belong in a pig pen or pigs in a stable. That's not what they were designed/created for.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  6. #1046
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    The property rights were in support of families/procreation. Virtually everything in marriage is fruit of the tree of procreation. Property rights, survivorship rights, etc. etc. etc. were all for the sake of a new family and it's procreation. Property rights are actually more about divorce than marriage. And you'd have a point if you argued that divorce laws are more about property than procreation.
    It is still not relevant to marriage today. Marriage today is about property between the couple, not the children.

    It sounds like your real problem is with spouses being treated equally in marriage, and the change that put property in the hands of a surviving spouse, not progeny.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  7. #1047
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Exceptions aren't the issue. The issue is whether homosexual pairings actually fit the purpose/meaning/description of marriage. Look, you can put horses in a pig pen and you can put pigs in a stable, but that doesn't mean that horses actually belong in a pig pen or pigs in a stable. That's not what they were designed/created for.
    They fit the purpose, meaning, and description of marriage legally. That is all that matters and you can't prove otherwise. Marriage is described by how the laws concerning it function, not restrictions on who can enter into it.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  8. #1048
    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 roguenuke View Post
    They fit the purpose, meaning, and description of marriage legally. That is all that matters and you can't prove otherwise. Marriage is described by how the laws concerning it function, not restrictions on who can enter into it.
    You forgot to add "in my opinion" at the end of the first sentence because without that, it is a statement of fact and in most states, that is NOT a fact, which renders your rebuttal invalid.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  9. #1049
    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 Papa bull View Post
    Exceptions aren't the issue. The issue is whether homosexual pairings actually fit the purpose/meaning/description of marriage .
    Hmmm let's see. Gay people can raise children that straight people don't want, check. They love each other, check. Capability of providing a healthy home, check.

    Yep, it fits the definition, purpose and meaning of marriage. Next?

  10. #1050
    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 roguenuke View Post
    It is still not relevant to marriage today. Marriage today is about property between the couple, not the children.
    Again.... that may be your OPINION, but it is not a fact. Property rights were put in place for the purpose of dealing with divorce. Marriage is about putting together a family and that family was expected to include offspring. "Property" doesn't even come into play until there's a divorce and divorce was very rare up until the 19th century. In Ireland, divorce wasn't even a legal option until the 1990's. Clearly, marriage was for other things than sorting out "divorce" and those other things were raising families.
    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
  •