Page 107 of 112 FirstFirst ... 75797105106107108109 ... LastLast
Results 1,061 to 1,070 of 1111

Thread: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

  1. #1061
    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 Lakryte View Post
    I agree. I made the same argument back in the 60s against interracial marriage. Historically blacks never could marry whites. That is what marriage was--within the same race. And I was called racist for saying blacks shouldn't be able to marry whites? Absurd, right?

    That's incorrect. Interracial marriages were well known even preceding the days of Pocohontas. And, of course, you were a racist for saying blacks shouldn't marry whites, so that wasn't absurd. The ironic thing here, though, is that the reason society had a big problem with interracial marriage was.... hold on...... guess...... THE CHILDREN. Procreation. That omnipresent purpose of marriage that is so troublesome to those suggesting any biological permutation except Man+Woman equals marriage.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  2. #1062
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    That's incorrect. Interracial marriages were well known even preceding the days of Pocohontas. And, of course, you were a racist for saying blacks shouldn't marry whites, so that wasn't absurd. The ironic thing here, though, is that the reason society had a big problem with interracial marriage was.... hold on...... guess...... THE CHILDREN. Procreation. That omnipresent purpose of marriage that is so troublesome to those suggesting any biological permutation except Man+Woman equals marriage.
    So then you agree interracial marriage should be banned because of "the children"? Procreation has nothing to do with who can marry. Most women above 50 can no longer procreate, but they are still allowed to get married. Sterile couples are still allowed to get married. You don't get to codify your own religious and personal purpose of marriage into the law.
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
    "When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."

  3. #1063
    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 Lakryte View Post
    So then you agree interracial marriage should be banned because of "the children"?
    That's a stupid question. To presume that I must support an argument merely because I am able to tell you that it was made is silly and that this silliness was intentional means you attempted to ply a sophomoric dishonest debate trick.

    Procreation has nothing to do with who can marry. Most women above 50 can no longer procreate, but they are still allowed to get married. Sterile couples are still allowed to get married. You don't get to codify your own religious and personal purpose of marriage into the law.
    As I've argued in the past and must explain to you, now... the fact that procreation was always integral to the purpose of marriage is not to say that procreation is a CONDITION of marriage. It has always been enough that couples be of male and female, which makes biological sense. It is, however, interesting to note that my wife tells me that years ago in Ireland they took it a step farther to actually ask you if you were planning to have children with an affirmative answer required in order to get approval for the marriage.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  4. #1064
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    That's a stupid question. To presume that I must support an argument merely because I am able to tell you that it was made is silly and that this silliness was intentional means you attempted to ply a sophomoric dishonest debate trick.
    What's silly is that you pointed out the similarity between arguments against interracial marriage and same-sex marriage (procreation), and then proceeded to defend one and not the other.

    As I've argued in the past and must explain to you, now... the fact that procreation was always integral to the purpose of marriage is not to say that procreation is a CONDITION of marriage. It has always been enough that couples be of male and female, which makes biological sense. It is, however, interesting to note that my wife tells me that years ago in Ireland they took it a step farther to actually ask you if you were planning to have children with an affirmative answer required in order to get approval for the marriage.
    Really? So in Ireland people who were infertile or old could not get married? And did planning to have children include adoption?

    On second though, who cares? This isn't Ireland.
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
    "When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."

  5. #1065
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,771

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Lakryte View Post
    What's silly is that you pointed out the similarity between arguments against interracial marriage and same-sex marriage (procreation), and then proceeded to defend one and not the other.


    Really? So in Ireland people who were infertile or old could not get married? And did planning to have children include adoption?

    On second though, who cares? This isn't Ireland.
    the argument of off spring and procreation against SSM as always failed and will always failed, its a strawman that nobody honest and educated buys. Fact of the matter is that off spring and procreation are 1005 meaningless to legal marriage here in the US and this fact will never change.
    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

  6. #1066
    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 Lakryte View Post
    What's silly is that you pointed out the similarity between arguments against interracial marriage and same-sex marriage (procreation), and then proceeded to defend one and not the other.


    Really? So in Ireland people who were infertile or old could not get married? And did planning to have children include adoption?

    On second though, who cares? This isn't Ireland.
    It all goes to flesh out the understanding of the real purpose of marriage and it was always related to families, bringing children into the world and then supporting those children in a stable environment. The argument now is that "that's changed", but I think it's going to be tough to make the argument that marriage is really some frivolous agreement for the sake of tax benefits and making political statements as the homosexual community seems wont to do.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  7. #1067
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    It all goes to flesh out the understanding of the real purpose of marriage and it was always related to families, bringing children into the world and then supporting those children in a stable environment. The argument now is that "that's changed", but I think it's going to be tough to make the argument that marriage is really some frivolous agreement for the sake of tax benefits and making political statements as the homosexual community seems wont to do.
    Homosexual couples are no less capable of being families, bringing children into the world, and supporting those children in a stable environment than are heterosexual couples.
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
    "When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."

  8. #1068
    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

    More on the fact that arguments to try to create gay marriage also open the doors to things like polygamy:

    As a lawyer in the same-sex marriage litigation at the Supreme Court who has spent a couple years working through all the implications of declaring a constitutional right to gay marriage, it became clear that such a declaration would also mean there is a right to polygamy.
    When I previously explained these reasons, gay marriage supporters said the country would never go there. Well, now the far-left magazine Slate has come out with a full-throated endorsement of polygamous marriage.
    For thousands of years, Western Civilization has always recognized three elements to marriage. It is the union of (1) two consenting adults, (2) of opposite sex, (3) who are not close blood relatives. Gay marriage advocates say the second element can be jettisoned. I’ve always asked why those same people say the first element cannot be touched.
    Slate believes, “Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice.”
    They’re wrong on all counts. On the constitutional issue, for liberties not found in the text of the Constitution (where marriage is never mentioned once), the Supreme Court has held a fundamental right is one that is “deeply rooted in the history and traditions” of the American people. Marriage of one man and one woman satisfy this test, which is why the Court held in the 1878 case Reynolds v. U.S. that there is no constitutional right to polygamy. It’s also why there is no right to gay marriage but why laws against marriage between different racial groups are clearly unconstitutional.
    Slate elaborates on their reasoning:
    The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us.
    If you believe that marriage is merely the union of consenting adults, and nothing more, then this argument might make sense. I’m still waiting for one of the lawyers working on the gay marriage cases to explain why this means their argument for a right to gay marriage doesn’t extend to polygamists.
    This is especially important, since same-sex marriage has only existed on earth since 2001, but polygamy has been around more than 5,000 years of recorded history. Also, gay marriage is legal in just over a dozen countries, but polygamy is legal in over four dozen (roughly 50) nations and is expressly sanctioned by the second-largest religion on earth with 1.6 billion followers, Islam.
    One point Slate misses is that there are two forms of polygamy that could never involve disadvantaging women: a multi-person gay men marriage, and a multi-person lesbian marriage. If three men decide to enter into a polygamous gay marriage, how could any woman be victimized by it? It becomes increasingly harder for those trying to redefine marriage to explain their arbitrary line-drawing choices.
    Slate concludes: “All marriages deserve access to the support and resources needed to build happy, healthy lives, no matter how many partners are involved.” I give them credit for their honesty; they admit and even embrace that if you demand a right to same-sex marriage, there’s no principled reason not to have a right to polygamous marriage. The only reason is political. The American people have been told for years now that gay marriage would not open Pandora’s Box, but they still understand at a gut level that they do not want to entirely redefine the family unit in the United States.
    Slate completely misses the point of marriage laws in America. We’ll write about that when the Supreme Court hands down its decision in the Prop 8 case, Hollingsworth v. Perry.
    Slate: 'Marriage Equality' Includes Polygamy

    And the link to the Slate article:

    Legalize polygamy: Marriage equality for all. - Slate Magazine

    I think it's time for people who want to force homosexual marriage in all 50 states to stop arguing that it wouldn't pave the way to polygamy but to take the more honest approach and admit they don't care if it does.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  9. #1069
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    More on the fact that arguments to try to create gay marriage also open the doors to things like polygamy:



    Slate: 'Marriage Equality' Includes Polygamy

    And the link to the Slate article:

    Legalize polygamy: Marriage equality for all. - Slate Magazine

    I think it's time for people who want to force homosexual marriage in all 50 states to stop arguing that it wouldn't pave the way to polygamy but to take the more honest approach and admit they don't care if it does.
    And interracial marriage opened the door to same sex marriage. Perhaps we should go back and get rid of that?
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
    "When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."

  10. #1070
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,647

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    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).
    Firstly, the problem with your entire argument is your opening line. The question isn't "what WAS the purpose of marriage". The question is "what IS the purpose of marriage." That's why the fallacy is on target.

    And, as far as your link and assertion, from what I've read, it's pretty accurate. However... since the complete legality of SSM is not yet in place, it would be interesting to see if those statistics remain the same when it IS in place and whether they mirror the stats found in traditional marriages. I think what one would find is that lesbian relationships would be inline with straight relationships, whereas male gay relationships would not... but that's just a guess based on an assortment of things I've read.
    "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"

Posting Permissions

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