Page 96 of 112 FirstFirst ... 46869495969798106 ... LastLast
Results 951 to 960 of 1111

Thread: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

  1. #951
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    07-16-13 @ 12:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,568

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Since you're struggling to understand what "state sanctioned marriage" means, let's start out with a basic definitions.

    Sanction: noun. approval - approbation - endorsement - authorization

    State Sanctioned marriage is for the purpose of approving a pairing and confirming that it makes biological sense. That's why important restrictions to marriage have historically included things like incest, fatal venereal diseases, blood types that are incompatible for producing children and, of course, same sex partners. Marriage is official approval and endorsement of a pairing that is not biologically illogical.
    Blood tests were not historical. They were required only for a very short time. George and Martha Washington had no blood test. Neither did the Lincolns.

  2. #952
    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
    Except you're wrong because the state in no way confirms that a couple entering into marriage "makes biological sense". That simply isn't true.
    Male and female makes biological sense. Not having blood types that would produce disastrous results makes biological sense. Not being related to the point that the offspring would be at risk to birth defects makes biological sense.

    Virtually everything about "the right to marriage" is about what makes biological sense. Only that one is not already married deviates from this in any meaningful way.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  3. #953
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,054

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    See, that is the "compassionate" argument and the only one that I find sympathetic. I don't agree that marriage makes any sense at all for homosexuals outside of the argument for what have come to be deemed reasonable benefits and state protections for committed partners. That's the real dilemma and not just for me, but for a lot of people. It's not marriage, but there is a compassionate side to this that is compelling. People typically want to help others. I'm just not certain marriage should come up on the "re-engineering" table in order to meet the goals of providing a legal framework for relationships that are not biologically sensible.
    Except it isn't a dilemma for all that many people. Most people support same sex marriage or do not want to give any recognition to same sex couples at all.

    But it is not your place to have your personal definition or view of what marriage should be or what the purpose of marriage is placed on everyone. Marriage is already defined in the way it functions under US laws, which do not include procreation in any way as a purpose.

    You confuse the benefit of marriage on raising children with the purpose of marriage being for procreation. There is a huge difference between these two things.
    "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.

  4. #954
    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 captainawesome View Post
    Blood tests were not historical. They were required only for a very short time. George and Martha Washington had no blood test. Neither did the Lincolns.
    They were required once medical science realized that certain blood types were incompatible for bearing offspring - which just strengthens the argument that the reason for marriage was about approving, licensing, endorsing, SANCTIONING a biologically sensible coupling.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  5. #955
    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
    Except it isn't a dilemma for all that many people. Most people support same sex marriage or do not want to give any recognition to same sex couples at all.

    But it is not your place to have your personal definition or view of what marriage should be or what the purpose of marriage is placed on everyone. Marriage is already defined in the way it functions under US laws, which do not include procreation in any way as a purpose.

    You confuse the benefit of marriage on raising children with the purpose of marriage being for procreation. There is a huge difference between these two things.
    I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. It seems neither you nor I have any new arguments to bring into this.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  6. #956
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    07-16-13 @ 12:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,568

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    They were required once medical science realized that certain blood types were incompatible for bearing offspring - which just strengthens the argument that the reason for marriage was about approving, licensing, endorsing, SANCTIONING a biologically sensible coupling.
    They were required for a few years until we realized it was stupid and pointless and stopped.

  7. #957
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I'm just not certain marriage should come up on the "re-engineering" table in order to meet the goals of providing a legal framework for relationships that are not biologically sensible.
    So then for sterile hetero couples, marriage is not an option...in your opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  8. #958
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Not having blood types that would produce disastrous results makes biological sense. .
    this outta be interesting

    Okay what blood type doesn't mqake biological sense?

  9. #959
    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 captainawesome View Post
    They were required for a few years until we realized it was stupid and pointless and stopped.
    The fact they were introduced because of medical science asserting they were important to prevent birth defects points irrefutably to the argument that the purpose of sanctioned marriage was about sensible biological pairings that established a framework for procreation.

    I think with you, too, it's time to just agree to disagree. I've made my points and you've rejected them. You've made your points and I've rejected them. There's nothing new except rehashing the same rehashed arguments again and again in a redundantly redundant manner, repeated over and over again in a maddening merrygoround of redundant redundancy.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  10. #960
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post

    Virtually everything about "the right to marriage" is about what makes biological sense.
    BS, read the findings of facts in Holingsworth v Perry, p67

    https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/0...2292-ORDER.pdf
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

Page 96 of 112 FirstFirst ... 46869495969798106 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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