Page 97 of 112 FirstFirst ... 47879596979899107 ... LastLast
Results 961 to 970 of 1111

Thread: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

  1. #961
    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
    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.
    we don't have blood tests for marriage or fertility tests or any of that stuff. For a few years some far right religious fanatics made a bunch of laws. We have gotten rid of most by now.

  2. #962
    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
    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.
    Differing blood types does not prevent any couple from getting married. (I can't find any proof that blood type was ever used to prevent marriages in the past since the only factor blood type plays in procreation is in rare cases, a mother with a certain blood type could make keeping a pregnancy more difficult if the father has a contradictory blood type and passes his to the baby. It doesn't really affect the health of a born baby. The woman's body simply would try to destroy the pregnancy with a child of that blood type thinking the baby was an invading parasite instead of a baby.) Blood testing was mainly done in the past though not to get blood types but rather to identify diseases, such as syphillis or rubella. Even then, I don't think people were prevented in most cases from getting married because of the results of these blood tests.

    The Truth About Premarital Blood Testing - Medical Myths - Healthy Lifestyle | Aetna InteliHealth

    Then why allow those relations to legally marry at all? There would be no purpose for allowing those cousins to marry at all if marriage is about procreation and they are not allowed to legally be able to procreate in order to get married.

    You are wrong. Very little about marriage has anything to do with biology. And you can't show legitimate marriage laws that are in place now that prove this is wrong. Marriage does not function legally around biology. Because even limiting marriage to first cousins who cannot procreate proves you wrong because then there would be no biological purpose for them to be allowed to marry when they can't procreate.
    "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.

  3. #963
    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 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.
    I can't find any evidence to even suggest what you are saying is true. In fact, I can't find evidence at all that people have been prevented from entering into marriage anywhere in the US due to bloodtype differences. Can you show any proof/evidence that blood tests, or at least their results ever prevented someone from getting married and why exactly it prevented their marriage?
    "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. #964
    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

    Bump..

    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.

  5. #965
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

    Quote Originally Posted by austrianecon View Post
    Sorry, bud.. you had a high African American turnout in 2008. How Proposition 8 passed in California — and why it wouldn’t today
    The main reasons why Proposition H8 would not pass today are two fold: California, just like the rest of the nation has evolved exponentially over the last 5 years and 2. A lot of Californians that voted for Prop H8 realized very soon thereafter that they were snowed by the deceitful Mormon propaganda campaign. I can't tell you how many people have come out and said that they regret their vote because they understand now that it was based on lies primarily perpetrated by the Mormon church.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  6. #966
    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 Gimmesometruth View Post
    Bump..

    So then for sterile hetero couples, marriage is not an option...in your opinion.
    We've been over this. The argument that procreation must be a condition of marriage if it is the purpose of marriage is not valid.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  7. #967
    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
    We've been over this. The argument that procreation must be a condition of marriage if it is the purpose of marriage is not valid.
    Yes it is because you are the one trying to make the argument that procreation is the purpose of marriage. If it is the purpose of marriage, then there would be no reason to allow those opposite sex couples who can't procreate to get married. There would certainly be no reason to make special provisions to allow some of those couples to only be able to marry if they cannot procreate.
    "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. #968
    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
    We've been over this. The argument that procreation must be a condition of marriage if it is the purpose of marriage is not valid.
    Sure it is. If the purpose is procreation and the couple take tax money to procreate they must procreate.

  9. #969
    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
    Yes it is because you are the one trying to make the argument that procreation is the purpose of marriage. If it is the purpose of marriage, then there would be no reason to allow those opposite sex couples who can't procreate to get married. There would certainly be no reason to make special provisions to allow some of those couples to only be able to marry if they cannot procreate.
    Quote Originally Posted by captainawesome View Post
    Sure it is. If the purpose is procreation and the couple take tax money to procreate they must procreate.
    Sorry, but you both are clearly smart enough to know that your arguments here are disingenuous to the point of frivolity. As I said before, the purpose for something is not necessarily and actually is quite rarely, the condition for it. Example: You don't have to fly a plane just because you got a pilot's license. If you have obvious impediments to flying such as being blind, you can't get a driver's license. But you can get the license and never get into an airplane if you don't want to.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  10. #970
    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
    Example: You don't have to fly a plane just because you got a pilot's license. I
    That doesn't change the purpose of the license which is to fly planes if one so desires.

Page 97 of 112 FirstFirst ... 47879596979899107 ... 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
  •