Page 98 of 112 FirstFirst ... 488896979899100108 ... LastLast
Results 971 to 980 of 1111

Thread: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

  1. #971
    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 winston53660 View Post
    That doesn't change the purpose of the license which is to fly planes if one so desires.
    That is correct. Flying is not, however, a condition for having the license. The purpose is not a conditional requirement. I think you understand, now.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  2. #972
    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
    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.
    So since it isn't required for heterosexual couples it won't be required for homosexual couples. There is no problem.

  3. #973
    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
    That is correct. Flying is not, however, a condition for having the license. The purpose is not a conditional requirement. I think you understand, now.
    Procreation does not require a license. Flying a plane does. And nowhere in the marriage license is procreation a condition of said license.

  4. #974
    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.
    You keep trying to argue the absurd in defense of your position. Being fertile COULD actually be a condition of marriage, but the state clearly assumes that male and female meets the rationale for "biologically sensible". Going further to demand fertility tests would be too intrusive and expensive for everyone involved since the premise of marriage remains intact merely by union of male/female.

    If the purpose of marriage was to "affirm love", then this argument wouldn't have happened in the first place. That's not the purpose of the state sanctioned entity of marriage and in some part of your brain, you must actually know this. I understand that you don't like it since it doesn't fit your progressive views, but some part of you must know that you are not being completely honest even with yourself when you try to claim that the purpose of marriage really has nothing to do with procreation, bearing children and establishing the family unit. It's so intrinsic to marriage that you absolutely cannot deny honestly that it's true.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  5. #975
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,798

    Re: SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    Procreation does not require a license. Flying a plane does. And nowhere in the marriage license is procreation a condition of said license.
    yep just a made up failed strawman

    procreation and offspring and 100% meaningless to legal marriage.
    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. #976
    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
    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.
    That is a defeating of your argument. Marriage is not limited to procreation, therefore you cannot keep using it as an argument AGAINST ssm.
    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.

  7. #977
    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
    You keep trying to argue the absurd in defense of your position. Being fertile COULD actually be a condition of marriage, but the state clearly assumes that male and female meets the rationale for "biologically sensible".
    BS, sterile couples are in no way able to procreate, yet ALL states recognize that their marriages are beneficial for them and the state.


    Going further to demand fertility tests would be too intrusive and expensive for everyone involved since the premise of marriage remains intact merely by union of male/female.
    Straw, that was never suggested.

    If the purpose of marriage was to "affirm love", then this argument wouldn't have happened in the first place. That's not the purpose of the state sanctioned entity of marriage and in some part of your brain, you must actually know this.
    More straw, I never made a claim that the reason the state would grant a marriage licence would be for love.


    I understand that you don't like it since it doesn't fit your progressive views, but some part of you must know that you are not being completely honest even with yourself when you try to claim that the purpose of marriage really has nothing to do with procreation, bearing children and establishing the family unit. It's so intrinsic to marriage that you absolutely cannot deny honestly that it's true.
    More straw, I am not denying that part of the states interest MIGHT be for procreation, I am trying to get you to accept that it is not LIMITED to procreation.

    The fact that sterile couples are granted licence in every state every day proves this.
    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. #978
    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
    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 are continuing the failed argument that a marriage license is permission to either have sex or procreate, when it isn't. It is solely a license to enter into a marriage, which is a legal contract. The license ends to become a contract at the moment it is recorded as official by the state.
    "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.

  9. #979
    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
    You keep trying to argue the absurd in defense of your position. Being fertile COULD actually be a condition of marriage, .
    In some kind of nightmarish utopian eugenics based society.

  10. #980
    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 AGENT J View Post
    yep just a made up failed strawman

    procreation and offspring and 100% meaningless to legal marriage.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    That is a defeating of your argument. Marriage is not limited to procreation, therefore you cannot keep using it as an argument AGAINST ssm.
    Historically, marriage has been almost entirely about procreation and raising families. Love played almost no role at all in marriage through most of history. This is what has changed. We ted to view marriage as "a love commitment" today. That's not what it was created for. Sometimes the truth isn't pretty, glamorous or romantic.
    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
  •