• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

Papa bull said:
Love might be why you would get married but it's not the reason the state sanctions it. Love your sister if you want, (in ways that are taboo or otherwise) but you can't marry her and you're not going to make a good case that you should because the interests of the state aren't about whether you love your spouse or not, but whether you are an appropriate biological pairing.
Click to expand...

I was VERY clear in the distinction between "why" someone gets married and "why" the state sanctions it. Why someone gets married has little to do with the state sanctioning marriage or the legal aspects, but it does debunk the entire equality (non-legal) argument that anti-SSMers make.
 
Papa bull said:
That's right, but you can't divorce that primary purpose from the reasoning of marriage without actually redefining it's purpose by disposing of the cornerstone.
Click to expand...

Of course you can. Marriage is not about procreation either from a legal or from a non-legal standpoint. That's not it's primary purpose.
 
Papa bull said:
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.
Click to expand...

You can keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true.
 
Papa bull said:
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.
Click to expand...

You don't know what you are talking about. Blood tests were required prior to getting married to check for STD's. There are four states that still require them. It has nothing to do with compatibility for bearing offspring.
 
Papa bull said:
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.
Click to expand...

These are nothing more than unsubstantiated assumptions.

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.
Click to expand...

You have been shown, REPEATEDLY, how procreation is neither the purpose of marriage, nor has anything to do with a legal marriage license. I understand that this does not fit in with your conservative agenda, but it's still accurate. I have no idea whether any part of you realizes that you are not being completely honest with yourself when you argue these illogical points. Perhaps, perhaps not.
 
Papa bull said:
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.
Click to expand...

Historically... oh wait... appeal to tradition logical fallacy. That was easy.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Historically... oh wait... appeal to tradition logical fallacy. That was easy.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Charlie. When we're trying to determine the purpose for marriage laws, history is not fallacious. It is critical to understanding. So, of course, you would dismiss it because that wouldn't suit your progressive agenda.
 
Papa bull said:
Sorry, Charlie. When we're trying to determine the purpose for marriage laws, history is not fallacious. It is critical to understanding. So, of course, you would dismiss it because that wouldn't suit your progressive agenda.
Click to expand...

The history of marriage is arranged by parents for money and title.
 
Papa bull said:
Sorry, Charlie. When we're trying to determine the purpose for marriage laws, history is not fallacious. It is critical to understanding. So, of course, you would dismiss it because that wouldn't suit your progressive agenda.
Click to expand...

Well, since the purpose for marriage laws has not been about procreation, your point is irrelevant both factually and logically.

Now, if you want to keep throwing out stupid partisan comments, I can certainly play that game, but it's making your argument look weaker than it is. Certainly if that's your goal, keep doing it.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Well, since the purpose for marriage laws has not been about procreation, your point is irrelevant both factually and logically.

Now, if you want to keep throwing out stupid partisan comments, I can certainly play that game, but it's making your argument look weaker than it is. Certainly if that's your goal, keep doing it.
Click to expand...

What marriage laws were originally created for now seems to be entirely in the realm of opinion. Yours and mine are different v many share yours. Many share mine. You want to claim procreation wasn't the most important reason. I think you are dead wrong and that it was the primary goal. But I also think we are at impasse and probably will be at least until its decided for all, and maybe well beyond that.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Well, since the purpose for marriage laws has not been about procreation, your point is irrelevant both factually and logically.
Click to expand...

Actually the history of marriage is very important and the word 'matrimony' itself is from the Latin word for 'mother' and that, of course, is all about procreation. We can debate about Gays marrying but we should understand that history and culture always play an important role in any society.
 
Papa bull said:
What marriage laws were originally created for now seems to be entirely in the realm of opinion. Yours and mine are different v many share yours. Many share mine. You want to claim procreation wasn't the most important reason. I think you are dead wrong and that it was the primary goal. But I also think we are at impasse and probably will be at least until its decided for all, and maybe well beyond that.
Click to expand...

What marriage laws were originally created for is a matter of logic and examination. Procreation has never been on an application or part of a legal construct for marriage. I do not consider this an impasse. I see it more of you digging into a position that has no standing logically or definitively for whatever reason it is that you have.
 
Grant said:
Actually the history of marriage is very important and the word 'matrimony' itself is from the Latin word for 'mother' and that, of course, is all about procreation. We can debate about Gays marrying but we should understand that history and culture always play an important role in any society.
Click to expand...

The history of marriage is not relevant due to the logical fallacy. You can not prove a position by claiming "it's always been that way". From a legal standpoint, procreation is not a requirement in any way shape or form. And, if you going to use a cultural position, then the fact that today's culture shows that SSM is supported by the majority, the impact of this on society is pretty clear.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
What marriage laws were originally created for is a matter of logic and examination. Procreation has never been on an application or part of a legal construct for marriage. I do not consider this an impasse. I see it more of you digging into a position that has no standing logically or definitively for whatever reason it is that you have.
Click to expand...

And I consider you to be naysaying and pretending that's a sound refutation. The link between procreation and marriage laws is so ubiquitous that you trip over it every time you examine history and you reject it offhand. As Grant said, even the word matrimony relates to procreation. It was about establishing a family unit and supporting framework for having children.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
The history of marriage is not relevant due to the logical fallacy. You can not prove a position by claiming "it's always been that way". From a legal standpoint, procreation is not a requirement in any way shape or form. And, if you going to use a cultural position, then the fact that today's culture shows that SSM is supported by the majority, the impact of this on society is pretty clear.
Click to expand...

When you argue that homosexuals should be give. Marriage rights, it is right to question whether or not that would advance the interests of the state that motivated the state to sanction marriage in the first place. And in order to do that, you look at history. I don't blame you for trying to cover it up as quickly as possible and dismiss it as a logical fallacy since you are vested in the denial of it's purpose. But you can't dismiss it as a logical fallacy "appeal to history" because the arguments we are engaging in are dependent on history and purpose.
 
Papa bull said:
And I consider you to be naysaying and pretending that's a sound refutation.
Click to expand...

No, the refutation is sound and has been for days. Facts and logic both support my position.

The link between procreation and marriage laws is so ubiquitous that you trip over it every time you examine history and you reject it offhand.
Click to expand...

The link is irrelevant. We are talking about purpose and requirement. You can't argue a position successfully if all you have a link, but purpose and requirement are against you. You could say that there is a link between getting married and having sex, but you cannot prove that this is the purpose for marriage, nor is it a requirement to GET married.

As Grant said, even the word matrimony relates to procreation. It was about establishing a family unit and supporting framework for having children.
Click to expand...

Which does not prove your position because of the logical fallacy... you always trip over this.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
The history of marriage is not relevant due to the logical fallacy. You can not prove a position by claiming "it's always been that way". From a legal standpoint, procreation is not a requirement in any way shape or form. And, if you going to use a cultural position, then the fact that today's culture shows that SSM is supported by the majority, the impact of this on society is pretty clear.
Click to expand...

You said "Procreation has never been on an application or part of a legal construct for marriage" when that is obviously false. If you disregard the "it's always been that way" argument, how can you make the argument that "Procreation has never been on an application or part of a legal construct for marriage"? We either ignore history or we accept it.

Matrimony was extremely important because it obliged the husband to be responsible for the children (and the 'house') and for the wife to be faithful in that relationship so that the husband would not be working for another mans children.

If society is ready for Gay marriages then so be it. The same holds true for polygamous marriages, also already de facto recognized in the UK and Canada. But we cannot use history to support Gay marriage. It has always been a heterosexual concept.
 
Papa bull said:
When you argue that homosexuals should be give. Marriage rights, it is right to question whether or not that would advance the interests of the state that motivated the state to sanction marriage in the first place. And in order to do that, you look at history. I don't blame you for trying to cover it up as quickly as possible and dismiss it as a logical fallacy since you are vested in the denial of it's purpose. But you can't dismiss it as a logical fallacy "appeal to history" because the arguments we are engaging in are dependent on history and purpose.
Click to expand...

No, what you do is present an argument of how SSM would advance the interests of the state, CURRENTLY, based on the laws that are currently in effect. And since we know that procreation has never been a purpose or requirement in the legality of marriage, we know that this is just one reason that SSM fulfills the the right. Saying something has always been that one way does not support a current argument. I know that it is easier to dismiss the facts and logic that has been presented to you since they sink your argument, but you can't dismiss them, nor can you deny logic.
 
Grant said:
You said "Procreation has never been on an application or part of a legal construct for marriage" when that is obviously false.
Click to expand...

No, it's obviously true. If you believe differently, I will give you the same challenge that I have given others... and not one person has accepted the challenge. Produce one piece of application paperwork or one law that indicates that procreation is a requirement for marriage in the history of the US.

If you disregard the "it's always been that way" argument, how can you make the argument that "Procreation has never been on an application or part of a legal construct for marriage"? We either ignore history or we accept it.
Click to expand...

Because the onus of the proof is on you. You claim that the purpose of marriage is for procreation. You need to prove that. I have countered your claim with the statement that "procreation has never been on an application or part of a legal construct for marriage". You want to prove your position it is as simple as finding any documentation that counters my claim.

[Matrimony was extremely important because it obliged the husband to be responsible for the children (and the 'house') and for the wife to be faithful in that relationship so that the husband would not be working for another mans children.
Click to expand...

If you look at this statement it is NOT about procreation... it is about why the state currently sanctions marriage... the rearing of children, stability, financial stability, and health, all things that support the state.

If society is ready for Gay marriages then so be it. The same holds true for polygamous marriages, also already de facto recognized in the UK and Canada. But we cannot use history to support Gay marriage. It has always been a heterosexual concept.
Click to expand...

Which is, again, an appeal to history logical fallacy and does not support your position.
 
Grant said:
You said "Procreation has never been on an application or part of a legal construct for marriage" when that is obviously false. If you disregard the "it's always been that way" argument, how can you make the argument that "Procreation has never been on an application or part of a legal construct for marriage"? We either ignore history or we accept it.

Matrimony was extremely important because it obliged the husband to be responsible for the children (and the 'house') and for the wife to be faithful in that relationship so that the husband would not be working for another mans children.

If society is ready for Gay marriages then so be it. The same holds true for polygamous marriages, also already de facto recognized in the UK and Canada. But we cannot use history to support Gay marriage. It has always been a heterosexual concept.
Click to expand...

Good luck with CC. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
 
Papa bull said:
Good luck with CC. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
Click to expand...

Since the two of you are posting near identical failed arguments, I can just repost things I've already said to the same successful effect.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

disneydude said:
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.
Click to expand...

Still doesn't change the fact if Obama didn't run for President in 2008.. it wouldn't have passed. ;)
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Since the two of you are posting near identical failed arguments, I can just repost things I've already said to the same successful effect.
Click to expand...

There is no question that you have an extraordinary capacity for redundancy. If that won arguments, you'd be a killer in debates.
 
Papa bull said:
There is no question that you have an extraordinary capacity for redundancy. If that won arguments, you'd be a killer in debates.
Click to expand...

Actually, I have an extraordinary capacity for logic, presenting facts, being right, and being persistent. That's why I'm killer in debates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom