• 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

CaptainCourtesy said:
Actually, I have an extraordinary capacity for logic, presenting facts, being right, and being persistent. That's why I'm killer in debates.
Click to expand...

LOL. :) Persistent, anyway. I'll give you that.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

austrianecon said:
Still doesn't change the fact if Obama didn't run for President in 2008.. it wouldn't have passed. ;)
Click to expand...

I don't think it would have made a difference. It wasn't the Obama voters. It was the Mormon lies.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
And arrogant. NEVER forget arrogant. :2razz:
Click to expand...

Your arrogance pales in comparison to your persistence. Not that this means you have pitiful levels of arrogance, of course, but just sayin'. :)
 
Papa bull said:
Your arrogance pales in comparison to your persistence. Not that this means you have pitiful levels of arrogance, of course, but just sayin'. :)
Click to expand...

Darn! I must try harder. ;)
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well this is a rather late development in our discussion. There is nothing there apart from precedents from the cultures from which the United States was established, and which have been around for centuries, so its not much of a challenge. There is probably many things that aren't listed in the law books which are socially unacceptable but we follow those rules and customs anyway.

Because the onus of the proof is on you. You claim that the purpose of marriage is for procreation.
Click to expand...

I said the history of marriage is about procreation and, i could add, the responsibility of each partner..

You need to prove that.
Click to expand...

Why would I have to prove a point that I never made?

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.
Click to expand...

I've never mentioned that that is on the marriage application. It might be a good idea t start using quotes.

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.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should read the statement again, quote it, and tell me the part with which you disagree.

Which is, again, an appeal to history logical fallacy and does not support your position.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you're going with this. What is the position you believe I have?
 
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...

when facts are repeated it does kill thats why he is winning. He presents facts and others present fantasy or opinions pushed as facts and they fail.
 
Grant said:
Well this is a rather late development in our discussion. There is nothing there apart from precedents from the cultures from which the United States was established, and which have been around for centuries, so its not much of a challenge. There is probably many things that aren't listed in the law books which are socially unacceptable but we follow those rules and customs anyway.
Click to expand...

We are talking about the legality of such. If one claims that marriage is based, legally on procreation, one needs to prove that with documentation. If it ain't listed, it ain't legal. So, no, your position is obviously false.

I said the history of marriage is about procreation and, i could add, the responsibility of each partner..
Click to expand...

And you asked what was the difference between your argument and mine in the context of the logical fallacy. I demonstrated the difference. In that context, your comment above makes no sense.

Why would I have to prove a point that I never made?
Click to expand...

Because you certainly did make it. Here is what you said:

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...

You have been arguing that procreation has been the purpose for marriage by using history as your substantiation and the above as a point to support your position. And I have been demonstrating that your position is false.

I've never mentioned that that is on the marriage application. It might be a good idea t start using quotes.
Click to expand...

Sure you did. Here's your quote:

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...

Perhaps you should read the statement again, quote it, and tell me the part with which you disagree.
Click to expand...

I'll quote it again:

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...

I placed in bold the part that I disagree with.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. What is the position you believe I have?
Click to expand...

What you said and what you have been stating. That procreation is the purpose of marriage, and that the fact that procreation has existed on some application of legal construct for marriage.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
We are talking about the legality of such. If one claims that marriage is based, legally on procreation, one needs to prove that with documentation. If it ain't listed, it ain't legal. So, no, your position is obviously false.
Click to expand...

I can see you know how to use quotes so please use them properly. Find where i said "marriage is based, legally on procreation" then identify the quote and use it.

And you asked what was the difference between your argument and mine in the context of the logical fallacy. I demonstrated the difference. In that context, your comment above makes no sense.
Click to expand...

There is every indication that you really don't understand what is being said here.

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...

It has always been part of the legal construct of marriage. Whoever fathers the children has to be responsible for those children. That goes back centuries and is pretty much universal. Or are you saying that procreation has never appeared on an application for marriage, for example that those getting married must have children? In that you would be correct.
You have been arguing that procreation has been the purpose for marriage by using history as your substantiation and the above as a point to support your position. And I have been demonstrating that your position is false.
Click to expand...

Here is what I 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".

What you said and what you have been stating. That procreation is the purpose of marriage, and that the fact that procreation has existed on some application of legal construct for marriage.
Click to expand...

I explained what the word 'matrimony' comes from. It comes from the word 'mother', Can you see how 'matrimony' and 'mother' are connected?

Is it your position that procreation has not been a factor in this centuries old ceremony? Do you think that marriage has traditionally been between men and men, women and women, or men and women, or that the bearing and raising of children wasn't a consideration? Wasn't the purpose of marriage, at one time, to have a family with children?
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

disneydude said:
I don't think it would have made a difference. It wasn't the Obama voters. It was the Mormon lies.
Click to expand...

You must be a disney dude.. you believe in fantasies.
 
Grant said:
I can see you know how to use quotes so please use them properly. Find where i said "marriage is based, legally on procreation" then identify the quote and use it.
Click to expand...

I can see that you are not taking responsibility for your positions. If you didn't like them, why post them?


There is every indication that you really don't understand what is being said here.
Click to expand...

There is every indication that you are backtracking on what you said here.

It has always been part of the legal construct of marriage. Whoever fathers the children has to be responsible for those children. That goes back centuries and is pretty much universal.[/quote]

Which is irrelevant to marriage.

Or are you saying that procreation has never appeared on an application for marriage, for example that those getting married must have children? In that you would be correct.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I thought I was quite clear on this issue the first time. Does this mean that you are now admitting that the following quote of yours was wrong?

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...

Here is what I 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...

Yes, I read it the first time.

I explained what the word 'matrimony' comes from. It comes from the word 'mother', Can you see how 'matrimony' and 'mother' are connected?
Click to expand...

I know the definition and it's origins.

Is it your position that procreation has not been a factor in this centuries old ceremony? Do you think that marriage has traditionally been between men and men, women and women, or men and women, or that the bearing and raising of children wasn't a consideration? Wasn't the purpose of marriage, at one time, to have a family with children?
Click to expand...

No, my position is that using saying that "things have been this way for a long time" doesn't prove that that particular thing is correct, and is an appeal to tradition logical fallacy. I think I was pretty clear about THAT, too.

Any other questions?
 
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...

Can my "culture" be used to deny you rights? Is my moral disapproval of your posting on this internet forum grounds to restrict your right to free speech?
 
Deuce said:
Can my "culture" be used to deny you rights? Is my moral disapproval of your posting on this internet forum grounds to restrict your right to free speech?
Click to expand...

it is funny to hear conservatives talk about the importance of culture and tradition, when it was conservatives and religious folks that tried to destroy pagan traditions and culture by having "Christian" holidays on pagan holidays.

So to many conservatives the only important traditions and culture worth saving are things THEY deem important and not anyone else's.
 
TheNextEra said:
it is funny to hear conservatives talk about the importance of culture and tradition, when it was conservatives and religious folks that tried to destroy pagan traditions and culture by having "Christian" holidays on pagan holidays.

So to many conservatives the only important traditions and culture worth saving are things THEY deem important and not anyone else's.
Click to expand...

If you can stop giggling to yourself long enough to give a little thought to this, there are two things for you to think about.

1. No conservative or "religious folks" alive today were busy trying to destroy pagan culture by overlaying religious holidays centuries ago, so the humor in this "irony" is thin, at best.

2. Conservatives are no different than anyone else; it's what YOU deem important that YOU want to save. Why you would giggle that conservatives feel that way when everyone else does, too, beats the hell out of me unless, of course, it's just that you're very easily amused.
 
Somerville said:
History shows us that "property" was as big a part of marriage in the past as the need for procreation
Click to expand...

The property rights were in support of families/procreation. Virtually everything in marriage is fruit of the tree of procreation. Property rights, survivorship rights, etc. etc. etc. were all for the sake of a new family and it's procreation. Property rights are actually more about divorce than marriage. And you'd have a point if you argued that divorce laws are more about property than procreation.
 
Papa bull said:
If you can stop giggling to yourself long enough to give a little thought to this, there are two things for you to think about.

1. No conservative or "religious folks" alive today were busy trying to destroy pagan culture by overlaying religious holidays centuries ago, so the humor in this "irony" is thin, at best.

2. Conservatives are no different than anyone else; it's what YOU deem important that YOU want to save. Why you would giggle that conservatives feel that way when everyone else does, too, beats the hell out of me unless, of course, it's just that you're very easily amused.
Click to expand...

I won't lie, you conservatives provide me with all the entertainment I need. The cons that demonstrate ignorance, stupidity, arrogance, and self-superiority make me laugh all day long. Please continue with your demonstrations lol.
 
Papa bull said:
The property rights were in support of families/procreation. Virtually everything in marriage is fruit of the tree of procreation. Property rights, survivorship rights, etc. etc. etc. were all for the sake of a new family and it's procreation. Property rights are actually more about divorce than marriage. And you'd have a point if you argued that divorce laws are more about property than procreation.
Click to expand...

And yet there are exceptions are there not? Just like gay marriage is an exception and those that cannot reproduce are exceptions. Exceptions are not something bad.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, my position is that using saying that "things have been this way for a long time" doesn't prove that that particular thing is correct, and is an appeal to tradition logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

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/29sfmetro.html?_r=0 (yes, from that bastion of right wing propaganda, the New York Times, LOL).
 
TheNextEra said:
And yet there are exceptions are there not? Just like gay marriage is an exception and those that cannot reproduce are exceptions. Exceptions are not something bad.
Click to expand...

Exceptions aren't the issue. The issue is whether homosexual pairings actually fit the purpose/meaning/description of marriage. Look, you can put horses in a pig pen and you can put pigs in a stable, but that doesn't mean that horses actually belong in a pig pen or pigs in a stable. That's not what they were designed/created for.
 
Papa bull said:
The property rights were in support of families/procreation. Virtually everything in marriage is fruit of the tree of procreation. Property rights, survivorship rights, etc. etc. etc. were all for the sake of a new family and it's procreation. Property rights are actually more about divorce than marriage. And you'd have a point if you argued that divorce laws are more about property than procreation.
Click to expand...

It is still not relevant to marriage today. Marriage today is about property between the couple, not the children.

It sounds like your real problem is with spouses being treated equally in marriage, and the change that put property in the hands of a surviving spouse, not progeny.
 
Papa bull said:
Exceptions aren't the issue. The issue is whether homosexual pairings actually fit the purpose/meaning/description of marriage. Look, you can put horses in a pig pen and you can put pigs in a stable, but that doesn't mean that horses actually belong in a pig pen or pigs in a stable. That's not what they were designed/created for.
Click to expand...

They fit the purpose, meaning, and description of marriage legally. That is all that matters and you can't prove otherwise. Marriage is described by how the laws concerning it function, not restrictions on who can enter into it.
 
roguenuke said:
They fit the purpose, meaning, and description of marriage legally. That is all that matters and you can't prove otherwise. Marriage is described by how the laws concerning it function, not restrictions on who can enter into it.
Click to expand...

You forgot to add "in my opinion" at the end of the first sentence because without that, it is a statement of fact and in most states, that is NOT a fact, which renders your rebuttal invalid.
 
Papa bull said:
Exceptions aren't the issue. The issue is whether homosexual pairings actually fit the purpose/meaning/description of marriage .
Click to expand...

Hmmm let's see. Gay people can raise children that straight people don't want, check. They love each other, check. Capability of providing a healthy home, check.

Yep, it fits the definition, purpose and meaning of marriage. Next?
 
roguenuke said:
It is still not relevant to marriage today. Marriage today is about property between the couple, not the children.
Click to expand...

Again.... that may be your OPINION, but it is not a fact. Property rights were put in place for the purpose of dealing with divorce. Marriage is about putting together a family and that family was expected to include offspring. "Property" doesn't even come into play until there's a divorce and divorce was very rare up until the 19th century. In Ireland, divorce wasn't even a legal option until the 1990's. Clearly, marriage was for other things than sorting out "divorce" and those other things were raising families.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom