• 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:
This is not a matter of fact but opinion and I think the reasonable opinion is that marriage was created for the same of raising families, I.e, procreation. Let's face reality, here. Without marriage there wouldn't be many men sticking around to support children. The purpose of marriage was to bind the man and woman together for this purpose. If you want to argue that the purpose has changed, at least you will have a legitimate track but to argue that marriage is not procreation is an argument of weak opinion rather than the fact you claim it to be.
Click to expand...

Please note that you are using the word "was" and I am using the word "is". This is an important distinction that alters what we are discussing and how it is being discussed.
 
CC, the laws governing marriage don't explain what marriage is in place for and don't need to. But the purpose of marriage IS critical to any argument hinging on a claim that homosexual marriage advances the purpose. State sanctioned marriage IS in place for a purpose. There IS a reason why we created this entity and it is, in fact, a legal entity, at least in some states. What you are trying to do is pound a square peg into a round hole with a hammer of ignorance that pretends the hole has no shape.
 
Papa bull said:
CC, the laws governing marriage don't explain what marriage is in place for and don't need to. But the purpose of marriage IS critical to any argument hinging on a claim that homosexual marriage advances the purpose. State sanctioned marriage IS in place for a purpose. There IS a reason why we created this entity and it is, in fact, a legal entity, at least in some states. What you are trying to do is pound a square peg into a round hole with a hammer of ignorance that pretends the hole has no shape.
Click to expand...

Two separate issues that are not dependent on each other. I gave a pretty clear explanation with an example. And the purpose of marriage is important only in the sense of what the purpose of marriage IS, not WAS. What I am doing is noticing that there are TWO holes, a round one and a square one, and am putting the appropriate peg in each.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Two separate issues that are not dependent on each other. I gave a pretty clear explanation with an example. And the purpose of marriage is important only in the sense of what the purpose of marriage IS, not WAS. What I am doing is noticing that there are TWO holes, a round one and a square one, and am putting the appropriate peg in each.
Click to expand...

We only know what marriage WAS because we're in process of deconstructing it so that it can become something that homosexuals can claim should be an institution for them, as well. My argument is that there isn't compelling evidence that what it WAS is not constitutional and, therefore, is not required to be changed.
 
Papa bull said:
We only know what marriage WAS because we're in process of deconstructing it so that it can become something that homosexuals can claim should be an institution for them, as well. My argument is that there isn't compelling evidence that what it WAS is not constitutional and, therefore, is not required to be changed.
Click to expand...

You're doing it again. Confusing the two issues. What marriage WAS, LEGALLY, has nothing to do with procreation. Therefore, prohibition certainly was unconstitutional.
 
Papa bull said:
And yet, marriage didn't have to be redefined into some freak charicature of the standard male/female socially endorsed family relationship in order for women to have equal rights. So what's your argument here, then? Do you figure women will magically get even more equality once homosexuals can marry? (yeah, that was an oxymoron on two counts). Marriage is still essentially what it's always been; one man and one woman coming together to form a union. The roles and expectations of those roles have changed but the relationship model hasn't changed at all.... Until now, that is.
Click to expand...

It isn't being "redefined" legally. It is simply allowing more people in. Your personal definition of marriage is not the legal definition of marriage. Legally, the definition of marriage rests in how exactly marriage functions within the laws. It is gender-neutral, so there is no legitimate state interest being furthered by having a gender based restriction on marriage.

Oh, and yes, women (and men) will get more equality here once same sex marriage is legal across the country because a woman will be able to marry a woman, something a woman cannot do now only because she is a woman.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
It isn't being "redefined" legally. It is simply allowing more people in. Your personal definition of marriage is not the legal definition of marriage. Legally, the definition of marriage rests in how exactly marriage functions within the laws. It is gender-neutral, so there is no legitimate state interest being furthered by having a gender based restriction on marriage.

Oh, and yes, women (and men) will get more equality here once same sex marriage is legal across the country because a woman will be able to marry a woman, something a woman cannot do now only because she is a woman.
Click to expand...

You do have to redefine marriage if the definition was "a man and woman united in holy matrimony under the laws of the state" and you want to change it to make homosexual marriage possible. Homosexual marriage can't exist under that definition.
 
Papa bull said:
You do have to redefine marriage if the definition was "a man and woman united in holy matrimony under the laws of the state" and you want to change it to make homosexual marriage possible. Homosexual marriage can't exist under that definition.
Click to expand...


You guys keep bringing up the "definition of marriage" as if you have some claim to ownership over it, and that changing said definition is somehow just a terrible thing. Why? Are you married? If so, would you love your wife less if two dudes get married? Fight more? Love your children any less?

Can you own a word?

Because I have a startling revelation for you: two dudes can get married in quite a few places now, and society does not appear to have collapsed as a result.

edit: keep in mind that this post is made in the context of how the government treats a marriage contract. Your church can continue to believe whatever it wants, practice however it wants. Nobody cares if you don't want to host gay wedding ceremonies. Gay people don't want to get married there anyway.
 
Last edited:
Papa bull said:
CC, the laws governing marriage don't explain what marriage is in place for and don't need to. But the purpose of marriage IS critical to any argument hinging on a claim that homosexual marriage advances the purpose. State sanctioned marriage IS in place for a purpose. There IS a reason why we created this entity and it is, in fact, a legal entity, at least in some states. What you are trying to do is pound a square peg into a round hole with a hammer of ignorance that pretends the hole has no shape.
Click to expand...

Yes they do. Marriage laws cover property distribution in case of divorce. Marriage laws cover child support and custody in case of divorce. Marriage laws cover where a person's assets go if they die married and without a will. Marriage laws cover who has highest legal authority in decision making ability of a person who is married if other paperwork is not in place, such as medical directives or burial requests in wills, or whether to pull someone off life support (remember the Terry Schiavo incident, and how her husband ultimately got that final say...marriage, right of spouse). Marriage makes a spouse a legal family member, and in a limited way, their family legal family members of another person (where do you think we got the term "in-laws"?). Marriage makes your spouse your legal dependent in certain business transactions and jobs. You don't need marriage to get these things for your children. Even the child support and child custody is fought in court pretty much the same way whether the parents have been married or not (marriage just puts this dispute as part of the divorce as a whole, instead of having to be fought by itself since divorce involves separation of property/assets, whereas a simple breakup doesn't legally involve this most of the time).

Marriage, within our laws, is much more about the spouses, than it is about the children. It benefits the children, but not in every case, nor even by purpose.
 
Papa bull said:
You do have to redefine marriage if the definition was "a man and woman united in holy matrimony under the laws of the state" and you want to change it to make homosexual marriage possible. Homosexual marriage can't exist under that definition.
Click to expand...

That is redefining a restriction on marriage, not marriage itself. That is no different than removing the restriction on race. It is a change in restriction, not marriage itself.

Oh, and last I looked, holy matrimony is not a legal part of marriage. Holy matrimony is a part of personal marriages, not legal/civil marriages.
 
roguenuke said:
Yes they do. Marriage laws cover property distribution in case of divorce. Marriage laws cover child support and custody in case of divorce. Marriage laws cover where a person's assets go if they die married and without a will. Marriage laws cover who has highest legal authority in decision making ability of a person who is married if other paperwork is not in place, such as medical directives or burial requests in wills, or whether to pull someone off life support (remember the Terry Schiavo incident, and how her husband ultimately got that final say...marriage, right of spouse). Marriage makes a spouse a legal family member, and in a limited way, their family legal family members of another person (where do you think we got the term "in-laws"?). Marriage makes your spouse your legal dependent in certain business transactions and jobs. You don't need marriage to get these things for your children. Even the child support and child custody is fought in court pretty much the same way whether the parents have been married or not (marriage just puts this dispute as part of the divorce as a whole, instead of having to be fought by itself since divorce involves separation of property/assets, whereas a simple breakup doesn't legally involve this most of the time).

Marriage, within our laws, is much more about the spouses, than it is about the children. It benefits the children, but not in every case, nor even by purpose.
Click to expand...

All those areas of marriage law were put in place for the sake of the biological family unit marriage sanctions and supports. Most of what you mentioned is DIVORCE law; a set of laws that had to be developed AFTER marriage laws were created and established to provide a remedy to those seeking to dissolve a marriage contract. The details of divorce law don't tell us what marriage was created for. They just tell us what we have agreed should be an appropriate remedy for dissolving a marriage.
 
roguenuke said:
That is redefining a restriction on marriage, not marriage itself. That is no different than removing the restriction on race. It is a change in restriction, not marriage itself.

Oh, and last I looked, holy matrimony is not a legal part of marriage. Holy matrimony is a part of personal marriages, not legal/civil marriages.
Click to expand...

No, but "man and woman" are. At least in 37 states at present. That was the point, but nice red herring there.
 
Papa bull said:
All those areas of marriage law were put in place for the sake of the biological family unit marriage sanctions and supports. Most of what you mentioned is DIVORCE law; a set of laws that had to be developed AFTER marriage laws were created and established to provide a remedy to those seeking to dissolve a marriage contract. The details of divorce law don't tell us what marriage was created for. They just tell us what we have agreed should be an appropriate remedy for dissolving a marriage.
Click to expand...

What does any of that have to do with the children besides child custody/support? Those laws work that way no matter the age of the children a couple might have. In fact, a wife has more say in what happens to her husband upon his death (sans will) than any of his children, including sons who are adults.

You are making assumptions that you cannot legally back up.
 
Papa bull said:
No, but "man and woman" are. At least in 37 states at present. That was the point, but nice red herring there.
Click to expand...

And those are legal restrictions on entering into marriage, not marriage itself.

Marriage is defined on how it functions, not who can enter into it.
 
roguenuke said:
And those are legal restrictions on entering into marriage, not marriage itself.

Marriage is defined on how it functions, not who can enter into it.
Click to expand...

That's incorrect. Definition of marriage:

mar·riage
/ˈmarij/
Noun
1) The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
2) A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.
 
Papa bull said:
That's incorrect. Definition of marriage:

mar·riage
/ˈmarij/
Noun
1) The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
2) A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.
Click to expand...

Now the definition has changed. Embrace the change. It'll go down easier that way. :coffeepap
 
roguenuke said:
What does any of that have to do with the children besides child custody/support? Those laws work that way no matter the age of the children a couple might have. In fact, a wife has more say in what happens to her husband upon his death (sans will) than any of his children, including sons who are adults.

You are making assumptions that you cannot legally back up.
Click to expand...

You are confusing aspects of marriage law with the purpose of marriage. The purpose of corporate law isn't about shareholders, but shareholders are covered by corporate law.
 
Papa bull said:
You are confusing aspects of marriage law with the purpose of marriage. The purpose of corporate law isn't about shareholders, but shareholders are covered by corporate law.
Click to expand...

No I'm not. The purpose of legal marriage is found in how it legally functions. Without examining how it legally functions, you cannot determine the purpose of marriage.

Let's look at a driver's license. The laws pertaining to a driver's license revolve around safe driving because the purpose of the driver's license is to ensure a person can drive safely. And then there is a renter's agreement. The laws pertaining to these agreements involve who gets what responsibilities in maintaining the property that is being rented, how much is being paid to live in the property, what the rules are for the property, and so forth. These all revolve around the agreement made by the lessor and lessee because the purpose of a rental agreement is to ensure both parties know their responsibilities and to allow for legal action if someone defaults on their responsibilities.

And how is corporate law like those of marriage? Corporate law is not about a single contract between two people. It is much two massive to compare to marriage laws legitimately.
 
Papa bull said:
That's incorrect. Definition of marriage:

mar·riage
/ˈmarij/
Noun
1) The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
2) A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.
Click to expand...

I'll again ask why you think you have ownership of the definition of a word, and why you think this applies to how the government should treat a legal contract.

And how does this affect your life? If you are talking to two men and one says "this is my husband Jim," like, does your head explode?
 
Last edited:
Papa bull said:
That's incorrect. Definition of marriage:

mar·riage
/ˈmarij/
Noun
1) The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
2) A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect.

This is the definition of marriage.

mar·riage (mrj)
n.
1.
a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other.
b. A similar union of more than two people; a polygamous marriage.
c. A union between persons that is recognized by custom or religious tradition as a marriage.
d. A common-law marriage.
e. The state or relationship of two adults who are married

marriage - definition of marriage by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

All parts of the definition of marriage are valid. You cannot pick and choose which definitions are valid when all are in the dictionary.

Would you prefer we used Merriam-Webster?

1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

Marriage - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
 
Boo Radley said:
Papa bull said:
That's incorrect. Definition of marriage:

mar·riage
/ˈmarij/
Noun
1) The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
2) A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.
Click to expand...
Now the definition has changed. Embrace the change. It'll go down easier that way. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

As Justice Kennedy wrote in his concurrence
For marriage between a man and a woman no doubt had been thought of by most people as essential to the very definition of that term,” he writes. “That belief, for many who long have held it, became even more urgent, more cherished when challenged. For others, however, came the beginnings of a new perspective, a new insight.
Click to expand...

We also have dictionary sites providing different definitions than the one preferred by some folks

mar·riage (mărĭj)

n.
1.
  • a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other.
  • b. A similar union of more than two people; a polygamous marriage.
  • c. A union between persons that is recognized by custom or religious tradition as a marriage.
  • d. A common-law marriage.
  • e. The state or relationship of two adults who are married: Their marriage has been a happy one.

2. A wedding: Where is the marriage to take place?
3. A close union: "the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics" (Lloyd Rose).
4. Games The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.
Click to expand...

mar·riage
noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\

1
  • a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
  • b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
  • c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, it does appear the publishers of at least some dictionaries are willing to accept change in the English language
 
Deuce said:
I'll again ask why you think you have ownership of the definition of a word, and why you think this applies to how the government should treat a legal contract.

And how does this affect your life? If you are talking to two men and one says "this is my husband Jim," like, does your head explode?
Click to expand...

It's not my definition that I posted. I don't know why homosexuals want to pretend they own the definition.
 
Papa bull said:
It's not my definition that I posted. I don't know why homosexuals want to pretend they own the definition.
Click to expand...

They aren't pretending that. Where did you get that silly idea?

Homosexuals aren't talking about a definition at all. You are arguing over definitions. The pro-equality crowd is arguing over rights, and how the US government treats its citizens. Which is why yours is the losing argument, the right to equal treatment by the government is more important than your non-existant right to sole ownership of the definition of a word.
 
Papa bull said:
It's not my definition that I posted. I don't know why homosexuals want to pretend they own the definition.
Click to expand...

You posted a definition that fits what you believe. It was a shortened definition found immediately when you google "marriage definition" and is not complete according to the vast majority of modern dictionaries.

It also has no standing in laws governing marriage in the US.
 
Papa bull said:
It's not my definition that I posted. I don't know why homosexuals want to pretend they own the definition.
Click to expand...
It's because they want to be treated equally by the law.

If you are married, the law recognizes this, and it has a variety of legal effects. Barring these individuals from marriage results in these individuals being treated as second-class citizens, which is not constitutional and not ethically acceptable.

Seems pretty simple to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom