Page 21 of 22 FirstFirst ... 1119202122 LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 215

Thread: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

  1. #201
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,133

    Re: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Because it would be a violation of the fourth amendment.
    How is it an unreasonable search or seizure to require proof of fertility before issuing a marriage license? For one, you are arguing that it is perfectly reasonable that fertility must be considered as a prerequisite for marriage. For two, the government wouldn't be taking the information, it would be requiring that it voluntarily be given in exchange for a marriage license.
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 08-12-10 at 05:05 PM.

  2. #202
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    I see. So same sex couples should be deneid marriage because they can't unintentionally have kids? Yeah, not exactly a strength builder for you case.
    So you agree that the state should have greater interest in a heterosexual couple than a homosexual couple?

  3. #203
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,133

    Re: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    So you agree that the state should have greater interest in a heterosexual couple than a homosexual couple?
    No. What gave you that idea? Come join us in the other discussion.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-an...-marriage.html

  4. #204
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    How is it an unreasonable search or seizure to require proof of fertility before issuing a marriage license?
    Because it is gathering medical information about a person, without a warrant, without there being a pressing concern for the safety of another.

    For one, you are arguing that it is perfectly reasonable that fertility must be considered as a prerequisite for marriage.
    I'm arguing that the innate fertility of OSMs is the basis for marriage being defined as between a man and a woman because the only reason the state has any interest in marriage at all relates to the raising of children.

    I've also been arguing that ignoring the opposition's POV on this is not helping the cause. It has been detrimental.

    Instead arguments should be presented relating to SSM providing stable homes for children despite the innate infertility of these unions. You started going that route, but then you decided that being disagreeable was more important than arguing effectively for your position.

    This is what I meant about rereading without your preconceptions. You seem to think that I'm arguing against SSMs. I'm not. I'm arguing against teh poor tactics you and many other SSM proponents engage in.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #205
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Now, I know that a few in here are going to go off on a tirade and start calling me a fake Conservative again
    Lets put it this way Dan. When the vast majority of the people who support you when you make your claims about "real conservatives" are some of the farthest far left people on this board, that should tell you something.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  6. #206
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,762

    Re: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    Lets put it this way Dan. When the vast majority of the people who support you when you make your claims about "real conservatives" are some of the farthest far left people on this board, that should tell you something.
    I was merely quoting and agreeing with Ted Olsen when I started this thread. Why do you believe that the lawyer who argued Bush's side in Bush v. Gore is far left? I gotta hear your answer to this. Do you have the balls to answer that, or are you cowardly enough to just do personal attacks while not commenting on what Olsen said, and why you disagree with him?

    And as for some of the Liberals liking me, Ronald Reagan was liked by some of the Liberals too, although they disagreed with him strongly on policy. In fact, at the end of many days, he and Tip O'Neil would drink a beer together. So, in addition to answering the first question, why don't you tell me why you consider Ronald Reagan part of the far left?

    You want to hijack this thread and make it a discussion about me instead? Feel free to. I will freakin' destroy you right here.
    Last edited by danarhea; 08-12-10 at 05:37 PM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  7. #207
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,133

    Re: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Because it is gathering medical information about a person, without a warrant, without there being a pressing concern for the safety of another.
    You don't need a warrant if it is given voluntarily.

    I'm arguing that the innate fertility of OSMs is the basis for marriage being defined as between a man and a woman because the only reason the state has any interest in marriage at all relates to the raising of children.
    There is no innate fertility for opposite sex couples. Many opposite sex couples are infertile or too old have children. And fertilty has nothing to do with raising children. The ability to make cihldren does not imbue a person with the ability to raise them.

    I've also been arguing that ignoring the opposition's POV on this is not helping the cause. It has been detrimental.
    There is no validity to it. I keep pressing you to answer the simple question, why should the state have an interest in fertility when legislating and you keep bringing up irrelevancies. Fertility has nothing to do with the ability to raise children. It is simply the theoretical ability to make children.

    Instead arguments should be presented relating to SSM providing stable homes for children despite the innate infertility of these unions. You started going that route, but then you decided that being disagreeable was more important than arguing effectively for your position.
    That is because I never went a separate route. That was your perception. The fact that same sex couples are as capable as opposite sex couples at raising children strengthens the case that this is unfounded discrimination.

    This is what I meant about rereading without your preconceptions. You seem to think that I'm arguing against SSMs. I'm not. I'm arguing against teh poor tactics you and many other SSM proponents engage in.
    I know very well you are not arguing against same sex marriage. I've acknowledged the fact in previous posts. Where you are wrong is that it is a legitimate argument that the state has an interest in legislating based on fertility.
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 08-12-10 at 05:34 PM.

  8. #208
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    You don't need a warrant if it is given voluntarily.
    Tehre's no such thing as a voluntary requirement.



    There is no innate fertility for opposite sex couples. Many opposite sex couples are infertile or too old have children.
    As a whole, there is an innate fertility for opposite sex couples.

    And fertilty has nothing to do with raising children.
    Without fertility, raising children is impossible because children are impossible. Children are a byproduct of a fertile man copulating with a fertile woman.


    The ability to make cihldren does not imbue a person with the ability to raise them.
    True. Which is why the state has an interest in marriage to begin with.
    There is no validity to it.
    And thus, you prove me correct in saying that your approach is detrimental to your cause.

    I keep prressing you to answer the simple question, why should th state have an interest in furitility when legistlating and you keep bringing up irrelevancies.
    And you keep willfully ingoring the responses because you disagree with them and would prefer to sabotage teh SSM argument by ignoring the validity of the argumetns the other side presents, thus proving my actual argument (teh one you continually fail to grasp) to be correct.

    [QUOTE]Fertilty has nothing to do with the ability to raise children.[QUOTE]

    Fertility is the first step to raising children in every single case, even children who are adopted.

    It is simply the theoretical ability to make children.
    Theoretical?!?!?


    That is because I never went a separate route. That was your perceptoin.
    Then why did you fail to go that route until I brought it up to begin with?

    The fact that same sex couples are as capable as opposite sex couples at raising children strengthens the case that this is unfounded discrimination.
    To a degree yes, but are they are as willing to raise children as OS couples?

    Presenting an argument that the reasoning behind SSM is to raise children together and suddenly the case for unfounded discrimination is proven.




    Where you are wrong is that it is a legitmate argument that the state has an interest in legistatling based on fertility.
    Where you are wrong is that I've been saying that defining marriage as between a man and a woman is based on fertility because the only interest the state has in marriage is the raising of children is a legitimate argument.

    Acknowledging it's legitimacy would dictate that one presents a counter-argument to that argument by.. wait for it... "presenting arguments relating to SSM providing stable homes for children despite the innate infertility of these unions".

    It is a legitimate argument, but that doesn't mean it can't be countered by acknowledging it's merits, and then pointing out how those merits are also true of SSMs. .
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #209
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,133

    Re: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    As a whole, there is an innate fertility for opposite sex couples.
    No, as a whole, there is partial fertility for opposite sex couples. Don't try to weasel words.

    Without fertility, raising children is impossible because children are impossible. Children are a byproduct of a fertile man copulating with a fertile woman.
    Oooooookay.

    1. There is fertility regardless of whether or not there is marriage.
    2. Same sex couples are not fertile but they can still raise children.
    3. If you want to make the argument that fertility is essential to having children that anyone can raise, then make that argument, not a weasel post.
    4. If the state has an interest in using marriage to promote fertility, then it should deny infertile opposite sex couples that right.

    True. Which is why the state has an interest in marriage to begin with.
    Promoting stable homes for children.

  10. #210
    Voluntary Resignation

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    11-30-10 @ 05:20 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,059

    Re: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    Lets put it this way Dan. When the vast majority of the people who support you when you make your claims about "real conservatives" are some of the farthest far left people on this board, that should tell you something.
    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    I was merely quoting and agreeing with Ted Olsen when I started this thread. Why do you believe that the lawyer who argued Bush's side in Bush v. Gore is far left? I gotta hear your answer to this. Do you have the balls to answer that, or are you cowardly enough to just do personal attacks while not commenting on what Olsen said, and why you disagree with him?

    And as for some of the Liberals liking me, Ronald Reagan was liked by some of the Liberals too, although they disagreed with him strongly on policy. In fact, at the end of many days, he and Tip O'Neil would drink a beer together. So, in addition to answering the first question, why don't you tell me why you consider Ronald Reagan part of the far left?

    You want to hijack this thread and make it a discussion about me instead? Feel free to. I will freakin' destroy you right here.
    Oh goody, the True Conservative™ gauntlet has been thrown down.


Page 21 of 22 FirstFirst ... 1119202122 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
  •