• 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!

Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

CaptainCourtesy said:
Handled and completely refuted... with your own link.
Click to expand...
False, as always.

Your continued obsession with me and attempting to discredit my true statements does continue to make you appear .. obsessed.
 
Ontologuy said:
:roll:

Typical of SS oxymoronic ideologues -- someone tries to help them create a win-win in a losing situation, and rather than admit to their own faults of stealing something that doesn't belong to them, they simply whine against the people trying to help them.

That's called hypocrisy, CT.

Reality remains that, as the polls show, polls answered mostly be those aligning with the liberal faction, only 37% support SS "marriage", meaning that 63% oppose it .. but if you change the wording to "homarriage" or the relevant like, support jumps to 70%!

You are perhaps forgetting that in CA's Prop 8, though the state itself is run by liberals, Prop 8 passed! And why? Because the Black community, normally that sides with liberals on most all of the other issues, was hugely in favor of Prop 8!

You would do well, if state recognition success is your goal, to consider a more reasonable approach.

But if the logically accurate and relevant term "homarriage" isn't to your liking, please tell me what term in place of "marriage" would be acceptable to you for SS CUDPs (Civil Union Domestic Partnership).
Click to expand...

Figures. Even when you are told it is offensive you continue to use it. Just another bigot pretending to be moderate. I dare you to put that term up to a vote on this forum. If you are really so concerned with a compromise you will abandon that term if a majority finds it offensive. But I think you really just want to belittle gays and their relationships so I know you will not do it.

I would not care what people would call it as long as it was the same for everyone. As long as the government is involved it should be no different.
 
Last edited:
Ontologuy said:
As we all know, most people when contacted by pollsters say "no thanks", and on this subject, liberals jump at the chance, so all of these polls are naturally skewed in favor of the oxymoronic SS marriage .. thus, from a nationwide perspective, you have to reduce the SS "marriage" support by about 15-20 or so in the percentage number to approximate the nation as a whole .. I mean you do if actual reality is important to you.
Click to expand...

Look at you. You posted stats... claimed they proved your position, and when your entire post was destroyed, NOW you try and distance yourself from what you had previously claimed to be accurate. I KNEW you'd run, distort, and post dishonestly. It's what you do. Face it. You self-pwned and did so BADLY. Everyone saw it. It was pretty funny.

In this case, when asked about "gay marriage" most centrists and conservatives are either unreachable or decline to state, and these are people who would be opposed to "marriage" but in support of "homarriage", especially the centrists, the great majority of Americans.
Click to expand...

Pathetic and dishonest excuses... but I'll play. What I placed in bold... prove it with links.

Nevertheless, none of the poll questions validated your point, as they would have to be phrased "if given a choice between only SS "marriage" and CUDPs for SS couples called something other than "marriage", what would you prefer".
Click to expand...

The poll question validated my point because of the choices the respondents were given. You didn't know how to read statistics and completely destroyed your position because of this.

The answer to that question would validate my point that the great majority would answer "other than the word "marriage"".
Click to expand...

Prove it. Post links to substantiate.

Reality reamains, as you so at-length diverted in our oppositional defiant rant, is that for SS activists to get across-the-nation state recognition for SS couples, their best chance is the "homarriage" route, obviously.

When you factor in the non-response-to-poll people, that becomes even more obvious.
Click to expand...

This is hilarious. You post a poll that you claim supports your position, THEN when it's pointed out that, because you didn't understand how to read statistics, you self-pwned and proved your position wrong, you make up stuff to distance yourself. Just shows how dishonest you post.

But let's try this. You made MORE assertions. Prove them. Here they are:

when asked about "gay marriage" most centrists and conservatives are either unreachable or decline to state
Click to expand...

"if given a choice between only SS "marriage" and CUDPs for SS couples called something other than "marriage", what would you prefer".

The answer to that question would validate my point that the great majority would answer "other than the word "marriage"".
Click to expand...

These are your assertions. Prove them with links to data.
 
Papa bull said:
Actually, you are all wet on this argument with Ontologyguy. Procreation isn't a condition of marriage but it absolutely was and still is the general purpose of marriage.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. Child rearing and societal stability are the general purposes of marriage. You and he are both wrong.

You don't have to own a car to get a driver's license. You aren't forced to go hunting after you buy a hunting license. You don't have to know how to tie a hook onto a line in order to get a fishing license and you don't have to prove you will bear children and/or validate your marriage by bearing children in order to get a marriage license. But the purpose of a driver's license is for driving. Fishing license for fishing. Hunting license for hunting and a marriage license for procreating and raising a family.
Click to expand...

Completely lack of logic. Following what you said... the purpose of a marriage license is to bet married.

Alito was absolutely right and people who deny this are either stupid or dishonest.
Click to expand...

Alito was absolutely wrong and people who deny this are just denying reality.
 
Papa bull said:
The license to marry was, in fact, the license to procreate. Your ignorance is showing, madam.
Click to expand...

No it isn't and your ignorance on this issue is showing. The license to marry allows someone to marry. People do not need a license to procreate.
 
Ontologuy said:
False, as always.

Your continued obsession with me and attempting to discredit my true statements does continue to make you appear .. obsessed.
Click to expand...

As usual, you are incorrect. You posted data that proved your position wrong... and we all thank you for it. Now, I have posted a series of assertions that you have made that you need to prove. I hope that you will do so and perhaps NOT post links to things that prove you wrong. Again.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No it isn't and your ignorance on this issue is showing. The license to marry allows someone to marry. People do not need a license to procreate.
Click to expand...

In fact, if the government ever attempted to create one, they'd be in some pretty hot water constitutionally speaking. This has been a settled issue since back when the eugenics movement was en vogue.
 
Ontologuy said:
Meaningless, as always.

You erred in your victim mentality thinking.

That makes you look bad, not me.
Click to expand...

Please post where I made the claim that marriage was being redefined.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No it isn't and your ignorance on this issue is showing. The license to marry allows someone to marry. People do not need a license to procreate.
Click to expand...

LOL. You aren't very familiar with cultural history. You can drive a car without a license, too, but society frowns on that just as much as society used to frown on having children out of wedlock.
 
Papa bull said:
Black labs are all about hunting and swimming....even if they are never permitted to go near the water or roam the fields. That you can't or don't have children doesn't change the fact that heterosexuality is, essentially, about having children. Or to put it more scientifically, it follows and adheres to the biological imperative. That on an individual basis it may fail to achieve the biological imperative is immaterial.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Penis-vaginal intercourse is about having children. Heterosexuals can do that. So can homosexuals. Basic biology... if the parts work, then children can happen.
 
Papa bull said:
LOL. You aren't very familiar with cultural history. You can drive a car without a license, too, but society frowns on that just as much as society used to frown on having children out of wedlock.
Click to expand...

What society frowns upon is irrelevant. We are talking about facts and licenses.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
What society frowns upon is irrelevant. We are talking about facts and licenses.
Click to expand...

license = permission. Marriage licences WERE, in fact, societal permission to have children. It was the very purpose of marriage. And not just here. My wife is Irish and it was that way in her country, too.
 
Papa bull said:
LOL. You aren't very familiar with cultural history. You can drive a car without a license, too, but society frowns on that just as much as society used to frown on having children out of wedlock.
Click to expand...

Driving a car without a license is a crime. Having a child out of wedlock isn't. Conflating cultural distaste with legal ramifications is moronic.
 
Papa bull said:
Biological imperative, not sexual selection.
Click to expand...

Biological imperative is not that simple either. And this is stated in everything written on biological imperative. For instance, some species will run from predators leaving their offspring behind to be eaten in an effort to buy time for them to escape and presumably be more likely to have more offspring that have a better chance of not being eaten, whereas other species will stay and try to protect their offspring instead, in an effort to avoid having to find and use more resources to try to make more offspring they have no way of knowing whether they would produce. Both of these situations are considered part of biological imperative to protect offspring. Because protecting offspring til they reach reproductive ability is just as important as actually producing the offspring. A species can produce as many offspring as they want but if none or very few make it to reproduce themselves, then they still will not last long as a species. Homosexuality can add to this part of the biological imperative, making it more likely for more children, particularly within a certain family, to reach the age of reproduction.
 
Papa bull said:
license = permission. Marriage licences WERE, in fact, societal permission to have children. It was the very purpose of marriage. And not just here. My wife is Irish and it was that way in her country, too.
Click to expand...

We are talking about laws in this day and age, not the past.
 
Aderleth said:
Driving a car without a license is a crime. Having a child out of wedlock isn't. Conflating cultural distaste with legal ramifications is moronic.
Click to expand...

Refusing to accept that marriage was license to raise a family is also moronic. Operating a motor vehicle without a license is merely a misdemeanor. Operating on a patient without a license is a felony. Having children without a license wasn't punishable by law but it rendered the child illegitimate. You can't argue against this without looking truly ignorant.
 
Papa bull said:
Refusing to accept that marriage was license to raise a family is also moronic. Operating a motor vehicle without a license is merely a misdemeanor. Operating on a patient without a license is a felony. Having children without a license wasn't punishable by law but it rendered the child illegitimate. You can't argue against this without looking truly ignorant.
Click to expand...

You've just pointed out how your analogy fails, and me arguing against you makes me look ignorant? Wow. Can I have some of what you're taking?
 
roguenuke said:
We are talking about laws in this day and age, not the past.
Click to expand...

But isn't this whole discussion really about change? I'm telling you what marriage was and why I and so man others think it is what it is. You are telling me what you think it should be. This is the dynamic of change. You are probably younger than I am and eventually the youth will win this one, for better or worse we do not know yet. As Alito said, we are not in a position to know that we are making the right judgment on this if we change it. We won't know for years and years. I do, however, accept that it is inevitable. And I think active and vehement debate is part of the process.
 
Well, apparently bull has found the definition/criteria for suspect class.
 
Aderleth said:
You've just pointed out how your analogy fails, and me arguing against you makes me look ignorant? Wow. Can I have some of what you're taking?
Click to expand...

Yes. If you do something without a license, it is illegitimate. Like having a child out of wedlock. Like operating a business without a license. Like operating a car without a license. Like anything you do without a license.... illegitimate. Get it yet or are you still going to ply the disingenuous angle?
 
Papa bull said:
Refusing to accept that marriage was license to raise a family is also moronic. Operating a motor vehicle without a license is merely a misdemeanor. Operating on a patient without a license is a felony. Having children without a license wasn't punishable by law but it rendered the child illegitimate. You can't argue against this without looking truly ignorant.
Click to expand...

A marriage license is required to enter into a marriage contract. This is the problem that comes with calling it a "marriage license". Once the license is filed, unlike other state issued licenses, the marriage license becomes a contract. It is no longer a license at all. It is now a contract and contracts act much differently than licenses and there are no obligations in the state laws pertaining to a marriage contract for procreation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom