• 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]

....and make up the majority of the Supreme Court. Sucks to have your POV, it seems.

Sorry my little gay friend, but the rest of the supreme court did not make a statement showing their stupidity or dishonesty and claim that marriage was NOT designed to support procreation. Only homosexuals are making that argument.
 
Your 2012 poll results disprove support for SSM. 33% for SS legal partnerships + 25% no recognition = 58% against SSM; 37% for SSM

That's not correct. One can't reach a conclusion from that poll whether a majority favored or opposed it.

If one wanted to take a guess, one could estimate that the odds would probably lean toward the former outcome, as those who expressed support for legal partnership had already opposed non-recognition. Hence, if the choice became one of marriage vs. non-recognition, the majority would probably favor marriage.

And that proved to be the case. A June 2013 poll showed that 57% of adults supported marriage for same sex couples while 40% opposed it. In short, the subsequent polling data showed that a majority of respondents now favored marriage for same sex couples. That outcome disproves the hypothesis that one could assume that the earlier poll showed a majority of Americans opposed same sex marriage.
 
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.

Absolute romanticized hog wash. The reason for the marriage contract is to deal with property and next of kin rights.
 
Absolute romanticized hog wash. The reason for the marriage contract is to deal with property and next of kin rights.

Nope. That's easily handled through wills. The purpose is multi-fold and all the aspects had to do with procreation. That's why cousins can't get married. That's why certain bloodtypes are prohibited from marriage. That's why certain venereal diseases could have barred you from marriage. In Ireland, you used to have to state you planned to have children in order to get a marriage license. These roots of procreation were the purpose of marriage. It's complete ignorance or abject dishonesty to claim otherwise.
 
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. 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.

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

Your analogies are stupid. If you were talking about a procreation license, you would have valid analogies, but you aren't. You are talking about a marriage license, which is not at all the same thing as a procreation license. The purpose of a marriage license is to permit people to marry and receive government recognition of that arrangement/agreement, not to procreate or even raise children.
 
Nope. That's easily handled through wills. The purpose is multi-fold and all the aspects had to do with procreation. That's why cousins can't get married. That's why certain bloodtypes are prohibited from marriage. That's why certain venereal diseases could have barred you from marriage. In Ireland, you used to have to state you planned to have children in order to get a marriage license. These roots of procreation were the purpose of marriage. It's complete ignorance or abject dishonesty to claim otherwise.

No it isn't handled through wills. Wills can be broken. Bloodtypes no longer prohibit a person from marriage (if it ever truly did). We are talking about legal marriage, in the US, right now. Not in another country, and not in the past.
 
Your analogies are stupid. If you were talking about a procreation license, you would have valid analogies, but you aren't. You are talking about a marriage license, which is not at all the same thing as a procreation license. The purpose of a marriage license is to permit people to marry and receive government recognition of that arrangement/agreement, not to procreate or even raise children.

The license to marry was, in fact, the license to procreate. Your ignorance is showing, madam. Perhaps you aren't old enough to remember when it was shameful to have a child out of wedlock. Perhaps you are not mature enough to understand the purpose of marriage as a unit designed to support a new family. Or maybe you are just too dishonest to even consider this truth. Whatever the reason, you are rejecting reality when you try to claim that marriage was not about procreation. It absolutely was and my arguments are that you can't refute that by claiming that procreation isn't a condition of marriage, therefore, it can't be the purpose of marriage. It absolutely was. Nowadays, as Alito said, it's been morphing into something else, but the reason marriage was created was for the sake of procreation and homosexual marriages do not further that goal.
 
No it isn't handled through wills. Wills can be broken. Bloodtypes no longer prohibit a person from marriage (if it ever truly did). We are talking about legal marriage, in the US, right now. Not in another country, and not in the past.

All these things point to what marriage actually was created for. You might hate the truth because it interferes with your agenda, but the truth is still that marriage was created for the sake of procreation. If you want to flaunt your ignorance by denying that, I can't do anything to stop you. The evidence is clear to anyone that cares more about what's right than who's right.
 
The license to marry was, in fact, the license to procreate. Your ignorance is showing, madam. Perhaps you aren't old enough to remember when it was shameful to have a child out of wedlock. Perhaps you are not mature enough to understand the purpose of marriage as a unit designed to support a new family. Or maybe you are just too dishonest to even consider this truth. Whatever the reason, you are rejecting reality when you try to claim that marriage was not about procreation. It absolutely was and my arguments are that you can't refute that by claiming that procreation isn't a condition of marriage, therefore, it can't be the purpose of marriage. It absolutely was. Nowadays, as Alito said, it's been morphing into something else, but the reason marriage was created was for the sake of procreation and homosexual marriages do not further that goal.

No, it wasn't. In fact, even in the earlier times, when Christianity was giving out the licenses, they did not allow divorce or even annulments just for infertility, especially infertility of the woman.

13 surprising facts about marriage | MNN - Mother Nature Network

In many early cultures, men could dissolve a marriage or take another wife if a woman was infertile. However, the early Christian church was a trailblazer in arguing that marriage was not contingent on producing offspring.

"The early Christian church held the position that if you can procreate you must not refuse to procreate. But they always took the position that they would annul a marriage if a man could not have sex with his wife, but not if they could not conceive," Coontz told LiveScience.

But again, we are discussing the current marriage laws, not what you presume the laws came from or were "always about". You are wrong because they were not always, everywhere about procreation or even raising children.
 
Again absolute hogwash. Example:

Estate Tax
Internal Revenue Code § 2056 exempts amounts transferred to a surviving spouse from the decedent’s taxable estate. For same-sex couples who are legally barred from marriage, this exemption is not available, creating an inequity in taxation.

An Overview of Federal Rights and Protections Granted to Married Couples | Resources | Human Rights Campaign

Passing on property CAN be handled through wills. Your claim that this is the purpose of marriage is specious, at best. In fact, the passing on of property was part of supporting the family - the result of procreation. All of marriage and the laws of it were designed to create a stable family unit for procreation. That includes the property laws.

Now I get that homosexuals want to take advantages of those laws, too. I get that. But homosexuals didn't want those advantages enough to accept them in the form of a civil union, which would have been entirely appropriate given that their unions are NOT for the sake of procreation.
 
Passing on property CAN be handled through wills. Your claim that this is the purpose of marriage is specious, at best. In fact, the passing on of property was part of supporting the family - the result of procreation. All of marriage and the laws of it were designed to create a stable family unit for procreation. That includes the property laws.

Procreation is not a requirment of the marriage contract. BTW gays have children too.
 
All these things point to what marriage actually was created for. You might hate the truth because it interferes with your agenda, but the truth is still that marriage was created for the sake of procreation. If you want to flaunt your ignorance by denying that, I can't do anything to stop you. The evidence is clear to anyone that cares more about what's right than who's right.

You don't NEED marriage to procreate....and many people MARRY who cannot procreate or don't choose to do so. There is a good reason by the opponents of marriage equality chose not to make silly arguments based on procreation. They knew that they would be shot down by the Supreme Court quicker than they could make them.
 
All these things point to what marriage actually was created for. You might hate the truth because it interferes with your agenda, but the truth is still that marriage was created for the sake of procreation. If you want to flaunt your ignorance by denying that, I can't do anything to stop you. The evidence is clear to anyone that cares more about what's right than who's right.

The truth is that current marriage is not about procreation, whether you accept that or not, like that or not. Marriage was not "created" for the sake of procreation. It was created for many reasons, many of them having nothing to do with procreation. The real evidence is clear on this fact. Just because some wanted to at various points in history want to make it about procreation doesn't make it true for all of history or why it has always existed.
 
No, it wasn't. In fact, even in the earlier times, when Christianity was giving out the licenses, they did not allow divorce or even annulments just for infertility, especially infertility of the woman.

13 surprising facts about marriage | MNN - Mother Nature Network

In many early cultures, men could dissolve a marriage or take another wife if a woman was infertile. However, the early Christian church was a trailblazer in arguing that marriage was not contingent on producing offspring.

"The early Christian church held the position that if you can procreate you must not refuse to procreate. But they always took the position that they would annul a marriage if a man could not have sex with his wife, but not if they could not conceive," Coontz told LiveScience.

But again, we are discussing the current marriage laws, not what you presume the laws came from or were "always about". You are wrong because they were not always, everywhere about procreation or even raising children.

Sorry. I'm not the one that is wrong here. All you have to do is look to OUR laws, just as you said I should do.

A fault divorce is a divorce which is granted after the party asking for the divorce sufficiently proves that the other party did something wrong that justifies ending the marriage.[7] The party filling for the divorce must prove that the other party has done something to justify ending the union.[7] Different states have different requirements for obtaining a fault divorce but in each state the spouse filing for the divorce is required to establish a reason for the divorce and provide evidence of the other parties’ guilt.[7] The specific grounds for receiving a fault divorce include adultery, impotency, infertility or homosexuality of the other party that was not discussed before the union; criminal conviction of a felony or imprisonment of one party for a certain length of time; abandonment or desertion, cruelty, or mental instability of one of the parties.[7]
 
The truth is that current marriage is not about procreation, whether you accept that or not, like that or not. Marriage was not "created" for the sake of procreation. It was created for many reasons, many of them having nothing to do with procreation. The real evidence is clear on this fact. Just because some wanted to at various points in history want to make it about procreation doesn't make it true for all of history or why it has always existed.

I agree that it has morphed into something else, which is why states are starting to legislate it differently. It was, however, created for the sake of procreation. The argument that gay marriages don't advance the intentions and will of the state for the purpose of marriage as it was created are still valid for states that argue that point. This is why there was no victory of state law in the Supreme Court yesterday. Homosexual marriage is not yet an automatic right because marriage hasn't been completely removed from it's purpose and design yet. We're getting there. I imagine marriage will lose all traces of it's original purpose very soon.
 
Passing on property CAN be handled through wills. Your claim that this is the purpose of marriage is specious, at best. In fact, the passing on of property was part of supporting the family - the result of procreation. All of marriage and the laws of it were designed to create a stable family unit for procreation. That includes the property laws.

Now I get that homosexuals want to take advantages of those laws, too. I get that. But homosexuals didn't want those advantages enough to accept them in the form of a civil union, which would have been entirely appropriate given that their unions are NOT for the sake of procreation.

So blacks should have been happy with their own drinking fountains, bathrooms and diners.

That's a really enlightened attitude.
 
So blacks should have been happy with their own drinking fountains, bathrooms and diners.

That's a really enlightened attitude.

Nope. Your equation of homosexuality to a race is just more specious argumentation from dishonest advocates of homosexuality.
 
Sorry. I'm not the one that is wrong here. All you have to do is look to OUR laws, just as you said I should do.

Our laws prove you are wrong. Our current laws.

Those are still reasons for divorce, not annulment. And a person who did not know they were infertile prior to the marriage cannot legitimately be "faulted" for that and/or penalized for that in their divorce (and if they did know and told the partner, this is even more true). They still do not force an infertile couple to divorce or make their marriage void.

No-fault divorces are available in all states now though so it is not logical to assume that there could possibly be fault laid on a person who either didn't know they were infertile or revealed their infertility to their partner prior to marriage in the question of a divorce.
 
I agree that it has morphed into something else, which is why states are starting to legislate it differently. It was, however, created for the sake of procreation. The argument that gay marriages don't advance the intentions and will of the state for the purpose of marriage as it was created are still valid for states that argue that point. This is why there was no victory of state law in the Supreme Court yesterday. Homosexual marriage is not yet an automatic right because marriage hasn't been completely removed from it's purpose and design yet. We're getting there. I imagine marriage will lose all traces of it's original purpose very soon.

What it currently is by law in all states at this time is what matters. And that will be what matters in future court cases that are highly likely to bring down same sex marriage bans because no current state laws can logically be interpreted to have procreation as a legitimate requirement of marriage and therefore it cannot legitimately be used to restrict marriage from those who can't procreate.
 
You don't NEED marriage to procreate....and many people MARRY who cannot procreate or don't choose to do so. There is a good reason by the opponents of marriage equality chose not to make silly arguments based on procreation. They knew that they would be shot down by the Supreme Court quicker than they could make them.

You can call it a silly argument, but it's a fact that marriage was designed to create a suitable environment for procreation and support of that family Like I said before, the fact that procreation is not a condition of marriage does not refute the fact that it was the purpose of marriage. Nor does the fact that people have children out of wedlock refute that fact. Again, as I said before, there was a time not so long ago that having a child out of wedlock was a horrible disgrace and having a marriage with no children... a great pain and personal embarrassment. Childless marriages were not something to be proud of.

Homosexuals might not be willing to admit these facts since they run counter to their agenda, but denying the facts doesn't make the facts go away or render them false. All it does is demonstrate an utter contempt for honesty by advocates of homosexuality.
 
You can call it a silly argument, but it's a fact that marriage was designed to create a suitable environment for procreation and support of that family Like I said before, the fact that procreation is not a condition of marriage does not refute the fact that it was the purpose of marriage. Nor does the fact that people have children out of wedlock refute that fact. Again, as I said before, there was a time not so long ago that having a child out of wedlock was a horrible disgrace and having a marriage with no children... a great pain and personal embarrassment. Childless marriages were not something to be proud of.

Homosexuals might not be willing to admit these facts since they run counter to their agenda, but denying the facts doesn't make the facts go away or render them false. All it does is demonstrate an utter contempt for honesty by advocates of homosexuality.

If you dont want to get gay married why not just not get gay married?

What harm is someone else's gay marriage do to you?
 
You can call it a silly argument, but it's a fact that marriage was designed to create a suitable environment for procreation and support of that family Like I said before, the fact that procreation is not a condition of marriage does not refute the fact that it was the purpose of marriage. Nor does the fact that people have children out of wedlock refute that fact. Again, as I said before, there was a time not so long ago that having a child out of wedlock was a horrible disgrace and having a marriage with no children... a great pain and personal embarrassment. Childless marriages were not something to be proud of.

Homosexuals might not be willing to admit these facts since they run counter to their agenda, but denying the facts doesn't make the facts go away or render them false. All it does is demonstrate an utter contempt for honesty by advocates of homosexuality.

The very fact that childless marriages were "not something to be proud of", is something that we or whoever felt that way should not be proud of. That belief that childless couples deserve to feel shame or embarrassment for not having children is horrible and shameful itself.
 
What it currently is by law in all states at this time is what matters. And that will be what matters in future court cases that are highly likely to bring down same sex marriage bans because no current state laws can logically be interpreted to have procreation as a legitimate requirement of marriage and therefore it cannot legitimately be used to restrict marriage from those who can't procreate.

You are wrong. While the homosexual agenda is being pushed forward by insisting that tradition is meaningless, the origins and purposes of things are important when considering what is right and what is not going forward with them. Why marriage was created and the purpose of marriage in the first place should be a consideration in determining what marriage should or shouldn't be going forward and this new trend is a complete breakdown of the entire purpose of marriage. I have no doubt that in another generation, marriage will be seen as something completely different than we saw it 20 years ago, but it's going to take time to legislate the changes and legislation is the right way to go about such an important change to the fabric of our society as cutting marriage off from it's purpose and intent, divorcing it, so to speak, from it's actual reason for being.
 
Back
Top Bottom