• 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:
Since you're struggling to understand what "state sanctioned marriage" means, let's start out with a basic definitions.

Sanction: noun. approval - approbation - endorsement - authorization

State Sanctioned marriage is for the purpose of approving a pairing and confirming that it makes biological sense. That's why important restrictions to marriage have historically included things like incest, fatal venereal diseases, blood types that are incompatible for producing children and, of course, same sex partners. Marriage is official approval and endorsement of a pairing that is not biologically illogical.
Click to expand...

Blood tests were not historical. They were required only for a very short time. George and Martha Washington had no blood test. Neither did the Lincolns.
 
roguenuke said:
Except you're wrong because the state in no way confirms that a couple entering into marriage "makes biological sense". That simply isn't true.
Click to expand...

Male and female makes biological sense. Not having blood types that would produce disastrous results makes biological sense. Not being related to the point that the offspring would be at risk to birth defects makes biological sense.

Virtually everything about "the right to marriage" is about what makes biological sense. Only that one is not already married deviates from this in any meaningful way.
 
Papa bull said:
See, that is the "compassionate" argument and the only one that I find sympathetic. I don't agree that marriage makes any sense at all for homosexuals outside of the argument for what have come to be deemed reasonable benefits and state protections for committed partners. That's the real dilemma and not just for me, but for a lot of people. It's not marriage, but there is a compassionate side to this that is compelling. People typically want to help others. I'm just not certain marriage should come up on the "re-engineering" table in order to meet the goals of providing a legal framework for relationships that are not biologically sensible.
Click to expand...

Except it isn't a dilemma for all that many people. Most people support same sex marriage or do not want to give any recognition to same sex couples at all.

But it is not your place to have your personal definition or view of what marriage should be or what the purpose of marriage is placed on everyone. Marriage is already defined in the way it functions under US laws, which do not include procreation in any way as a purpose.

You confuse the benefit of marriage on raising children with the purpose of marriage being for procreation. There is a huge difference between these two things.
 
captainawesome said:
Blood tests were not historical. They were required only for a very short time. George and Martha Washington had no blood test. Neither did the Lincolns.
Click to expand...

They were required once medical science realized that certain blood types were incompatible for bearing offspring - which just strengthens the argument that the reason for marriage was about approving, licensing, endorsing, SANCTIONING a biologically sensible coupling.
 
roguenuke said:
Except it isn't a dilemma for all that many people. Most people support same sex marriage or do not want to give any recognition to same sex couples at all.

But it is not your place to have your personal definition or view of what marriage should be or what the purpose of marriage is placed on everyone. Marriage is already defined in the way it functions under US laws, which do not include procreation in any way as a purpose.

You confuse the benefit of marriage on raising children with the purpose of marriage being for procreation. There is a huge difference between these two things.
Click to expand...

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. It seems neither you nor I have any new arguments to bring into this.
 
Papa bull said:
They were required once medical science realized that certain blood types were incompatible for bearing offspring - which just strengthens the argument that the reason for marriage was about approving, licensing, endorsing, SANCTIONING a biologically sensible coupling.
Click to expand...

They were required for a few years until we realized it was stupid and pointless and stopped.
 
Papa bull said:
I'm just not certain marriage should come up on the "re-engineering" table in order to meet the goals of providing a legal framework for relationships that are not biologically sensible.
Click to expand...
So then for sterile hetero couples, marriage is not an option...in your opinion.
 
Papa bull said:
Not having blood types that would produce disastrous results makes biological sense. .
Click to expand...

this outta be interesting

Okay what blood type doesn't mqake biological sense?
 
captainawesome said:
They were required for a few years until we realized it was stupid and pointless and stopped.
Click to expand...

The fact they were introduced because of medical science asserting they were important to prevent birth defects points irrefutably to the argument that the purpose of sanctioned marriage was about sensible biological pairings that established a framework for procreation.

I think with you, too, it's time to just agree to disagree. I've made my points and you've rejected them. You've made your points and I've rejected them. There's nothing new except rehashing the same rehashed arguments again and again in a redundantly redundant manner, repeated over and over again in a maddening merrygoround of redundant redundancy.
 
Papa bull said:
The fact they were introduced because of medical science asserting they were important to prevent birth defects points irrefutably to the argument that the purpose of sanctioned marriage was about sensible biological pairings that established a framework for procreation.

I think with you, too, it's time to just agree to disagree. I've made my points and you've rejected them. You've made your points and I've rejected them. There's nothing new except rehashing the same rehashed arguments again and again in a redundantly redundant manner, repeated over and over again in a maddening merrygoround of redundant redundancy.
Click to expand...

we don't have blood tests for marriage or fertility tests or any of that stuff. For a few years some far right religious fanatics made a bunch of laws. We have gotten rid of most by now.
 
Papa bull said:
Male and female makes biological sense. Not having blood types that would produce disastrous results makes biological sense. Not being related to the point that the offspring would be at risk to birth defects makes biological sense.

Virtually everything about "the right to marriage" is about what makes biological sense. Only that one is not already married deviates from this in any meaningful way.
Click to expand...

Differing blood types does not prevent any couple from getting married. (I can't find any proof that blood type was ever used to prevent marriages in the past since the only factor blood type plays in procreation is in rare cases, a mother with a certain blood type could make keeping a pregnancy more difficult if the father has a contradictory blood type and passes his to the baby. It doesn't really affect the health of a born baby. The woman's body simply would try to destroy the pregnancy with a child of that blood type thinking the baby was an invading parasite instead of a baby.) Blood testing was mainly done in the past though not to get blood types but rather to identify diseases, such as syphillis or rubella. Even then, I don't think people were prevented in most cases from getting married because of the results of these blood tests.

The Truth About Premarital Blood Testing - Medical Myths - Healthy Lifestyle | Aetna InteliHealth

Then why allow those relations to legally marry at all? There would be no purpose for allowing those cousins to marry at all if marriage is about procreation and they are not allowed to legally be able to procreate in order to get married.

You are wrong. Very little about marriage has anything to do with biology. And you can't show legitimate marriage laws that are in place now that prove this is wrong. Marriage does not function legally around biology. Because even limiting marriage to first cousins who cannot procreate proves you wrong because then there would be no biological purpose for them to be allowed to marry when they can't procreate.
 
Papa bull said:
The fact they were introduced because of medical science asserting they were important to prevent birth defects points irrefutably to the argument that the purpose of sanctioned marriage was about sensible biological pairings that established a framework for procreation.

I think with you, too, it's time to just agree to disagree. I've made my points and you've rejected them. You've made your points and I've rejected them. There's nothing new except rehashing the same rehashed arguments again and again in a redundantly redundant manner, repeated over and over again in a maddening merrygoround of redundant redundancy.
Click to expand...

I can't find any evidence to even suggest what you are saying is true. In fact, I can't find evidence at all that people have been prevented from entering into marriage anywhere in the US due to bloodtype differences. Can you show any proof/evidence that blood tests, or at least their results ever prevented someone from getting married and why exactly it prevented their marriage?
 
Bump..

Papa bull said:
I'm just not certain marriage should come up on the "re-engineering" table in order to meet the goals of providing a legal framework for relationships that are not biologically sensible.
Click to expand...
So then for sterile hetero couples, marriage is not an option...in your opinion.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

austrianecon said:
Sorry, bud.. you had a high African American turnout in 2008. How Proposition 8 passed in California — and why it wouldn’t today
Click to expand...

The main reasons why Proposition H8 would not pass today are two fold: California, just like the rest of the nation has evolved exponentially over the last 5 years and 2. A lot of Californians that voted for Prop H8 realized very soon thereafter that they were snowed by the deceitful Mormon propaganda campaign. I can't tell you how many people have come out and said that they regret their vote because they understand now that it was based on lies primarily perpetrated by the Mormon church.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Bump..

So then for sterile hetero couples, marriage is not an option...in your opinion.
Click to expand...

We've been over this. The argument that procreation must be a condition of marriage if it is the purpose of marriage is not valid.
 
Papa bull said:
We've been over this. The argument that procreation must be a condition of marriage if it is the purpose of marriage is not valid.
Click to expand...

Yes it is because you are the one trying to make the argument that procreation is the purpose of marriage. If it is the purpose of marriage, then there would be no reason to allow those opposite sex couples who can't procreate to get married. There would certainly be no reason to make special provisions to allow some of those couples to only be able to marry if they cannot procreate.
 
Papa bull said:
We've been over this. The argument that procreation must be a condition of marriage if it is the purpose of marriage is not valid.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. If the purpose is procreation and the couple take tax money to procreate they must procreate.
 
roguenuke said:
Yes it is because you are the one trying to make the argument that procreation is the purpose of marriage. If it is the purpose of marriage, then there would be no reason to allow those opposite sex couples who can't procreate to get married. There would certainly be no reason to make special provisions to allow some of those couples to only be able to marry if they cannot procreate.
Click to expand...

captainawesome said:
Sure it is. If the purpose is procreation and the couple take tax money to procreate they must procreate.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you both are clearly smart enough to know that your arguments here are disingenuous to the point of frivolity. As I said before, the purpose for something is not necessarily and actually is quite rarely, the condition for it. Example: You don't have to fly a plane just because you got a pilot's license. If you have obvious impediments to flying such as being blind, you can't get a driver's license. But you can get the license and never get into an airplane if you don't want to.
 
Papa bull said:
Example: You don't have to fly a plane just because you got a pilot's license. I
Click to expand...

That doesn't change the purpose of the license which is to fly planes if one so desires.
 
winston53660 said:
That doesn't change the purpose of the license which is to fly planes if one so desires.
Click to expand...

That is correct. Flying is not, however, a condition for having the license. The purpose is not a conditional requirement. I think you understand, now.
 
Papa bull said:
Sorry, but you both are clearly smart enough to know that your arguments here are disingenuous to the point of frivolity. As I said before, the purpose for something is not necessarily and actually is quite rarely, the condition for it. Example: You don't have to fly a plane just because you got a pilot's license. If you have obvious impediments to flying such as being blind, you can't get a driver's license. But you can get the license and never get into an airplane if you don't want to.
Click to expand...

So since it isn't required for heterosexual couples it won't be required for homosexual couples. There is no problem.
 
Papa bull said:
That is correct. Flying is not, however, a condition for having the license. The purpose is not a conditional requirement. I think you understand, now.
Click to expand...

Procreation does not require a license. Flying a plane does. And nowhere in the marriage license is procreation a condition of said license.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Bump..

So then for sterile hetero couples, marriage is not an option...in your opinion.
Click to expand...

You keep trying to argue the absurd in defense of your position. Being fertile COULD actually be a condition of marriage, but the state clearly assumes that male and female meets the rationale for "biologically sensible". Going further to demand fertility tests would be too intrusive and expensive for everyone involved since the premise of marriage remains intact merely by union of male/female.

If the purpose of marriage was to "affirm love", then this argument wouldn't have happened in the first place. That's not the purpose of the state sanctioned entity of marriage and in some part of your brain, you must actually know this. I understand that you don't like it since it doesn't fit your progressive views, but some part of you must know that you are not being completely honest even with yourself when you try to claim that the purpose of marriage really has nothing to do with procreation, bearing children and establishing the family unit. It's so intrinsic to marriage that you absolutely cannot deny honestly that it's true.
 
winston53660 said:
Procreation does not require a license. Flying a plane does. And nowhere in the marriage license is procreation a condition of said license.
Click to expand...

yep just a made up failed strawman

procreation and offspring and 100% meaningless to legal marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom