• 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

You forgot to add "in my opinion" at the end of the first sentence because without that, it is a statement of fact and in most states, that is NOT a fact, which renders your rebuttal invalid.

If you cannot prove that all gay households do not fit the definition for marriage, you are done. That's why the anti-SSM is losing and will continue to lose this battle. Is funny watching the anti-SSM crowd lose.
 
Hmmm let's see. Gay people can raise children that straight people don't want, check. They love each other, check. Capability of providing a healthy home, check.

Yep, it fits the definition, purpose and meaning of marriage. Next?

And being unmarried doesn't keep them from raising children "straight people" don't want. If that's a problem somewhere, fix that. The fact that homosexuals can adopt children isn't proof that two homosexuals living together is a marriage.
 
You forgot to add "in my opinion" at the end of the first sentence because without that, it is a statement of fact and in most states, that is NOT a fact, which renders your rebuttal invalid.

No. Legally all those things are true. It is not just my opinion. If you disagree, show me legally where same sex couples do not fit the legal description of how marriage operates. Show me where the legal purpose of marriage is written down for every legally married couple and how couples that don't fit that purpose cannot enter into marriage. They already fit the meaning. That isn't even possible to argue because whether you like it or not, marriage already includes same sex couples within its meaning.
 
And being unmarried doesn't keep them from raising children "straight people" don't want. If that's a problem somewhere, fix that. The fact that homosexuals can adopt children isn't proof that two homosexuals living together is a marriage.

It meets the definition, purpose, and meaning of Marriage. You are losing this battle. Deal with that fact.

It gives me great pleasure seeing the anti-SSM crowd losing.
 
And being unmarried doesn't keep them from raising children "straight people" don't want. If that's a problem somewhere, fix that. The fact that homosexuals can adopt children isn't proof that two homosexuals living together is a marriage.

If marriage helps children raised by their own parents, then it is only reasonable that it also helps children raised by parents that adopt them or get them from other means.
 
Again.... that may be your OPINION, but it is not a fact. Property rights were put in place for the purpose of dealing with divorce. Marriage is about putting together a family and that family was expected to include offspring. "Property" doesn't even come into play until there's a divorce and divorce was very rare up until the 19th century. In Ireland, divorce wasn't even a legal option until the 1990's. Clearly, marriage was for other things than sorting out "divorce" and those other things were raising families.

Those laws are no longer in place, so they have no relevant place in the discussion of what marriage is today. It doesn't matter why something existed or was how it was. What matters is why it is the way it is now.

Allowing divorce for pretty much any reason is currently an option in most civilized, 1st world nations. And this is supported by most people, even if they don't approve of so many getting divorced.
 
Those laws are no longer in place, so they have no relevant place in the discussion of what marriage is today.

Sure they do. Unless you can point out the moment in time that marriage ran off the road into the ditch, you absolutely have to accept as relevant what marriage has been when arguing what it currently is. The real crux of the matter is that you and those like you don't accept what marriage actually is and that is why you are trying to change and redefine it.
 
Sure they do. Unless you can point out the moment in time that marriage ran off the road into the ditch, you absolutely have to accept as relevant what marriage has been when arguing what it currently is. The real crux of the matter is that you and those like you don't accept what marriage actually is and that is why you are trying to change and redefine it.

Marriage hasn't "ran off the road into the ditch". I find it to be a much more desirable option now than it would have been in the past. In the past, I would have been considered the property of my father, and then my husband. I would have had very little say in whether I married or who or even when. I could have been forced to marry someone who raped me in certain points of the past. I could have even been forced to marry my brother in law or relatives in certain situations. In the recent past, I would have been treated as less than my husband, my opinion and feelings less important than his. I would have been forced to remain in a marriage that was neglectful or abusive or, if granted the divorce, treated horribly and expected to only aspire to a few limited number of careers. I would have not been able to claim my husband raped me if he did in most states until around the 1970s.
 
Marriage hasn't "ran off the road into the ditch". I find it to be a much more desirable option now than it would have been in the past. In the past, I would have been considered the property of my father, and then my husband. I would have had very little say in whether I married or who or even when. I could have been forced to marry someone who raped me in certain points of the past. I could have even been forced to marry my brother in law or relatives in certain situations. In the recent past, I would have been treated as less than my husband, my opinion and feelings less important than his. I would have been forced to remain in a marriage that was neglectful or abusive or, if granted the divorce, treated horribly and expected to only aspire to a few limited number of careers. I would have not been able to claim my husband raped me if he did in most states until around the 1970s.

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.
 
Sure they do. Unless you can point out the moment in time that marriage ran off the road into the ditch, you absolutely have to accept as relevant what marriage has been when arguing what it currently is. The real crux of the matter is that you and those like you don't accept what marriage actually is and that is why you are trying to change and redefine it.
I agree. I made the same argument back in the 60s against interracial marriage. Historically blacks never could marry whites. That is what marriage was--within the same race. And I was called racist for saying blacks shouldn't be able to marry whites? Absurd, right?

;)
 
I agree. I made the same argument back in the 60s against interracial marriage. Historically blacks never could marry whites. That is what marriage was--within the same race. And I was called racist for saying blacks shouldn't be able to marry whites? Absurd, right?

;)

That's incorrect. Interracial marriages were well known even preceding the days of Pocohontas. And, of course, you were a racist for saying blacks shouldn't marry whites, so that wasn't absurd. The ironic thing here, though, is that the reason society had a big problem with interracial marriage was.... hold on...... guess...... THE CHILDREN. Procreation. That omnipresent purpose of marriage that is so troublesome to those suggesting any biological permutation except Man+Woman equals marriage.
 
That's incorrect. Interracial marriages were well known even preceding the days of Pocohontas. And, of course, you were a racist for saying blacks shouldn't marry whites, so that wasn't absurd. The ironic thing here, though, is that the reason society had a big problem with interracial marriage was.... hold on...... guess...... THE CHILDREN. Procreation. That omnipresent purpose of marriage that is so troublesome to those suggesting any biological permutation except Man+Woman equals marriage.
So then you agree interracial marriage should be banned because of "the children"? Procreation has nothing to do with who can marry. Most women above 50 can no longer procreate, but they are still allowed to get married. Sterile couples are still allowed to get married. You don't get to codify your own religious and personal purpose of marriage into the law.
 
So then you agree interracial marriage should be banned because of "the children"?

That's a stupid question. To presume that I must support an argument merely because I am able to tell you that it was made is silly and that this silliness was intentional means you attempted to ply a sophomoric dishonest debate trick.

Procreation has nothing to do with who can marry. Most women above 50 can no longer procreate, but they are still allowed to get married. Sterile couples are still allowed to get married. You don't get to codify your own religious and personal purpose of marriage into the law.

As I've argued in the past and must explain to you, now... the fact that procreation was always integral to the purpose of marriage is not to say that procreation is a CONDITION of marriage. It has always been enough that couples be of male and female, which makes biological sense. It is, however, interesting to note that my wife tells me that years ago in Ireland they took it a step farther to actually ask you if you were planning to have children with an affirmative answer required in order to get approval for the marriage.
 
That's a stupid question. To presume that I must support an argument merely because I am able to tell you that it was made is silly and that this silliness was intentional means you attempted to ply a sophomoric dishonest debate trick.
What's silly is that you pointed out the similarity between arguments against interracial marriage and same-sex marriage (procreation), and then proceeded to defend one and not the other.

As I've argued in the past and must explain to you, now... the fact that procreation was always integral to the purpose of marriage is not to say that procreation is a CONDITION of marriage. It has always been enough that couples be of male and female, which makes biological sense. It is, however, interesting to note that my wife tells me that years ago in Ireland they took it a step farther to actually ask you if you were planning to have children with an affirmative answer required in order to get approval for the marriage.
Really? So in Ireland people who were infertile or old could not get married? And did planning to have children include adoption?

On second though, who cares? This isn't Ireland.
 
What's silly is that you pointed out the similarity between arguments against interracial marriage and same-sex marriage (procreation), and then proceeded to defend one and not the other.


Really? So in Ireland people who were infertile or old could not get married? And did planning to have children include adoption?

On second though, who cares? This isn't Ireland.

the argument of off spring and procreation against SSM as always failed and will always failed, its a strawman that nobody honest and educated buys. Fact of the matter is that off spring and procreation are 1005 meaningless to legal marriage here in the US and this fact will never change.
 
What's silly is that you pointed out the similarity between arguments against interracial marriage and same-sex marriage (procreation), and then proceeded to defend one and not the other.


Really? So in Ireland people who were infertile or old could not get married? And did planning to have children include adoption?

On second though, who cares? This isn't Ireland.

It all goes to flesh out the understanding of the real purpose of marriage and it was always related to families, bringing children into the world and then supporting those children in a stable environment. The argument now is that "that's changed", but I think it's going to be tough to make the argument that marriage is really some frivolous agreement for the sake of tax benefits and making political statements as the homosexual community seems wont to do.
 
It all goes to flesh out the understanding of the real purpose of marriage and it was always related to families, bringing children into the world and then supporting those children in a stable environment. The argument now is that "that's changed", but I think it's going to be tough to make the argument that marriage is really some frivolous agreement for the sake of tax benefits and making political statements as the homosexual community seems wont to do.
Homosexual couples are no less capable of being families, bringing children into the world, and supporting those children in a stable environment than are heterosexual couples.
 
More on the fact that arguments to try to create gay marriage also open the doors to things like polygamy:

As a lawyer in the same-sex marriage litigation at the Supreme Court who has spent a couple years working through all the implications of declaring a constitutional right to gay marriage, it became clear that such a declaration would also mean there is a right to polygamy.
When I previously explained these reasons, gay marriage supporters said the country would never go there. Well, now the far-left magazine Slate has come out with a full-throated endorsement of polygamous marriage.
For thousands of years, Western Civilization has always recognized three elements to marriage. It is the union of (1) two consenting adults, (2) of opposite sex, (3) who are not close blood relatives. Gay marriage advocates say the second element can be jettisoned. I’ve always asked why those same people say the first element cannot be touched.
Slate believes, “Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice.”
They’re wrong on all counts. On the constitutional issue, for liberties not found in the text of the Constitution (where marriage is never mentioned once), the Supreme Court has held a fundamental right is one that is “deeply rooted in the history and traditions” of the American people. Marriage of one man and one woman satisfy this test, which is why the Court held in the 1878 case Reynolds v. U.S. that there is no constitutional right to polygamy. It’s also why there is no right to gay marriage but why laws against marriage between different racial groups are clearly unconstitutional.
Slate elaborates on their reasoning:
The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us.
If you believe that marriage is merely the union of consenting adults, and nothing more, then this argument might make sense. I’m still waiting for one of the lawyers working on the gay marriage cases to explain why this means their argument for a right to gay marriage doesn’t extend to polygamists.
This is especially important, since same-sex marriage has only existed on earth since 2001, but polygamy has been around more than 5,000 years of recorded history. Also, gay marriage is legal in just over a dozen countries, but polygamy is legal in over four dozen (roughly 50) nations and is expressly sanctioned by the second-largest religion on earth with 1.6 billion followers, Islam.
One point Slate misses is that there are two forms of polygamy that could never involve disadvantaging women: a multi-person gay men marriage, and a multi-person lesbian marriage. If three men decide to enter into a polygamous gay marriage, how could any woman be victimized by it? It becomes increasingly harder for those trying to redefine marriage to explain their arbitrary line-drawing choices.
Slate concludes: “All marriages deserve access to the support and resources needed to build happy, healthy lives, no matter how many partners are involved.” I give them credit for their honesty; they admit and even embrace that if you demand a right to same-sex marriage, there’s no principled reason not to have a right to polygamous marriage. The only reason is political. The American people have been told for years now that gay marriage would not open Pandora’s Box, but they still understand at a gut level that they do not want to entirely redefine the family unit in the United States.
Slate completely misses the point of marriage laws in America. We’ll write about that when the Supreme Court hands down its decision in the Prop 8 case, Hollingsworth v. Perry.

Slate: 'Marriage Equality' Includes Polygamy

And the link to the Slate article:

Legalize polygamy: Marriage equality for all. - Slate Magazine

I think it's time for people who want to force homosexual marriage in all 50 states to stop arguing that it wouldn't pave the way to polygamy but to take the more honest approach and admit they don't care if it does.
 
More on the fact that arguments to try to create gay marriage also open the doors to things like polygamy:



Slate: 'Marriage Equality' Includes Polygamy

And the link to the Slate article:

Legalize polygamy: Marriage equality for all. - Slate Magazine

I think it's time for people who want to force homosexual marriage in all 50 states to stop arguing that it wouldn't pave the way to polygamy but to take the more honest approach and admit they don't care if it does.
And interracial marriage opened the door to same sex marriage. Perhaps we should go back and get rid of that?
 
It is not a fallacy when the question is: "What was the purpose of marriage". Your logical fallacy only applies to "X is right because X is how it was always done". In this case, X was the purpose for the creation of a state sanctioned marriage and the question is whether the proposal that homosexuals be permitted to engage in "marriage" actually furthers X (the purpose). Or, it can be argued that the purpose has changed.... that's what the homosexual advocates are rightly setting about to argue and it's going to be interesting to see if they can win the argument that we should forget about why we had marriage in the first place and think of it more as just an agreement between two consenting people with or without monogamy, with or without intent to raise a family, with or without reasonable biological pairings, with or without anything but an agreement to cohabitate under the general conditions of "marriage". And before you argue on the point of monogamy, let's face it. One of the dirty little secrets here is that for many "gay marriages", monogamy is tossed in the rubbish heap. It's not about monogamy. That's optional. Here's a link in advance just to short circuit any arguments about this: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0 (yes, from that bastion of right wing propaganda, the New York Times, LOL).

Firstly, the problem with your entire argument is your opening line. The question isn't "what WAS the purpose of marriage". The question is "what IS the purpose of marriage." That's why the fallacy is on target.

And, as far as your link and assertion, from what I've read, it's pretty accurate. However... since the complete legality of SSM is not yet in place, it would be interesting to see if those statistics remain the same when it IS in place and whether they mirror the stats found in traditional marriages. I think what one would find is that lesbian relationships would be inline with straight relationships, whereas male gay relationships would not... but that's just a guess based on an assortment of things I've read.
 
Sure they do. Unless you can point out the moment in time that marriage ran off the road into the ditch, you absolutely have to accept as relevant what marriage has been when arguing what it currently is. The real crux of the matter is that you and those like you don't accept what marriage actually is and that is why you are trying to change and redefine it.

Problem is you are holding onto an incorrect premise... that the purpose of marriage is about procreation. This has been shown to be incorrect time and time again, and the reason why your arguments do not hold any water is because you start them off with that false premise.
 
That's a stupid question. To presume that I must support an argument merely because I am able to tell you that it was made is silly and that this silliness was intentional means you attempted to ply a sophomoric dishonest debate trick.



As I've argued in the past and must explain to you, now... the fact that procreation was always integral to the purpose of marriage is not to say that procreation is a CONDITION of marriage. It has always been enough that couples be of male and female, which makes biological sense. It is, however, interesting to note that my wife tells me that years ago in Ireland they took it a step farther to actually ask you if you were planning to have children with an affirmative answer required in order to get approval for the marriage.

Your false premise has been shown to be incorrect REPEATEDLY. It has zero legal standing in the sanctioning of marriage. THAT'S the issue. If you are going to argue against the legality of SSM from a procreation standpoint, you MUST demonstrate that procreation IS a requirement for marriage. If you cannot... and it has been proven repeatedly that you cannot, this is a failed position... which it is.
 
Problem is you are holding onto an incorrect premise... that the purpose of marriage is about procreation. This has been shown to be incorrect time and time again, and the reason why your arguments do not hold any water is because you start them off with that false premise.

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.
 
It all goes to flesh out the understanding of the real purpose of marriage and it was always related to families, bringing children into the world and then supporting those children in a stable environment.

Since this is not now nor has it every been an accurate LEGAL argument, it falls into the appeal to tradition fallacy.

There are two different arguments here, and you are trying to combine the two.

1) The LEGAL purpose for marriage as identified by applications and laws/legal decisions.
2) The philosophical purpose for marriage.

These two arguments are not dependent on each other. Let me demonstrate. Let's say that you are correct... that in the past a philosophical purpose for marriage WAS procreation. This is not reflective in ANY legal requirement, law, or point on an application. This is why the two arguments do not connect and have nothing to do with each other, even though you want them too.

From what we can see and what has been debated, the answer to the first argument is "no, procreation is not a requirement for marriage", and the answer to the second argument is "claiming that procreation has always been a purpose for marriage is an appeal to tradition logical fallacy as you cannot argue that just because something was always done a certain way, that makes it right".

There. I have boiled down the entire discussion into a short, concise description. It also shows why your position is neither factual (point #1) nor logical (point #2). I'm CERTAIN you neither like this, nor will you accept this, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is accurate and you have been been unable to refute it... and will BE unable to refute it from either a factual or logical perspective.
 
More on the fact that arguments to try to create gay marriage also open the doors to things like polygamy:



Slate: 'Marriage Equality' Includes Polygamy

And the link to the Slate article:

Legalize polygamy: Marriage equality for all. - Slate Magazine

I think it's time for people who want to force homosexual marriage in all 50 states to stop arguing that it wouldn't pave the way to polygamy but to take the more honest approach and admit they don't care if it does.

Slippery slope logical fallacy because of a false equivalency. I think it's time for all those who are professing your position to take a more honest approach and admit that they are just using an illogical "scare" tactic.
 
Back
Top Bottom