• 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!

Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

What is that purpose and how is it "contradicted?"

It might seem like a silly question, but I just don't want to put words in your mouth and provide a rebuttal for an argument you haven't made. It's rude.

Procreation. Sodomy is not conducive to procreation.
 
The difference sis that only two of those things were correct. There have been plenty of societies which have allowed interracial marriage, not so with gay marriage.

First of all, there have been societies that have allowed same sex marriages. Even some in the past. We have proof of this. Second, there are currently many places that allow same sex marriage. Parts of our society did not allow interracial marriage. In fact, almost every single state of the US (with only a very few exceptions) had laws restricting marriage to those of the same race at one time in our history as a country. And there was even a push during the early 20th Century (if not before) to have a race restriction on marriage put into our US Constitution.
 
Procreation. Sodomy is not conducive to procreation.

My mother or father getting remarried to anyone will not result in procreation. In fact, my father married a woman 13 years his senior after divorcing my mother, a woman who couldn't have procreated with him even if he hadn't gotten his boys snipped. No one cared. In fact, we have some laws in several states that specifically mandate that certain couples (first cousins) cannot marry if they can procreate with each other, but can marry legally if they cannot procreate with each other. Not to mention, no couple is ever required to show any state clerk issuing them a marriage license that the two people can procreate (positively) in order to be able to marry (as I mentioned before, they may have to prove they can't procreate). And no marry is ever voided by the state for the couple not procreating.
 
So perhaps if every society in the history of the world (including societies which accepted homosexuality) thought something so ridiculous as to never even consciously consider it, perhaps there's a reason for that.

Except every society in the history of the world did not reject same sex couples getting married. In fact, many societies allowed it in the past. Just because you wish to reject history doesn't mean that you are right.
 
Procreation. Sodomy is not conducive to procreation.

Two points of rebuttal:

1) While procreation is certainly a common aspect of marriage, it is not a requirement. We allow elderly or otherwise infertile couples to marry, and we allow couples to stay married even if they have no interest in procreating.

2) Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not hinder procreation. A same-sex couple isn't going to suddenly decide to be heterosexual and go have children just because you prevent them from marrying each other.
 
Marriage is just one of the government intrusions into our private lives.

The government isn't intruding in my life by recognizing my marriage to my husband. In fact, that recognition comes with a heck of a lot of benefits. And it is recognition that those entering into a marriage ask for. It isn't like the government forces you to get married.
 
Except every society in the history of the world did not reject same sex couples getting married. In fact, many societies allowed it in the past. Just because you wish to reject history doesn't mean that you are right.

Name one.
 
Name one.

I'll name several well known ones. Ancient Greece, Rome, some areas of China, Mesopotamia, plus the earlier pagan tribes of Western Europe and the British Isles, along with some Native American tribes and even some African tribes.
 
Why did you run and hide from the question? Did you choose not to get married?

I'm posing the same question you did, because you know damn good-n-well what I meant.
 
So perhaps if every society in the history of the world (including societies which accepted homosexuality) thought something so ridiculous as to never even consciously consider it, perhaps there's a reason for that.

Know your logical fallacies. This one is Appeal to Tradition Fallacy.
 
Procreation. Sodomy is not conducive to procreation.

There is no law regarding the ability to procreate as a condition to get married. In fact many people who cannot procreate can get married. In further fact, allowing SSM would have zero effect on birthrates. So many fails...
 
The government isn't intruding in my life by recognizing my marriage to my husband. In fact, that recognition comes with a heck of a lot of benefits. And it is recognition that those entering into a marriage ask for. It isn't like the government forces you to get married.

The government doesn't allow gays to marry, though. Right? Wouldn't you agree that shows too much government intrusion I marriage?
 
I'm posing the same question you did, because you know damn good-n-well what I meant.

You said marriage was a government intrusion into your life. Asking if you chose not to get married is a logical question to follow from that.
 
You said marriage was a government intrusion into your life. Asking if you chose not to get married is a logical question to follow from that.

Marriage is an example of government intrusion, i.e. government banning gay marriage is example of too much government intrusion in our private lives. You know damn well what I meant. You're just being argumentative.
 
Marriage is an example of government intrusion, i.e. government banning gay marriage is example of too much government intrusion in our private lives. You know damn well what I meant. You're just being argumentative.

You did not say that and I am not a mind reader. So what you really meant is that banning SSM was government intrusion, not what you actually said?
 
Just shows what a lousy job the supreme court did. This should be settled law. This is a tremendous waste of time and money to have to go through this in very state. Does anyone think that a federal court will ever come to a different conclusion?

I have to say i agree, instead of punting twice on it they should have just settled it but at the same time, the fall of DOMA was huge and was the gas used to drive all of this basically.

So what they kinda did was take thier illegal defense off the field and let the game play on. They now see what type of offense equal rights for gays has. And the reality is ER for gays is scoring touchdowns all over the place :)

This will be settled sooner than later.
 
Last edited:
Bahahahahahah! You're so furious that they're giving gays equal rights that you're calling for their heads. Jesus ****ing christ you must really hate gays.

thats the way it comes off to me too since i see no logic pointing to anything else.
 
Procreation. Sodomy is not conducive to procreation.
Two points of rebuttal:

1) While procreation is certainly a common aspect of marriage, it is not a requirement. We allow elderly or otherwise infertile couples to marry, and we allow couples to stay married even if they have no interest in procreating.

2) Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not hinder procreation. A same-sex couple isn't going to suddenly decide to be heterosexual and go have children just because you prevent them from marrying each other.


In addition, from Arizona, I don't know if there are others with similar requirements:

" Notwithstanding subsection A, first cousins may marry if both are sixty-five years of age or older or if one or both first cousins are under sixty-five years of age, upon approval of any superior court judge in the state if proof has been presented to the judge that one of the cousins is unable to reproduce. "​


Format Document


>>>>
 
You did not say that and I am not a mind reader. So what you really meant is that banning SSM was government intrusion, not what you actually said?

Yes ma'am. My apologies for making myself clear.
 
I'll name several well known ones. Ancient Greece, Rome, some areas of China, Mesopotamia, plus the earlier pagan tribes of Western Europe and the British Isles, along with some Native American tribes and even some African tribes.

Show a reliable source.

Know your logical fallacies. This one is Appeal to Tradition Fallacy.

Should the US completely rearrange every aspect of its government? Why not?
 
Should the US completely rearrange every aspect of its government? Why not?

No, nor is it. Care to discuss what actually is happening?
 
The government doesn't allow gays to marry, though. Right? Wouldn't you agree that shows too much government intrusion I marriage?

No. I would say that there is a big difference between government intrusion and government unfairness. Your argument is like saying that if the government only allows boys to be claimed as legal children they are being too intrusive into our lives. Those two things have nothing to do with each other. It means the government is being unfair, not too intrusive.
 
Show a reliable source.

It is a part of history and you are going to reject any source I give. Show a reliable source that says that interracial couples were treated the same as same race couples in the US prior to Loving. I dare you. Or better yet, show me a reliable source that shows that women had the same rights within a marriage in pretty much any of those civilizations I named, or even our own up til about a half century or less ago.
 
No. I would say that there is a big difference between government intrusion and government unfairness. Your argument is like saying that if the government only allows boys to be claimed as legal children they are being too intrusive into our lives. Those two things have nothing to do with each other. It means the government is being unfair, not too intrusive.

Government is being unfair, by being intrusive.

Even when someone agrees with your passions, you still want to argue with them. Libbos! :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom