Total Posts:101|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolving on gay marriage can go both ways

teddy2013
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 5:31:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
We have all heard of people evolving on gay marriage, for many, this means, people who were against it, are now for it. I am an example of how this "evolving". can go both ways. In the past, I have supported gay marriage, I figured "what is the harm". As a strong supporter of separation of Church and State, I also disregarded the religious arguments, as it pertains to government policy. Additionally I felt that some of the arguments against gay marriage were silly (ex. people will end up marrying their dogs). However, since I have been reading the opinions and debates on this web site, my opinion has evolved. While I read and considered many arguments, both pro and con, I was particularly swayed by screen name "Contradictions" debate arguments against gay marriage (Debate topic: Gay marriage should be legal, in all the US"). Contradictions argument that the only reason that a State has an interest in relationships is "when they affect the common good in structured ways that justify or warrant legal regulation." is very convincing. Procreation is a legitimate reason to afford such legal recognition An emotional bond, while nice, is not a reason for the States interest, if it was, then as Contradiction argues there would be legal recognition of just friendships. And while pro gay marriage advocates, will argue that lots of marriages do not result in procreation, there is no doubt that homosexual relationships can not procreate. As I read his arguments as well as others both Pro and Con, I found my own position evolving from a supporter of gay marriage, to a strong opponent. It has also occurred to me that others will evolve against it, as I have. I think this is especially true of people in their teens, and twenties, who as they get older, get married, and start families, will revert to the view that the definition of marriage should remain between a man and a women. In turn, their children, will be raised with that same view. As a result, I think is is entirely possible, even likely, that support for gay marriage, may have peaked, and that ten years from now, we will live in a country where a solid majority, oppose gay marriage. As a recent convert to the against gay marriage side, I certainly hope so.
teddy2013
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 5:45:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/23/2013 5:34:17 PM, drafterman wrote:
Legal marriage has never been about procreation. Otherwise we'd demand fertility tests.

Try again.

Legal marriage has always had procreation as one of its cornerstones. There is no point in the State being involved in relationships if it is just about emotional bonds. And while it is true, not every relationship between a man and a women will produce children, it is the only relationship where its possible.
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 5:58:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/23/2013 5:34:17 PM, drafterman wrote:
Legal marriage has never been about procreation. Otherwise we'd demand fertility tests.

Try again.
This is countered by arguing that marriage relationships are based on procreation in type, not effect.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 6:05:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/23/2013 5:45:28 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/23/2013 5:34:17 PM, drafterman wrote:
Legal marriage has never been about procreation. Otherwise we'd demand fertility tests.

Try again.

Legal marriage has always had procreation as one of its cornerstones.

No, no it hasn't. Otherwise we'd demand fertility tests and deny marriage when procreation wasn't a possibility. We don't do that.

There is no point in the State being involved in relationships if it is just about emotional bonds.

Some would argue there is no point in the State being involved in relationships period. However, the involvement of the State in marriages generally has had to do with taxes, in the sense that, historically, the wife was practically a dependent of the husband.

And while it is true, not every relationship between a man and a women will produce children, it is the only relationship where its possible.

Which would be relevant if legal marriage had anything to do with procreation. It doesn't.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 6:08:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/23/2013 5:58:28 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 1/23/2013 5:34:17 PM, drafterman wrote:
Legal marriage has never been about procreation. Otherwise we'd demand fertility tests.

Try again.
This is countered by arguing that marriage relationships are based on procreation in type, not effect.

I assume this means that we ban the type of marriage that cannot possible result in biological procreation without delving into the specific instances of marriage that do not result in biological procreation?

First, that's hippocritical. Second, it's false. Period. End of story. No marriage, in the history of marriages, has ever been denied by the state on the basis of no potential for procreation. None.

Otherwise we would ban marriage when one or the other could not possibly produce a child (woman past menopause, man or woman who is sterile, either naturally or artificially).

We. Don't. Do. That.

It's a non-argument. There is no defense here. We don't determine marriage eligibility based on the potential to procreation. We simply don't do it. It isn't a factor. Period.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 7:56:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
drafterman's blunt logic always cracks me up when used against bad arguments.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 9:17:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/23/2013 5:34:17 PM, drafterman wrote:
Legal marriage has never been about procreation. Otherwise we'd demand fertility tests.

Try again.

Baker v. Baker, 1859, Supreme Court of California
"[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation""

Maynard v. Hill, 1888, Supreme Court of the Territory of Washington
"[Marriage] is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress."

Sharon v. Sharon, 1889, Supreme Court of California
"The procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law" is one of the "two principal ends of marriage."

Grover v. Zook, 1906, Washington Supreme Court
"One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children""

Lyon v. Barney, 1907, Illinois Supreme Court
"[T]he procreating of the human species is regarded... as the primary purpose of marriage."

Gard v. Gard, 1918, Supreme Court of Michigan
"It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation""

Laudo v. Laudo, 1919, New York Supreme Court, Appelate Division
"The great end of matrimony is . . . the procreation of a progeny having a legal title to maintenance by the father."

Davis v. Davis, 1919, New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division
"Procreation, if not the sole, is at least an important, reason for the existence of the marriage relation."

Aufort v. Aufort, 1935, California Court of Appeals, 2nd District
"Again, the first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation"It was there said that the procreation of children is the most important end of matrimony."

Stegienko v. Stegienko, 1940, Supreme Court of Michigan
"[P]rocreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimony""

Lindquist v. Lindquist, 1941, New Jersey Superior Court
"[O]ne of the leading and most important objects of the institution of marriage under our laws is the procreation of children."

Pretlow v. Pretlow, 1941, Virginia Supreme Court
"The State is interested in maintaining the sanctity of marriage relations, and it is interested in the ordered preservation of the race. It has a double interest""

Skinner v. Oklahoma, 1942, United States Supreme Court
"[m]arriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race."

Ramon v. Ramon, 1942
"The procreation of off-spring under the natural law being the object of marriage, its permanency is the foundation of the social order."

DeBurgh v. DeBurgh, 1952, Supreme Court of California
"The family is the basic unit of our society, the center of the personal affections that ennoble and enrich human life. It channels biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive; it ensures the care and education of children in a stable environment; it establishes continuity from one generation to another; it nurtures and develops the individual initiative that distinguishes a free people. Since the family is the core of our society, the law seeks to foster and preserve marriage."

Maslow v. Maslow, 1953, California Court of Appeals, 2nd District
"One of the prime purposes of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation. Ordinary marriage relations between husband and wife are the foundation on which the perpetuation of society and civilization rests."

Frost v. Frost, 1958, New York Supreme Court
"[D]iscussing one of the primary purposes of marriage, to wit, the procreation of the human species."

Zoglio v. Zoglio, 1960, District of Columbia Court of Appeals
"One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation."

Loving v. Virginia, 1967, United States Supreme Court
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Heup v. Heup, 1969, Supreme Court of Wisconsin
"Having children is a primary purpose of marriage."

Baker v. Nelson, 1971, Minnesota Supreme Court
"The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis."

Singer v. Hara, 1974, Washington Court of Appeals
"[M]arriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race."

Poe v. Gerstein, 1975, United States Distrct Court for the Southern District of Florida
"[P]rocreation of offspring could be considered one of the major purposes of marriage."

Adams v. Howerton, 1982, United States Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
"[T]he state has a compelling interest in encouraging and fostering procreation."

Dean v. District of Columbia, 1995, District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Procreation, the "central purpose...provides the kind of rational basis....permitting limitation of marriage to heterosexual couples."

Anderson v. King County, 2006, Supreme Court of Washington
"Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to the fundamental rights of procreation, chidlbirth, abortion, and childrearing."

Conaway v. Deane, 2007, Maryland Court of Appeals
"All of the cases infer the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the link to fostering procreation to our species"Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as a basis for the conclusion the institution"s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and woman."
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 9:26:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/23/2013 5:45:28 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/23/2013 5:34:17 PM, drafterman wrote:
Legal marriage has never been about procreation. Otherwise we'd demand fertility tests.

Try again.

Legal marriage has always had procreation as one of its cornerstones. There is no point in the State being involved in relationships if it is just about emotional bonds. And while it is true, not every relationship between a man and a women will produce children, it is the only relationship where its possible.

Legal marriage isn't about emotional bonds either, it's mostly about taxes.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
teddy2013
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 9:41:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/23/2013 9:17:26 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 1/23/2013 5:34:17 PM, drafterman wrote:
Legal marriage has never been about procreation. Otherwise we'd demand fertility tests.

Try again.

Baker v. Baker, 1859, Supreme Court of California
"[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation""

Maynard v. Hill, 1888, Supreme Court of the Territory of Washington
"[Marriage] is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress."

Sharon v. Sharon, 1889, Supreme Court of California
"The procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law" is one of the "two principal ends of marriage."

Grover v. Zook, 1906, Washington Supreme Court
"One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children""

Lyon v. Barney, 1907, Illinois Supreme Court
"[T]he procreating of the human species is regarded... as the primary purpose of marriage."

Gard v. Gard, 1918, Supreme Court of Michigan
"It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation""

Laudo v. Laudo, 1919, New York Supreme Court, Appelate Division
"The great end of matrimony is . . . the procreation of a progeny having a legal title to maintenance by the father."

Davis v. Davis, 1919, New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division
"Procreation, if not the sole, is at least an important, reason for the existence of the marriage relation."

Aufort v. Aufort, 1935, California Court of Appeals, 2nd District
"Again, the first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation"It was there said that the procreation of children is the most important end of matrimony."

Stegienko v. Stegienko, 1940, Supreme Court of Michigan
"[P]rocreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimony""

Lindquist v. Lindquist, 1941, New Jersey Superior Court
"[O]ne of the leading and most important objects of the institution of marriage under our laws is the procreation of children."

Pretlow v. Pretlow, 1941, Virginia Supreme Court
"The State is interested in maintaining the sanctity of marriage relations, and it is interested in the ordered preservation of the race. It has a double interest""

Skinner v. Oklahoma, 1942, United States Supreme Court
"[m]arriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race."

Ramon v. Ramon, 1942
"The procreation of off-spring under the natural law being the object of marriage, its permanency is the foundation of the social order."

DeBurgh v. DeBurgh, 1952, Supreme Court of California
"The family is the basic unit of our society, the center of the personal affections that ennoble and enrich human life. It channels biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive; it ensures the care and education of children in a stable environment; it establishes continuity from one generation to another; it nurtures and develops the individual initiative that distinguishes a free people. Since the family is the core of our society, the law seeks to foster and preserve marriage."

Maslow v. Maslow, 1953, California Court of Appeals, 2nd District
"One of the prime purposes of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation. Ordinary marriage relations between husband and wife are the foundation on which the perpetuation of society and civilization rests."

Frost v. Frost, 1958, New York Supreme Court
"[D]iscussing one of the primary purposes of marriage, to wit, the procreation of the human species."

Zoglio v. Zoglio, 1960, District of Columbia Court of Appeals
"One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation."

Loving v. Virginia, 1967, United States Supreme Court
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Heup v. Heup, 1969, Supreme Court of Wisconsin
"Having children is a primary purpose of marriage."

Baker v. Nelson, 1971, Minnesota Supreme Court
"The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis."

Singer v. Hara, 1974, Washington Court of Appeals
"[M]arriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race."

Poe v. Gerstein, 1975, United States Distrct Court for the Southern District of Florida
"[P]rocreation of offspring could be considered one of the major purposes of marriage."

Adams v. Howerton, 1982, United States Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
"[T]he state has a compelling interest in encouraging and fostering procreation."

Dean v. District of Columbia, 1995, District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Procreation, the "central purpose...provides the kind of rational basis....permitting limitation of marriage to heterosexual couples."

Anderson v. King County, 2006, Supreme Court of Washington
"Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to the fundamental rights of procreation, chidlbirth, abortion, and childrearing."

Conaway v. Deane, 2007, Maryland Court of Appeals
"All of the cases infer the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the link to fostering procreation to our species"Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as a basis for the conclusion the institution"s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and woman."

This my take a while for draftman to respond too. Way to back up your arguments with facts.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 9:52:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/23/2013 9:41:42 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/23/2013 9:17:26 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 1/23/2013 5:34:17 PM, drafterman wrote:
Legal marriage has never been about procreation. Otherwise we'd demand fertility tests.

Try again.

Baker v. Baker, 1859, Supreme Court of California
"[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation""

Maynard v. Hill, 1888, Supreme Court of the Territory of Washington
"[Marriage] is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress."

Sharon v. Sharon, 1889, Supreme Court of California
"The procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law" is one of the "two principal ends of marriage."

Grover v. Zook, 1906, Washington Supreme Court
"One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children""

Lyon v. Barney, 1907, Illinois Supreme Court
"[T]he procreating of the human species is regarded... as the primary purpose of marriage."

Gard v. Gard, 1918, Supreme Court of Michigan
"It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation""

Laudo v. Laudo, 1919, New York Supreme Court, Appelate Division
"The great end of matrimony is . . . the procreation of a progeny having a legal title to maintenance by the father."

Davis v. Davis, 1919, New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division
"Procreation, if not the sole, is at least an important, reason for the existence of the marriage relation."

Aufort v. Aufort, 1935, California Court of Appeals, 2nd District
"Again, the first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation"It was there said that the procreation of children is the most important end of matrimony."

Stegienko v. Stegienko, 1940, Supreme Court of Michigan
"[P]rocreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimony""

Lindquist v. Lindquist, 1941, New Jersey Superior Court
"[O]ne of the leading and most important objects of the institution of marriage under our laws is the procreation of children."

Pretlow v. Pretlow, 1941, Virginia Supreme Court
"The State is interested in maintaining the sanctity of marriage relations, and it is interested in the ordered preservation of the race. It has a double interest""

Skinner v. Oklahoma, 1942, United States Supreme Court
"[m]arriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race."

Ramon v. Ramon, 1942
"The procreation of off-spring under the natural law being the object of marriage, its permanency is the foundation of the social order."

DeBurgh v. DeBurgh, 1952, Supreme Court of California
"The family is the basic unit of our society, the center of the personal affections that ennoble and enrich human life. It channels biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive; it ensures the care and education of children in a stable environment; it establishes continuity from one generation to another; it nurtures and develops the individual initiative that distinguishes a free people. Since the family is the core of our society, the law seeks to foster and preserve marriage."

Maslow v. Maslow, 1953, California Court of Appeals, 2nd District
"One of the prime purposes of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation. Ordinary marriage relations between husband and wife are the foundation on which the perpetuation of society and civilization rests."

Frost v. Frost, 1958, New York Supreme Court
"[D]iscussing one of the primary purposes of marriage, to wit, the procreation of the human species."

Zoglio v. Zoglio, 1960, District of Columbia Court of Appeals
"One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation."

Loving v. Virginia, 1967, United States Supreme Court
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Heup v. Heup, 1969, Supreme Court of Wisconsin
"Having children is a primary purpose of marriage."

Baker v. Nelson, 1971, Minnesota Supreme Court
"The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis."

Singer v. Hara, 1974, Washington Court of Appeals
"[M]arriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race."

Poe v. Gerstein, 1975, United States Distrct Court for the Southern District of Florida
"[P]rocreation of offspring could be considered one of the major purposes of marriage."

Adams v. Howerton, 1982, United States Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
"[T]he state has a compelling interest in encouraging and fostering procreation."

Dean v. District of Columbia, 1995, District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Procreation, the "central purpose...provides the kind of rational basis....permitting limitation of marriage to heterosexual couples."

Anderson v. King County, 2006, Supreme Court of Washington
"Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to the fundamental rights of procreation, chidlbirth, abortion, and childrearing."

Conaway v. Deane, 2007, Maryland Court of Appeals
"All of the cases infer the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the link to fostering procreation to our species"Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as a basis for the conclusion the institution"s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and woman."

This my take a while for draftman to respond too. Way to back up your arguments with facts.

Even if you disagree with this particular case against gay marriage, it's erroneous to say marriage has never had legal ties with procreation.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 10:14:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/23/2013 9:17:26 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 1/23/2013 5:34:17 PM, drafterman wrote:
Legal marriage has never been about procreation. Otherwise we'd demand fertility tests.

Try again.

Baker v. Baker, 1859, Supreme Court of California
"[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation""

Maynard v. Hill, 1888, Supreme Court of the Territory of Washington
"[Marriage] is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress."

Sharon v. Sharon, 1889, Supreme Court of California
"The procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law" is one of the "two principal ends of marriage."

Grover v. Zook, 1906, Washington Supreme Court
"One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children""

Lyon v. Barney, 1907, Illinois Supreme Court
"[T]he procreating of the human species is regarded... as the primary purpose of marriage."

Gard v. Gard, 1918, Supreme Court of Michigan
"It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation""

Laudo v. Laudo, 1919, New York Supreme Court, Appelate Division
"The great end of matrimony is . . . the procreation of a progeny having a legal title to maintenance by the father."

Davis v. Davis, 1919, New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division
"Procreation, if not the sole, is at least an important, reason for the existence of the marriage relation."

Aufort v. Aufort, 1935, California Court of Appeals, 2nd District
"Again, the first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation"It was there said that the procreation of children is the most important end of matrimony."

Stegienko v. Stegienko, 1940, Supreme Court of Michigan
"[P]rocreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimony""

Lindquist v. Lindquist, 1941, New Jersey Superior Court
"[O]ne of the leading and most important objects of the institution of marriage under our laws is the procreation of children."

Pretlow v. Pretlow, 1941, Virginia Supreme Court
"The State is interested in maintaining the sanctity of marriage relations, and it is interested in the ordered preservation of the race. It has a double interest""

Skinner v. Oklahoma, 1942, United States Supreme Court
"[m]arriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race."

Ramon v. Ramon, 1942
"The procreation of off-spring under the natural law being the object of marriage, its permanency is the foundation of the social order."

DeBurgh v. DeBurgh, 1952, Supreme Court of California
"The family is the basic unit of our society, the center of the personal affections that ennoble and enrich human life. It channels biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive; it ensures the care and education of children in a stable environment; it establishes continuity from one generation to another; it nurtures and develops the individual initiative that distinguishes a free people. Since the family is the core of our society, the law seeks to foster and preserve marriage."

Maslow v. Maslow, 1953, California Court of Appeals, 2nd District
"One of the prime purposes of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation. Ordinary marriage relations between husband and wife are the foundation on which the perpetuation of society and civilization rests."

Frost v. Frost, 1958, New York Supreme Court
"[D]iscussing one of the primary purposes of marriage, to wit, the procreation of the human species."

Zoglio v. Zoglio, 1960, District of Columbia Court of Appeals
"One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation."

Loving v. Virginia, 1967, United States Supreme Court
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Heup v. Heup, 1969, Supreme Court of Wisconsin
"Having children is a primary purpose of marriage."

Baker v. Nelson, 1971, Minnesota Supreme Court
"The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis."

Singer v. Hara, 1974, Washington Court of Appeals
"[M]arriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race."

Poe v. Gerstein, 1975, United States Distrct Court for the Southern District of Florida
"[P]rocreation of offspring could be considered one of the major purposes of marriage."

Adams v. Howerton, 1982, United States Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
"[T]he state has a compelling interest in encouraging and fostering procreation."

Dean v. District of Columbia, 1995, District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Procreation, the "central purpose...provides the kind of rational basis....permitting limitation of marriage to heterosexual couples."

Anderson v. King County, 2006, Supreme Court of Washington
"Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to the fundamental rights of procreation, chidlbirth, abortion, and childrearing."

Conaway v. Deane, 2007, Maryland Court of Appeals
"All of the cases infer the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the link to fostering procreation to our species"Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as a basis for the conclusion the institution"s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and woman."

The point isn't that legal marriage had absolutely nill to do with procreation- that simply isn't true. However, those opposed to gay marriage often interpret that as "since the government has some stake in procreation, it should be the only thing that is considered." That is plainly false. Procreation is a factor, but it is most definitely not the largest factor and CERTAINLY not something to base an entire argument on.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 10:59:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/23/2013 10:14:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/23/2013 9:17:26 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 1/23/2013 5:34:17 PM, drafterman wrote:
Legal marriage has never been about procreation. Otherwise we'd demand fertility tests.

Try again.

Baker v. Baker, 1859, Supreme Court of California
"[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation""

Maynard v. Hill, 1888, Supreme Court of the Territory of Washington
"[Marriage] is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress."

Sharon v. Sharon, 1889, Supreme Court of California
"The procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law" is one of the "two principal ends of marriage."

Grover v. Zook, 1906, Washington Supreme Court
"One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children""

Lyon v. Barney, 1907, Illinois Supreme Court
"[T]he procreating of the human species is regarded... as the primary purpose of marriage."

Gard v. Gard, 1918, Supreme Court of Michigan
"It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation""

Laudo v. Laudo, 1919, New York Supreme Court, Appelate Division
"The great end of matrimony is . . . the procreation of a progeny having a legal title to maintenance by the father."

Davis v. Davis, 1919, New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division
"Procreation, if not the sole, is at least an important, reason for the existence of the marriage relation."

Aufort v. Aufort, 1935, California Court of Appeals, 2nd District
"Again, the first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation"It was there said that the procreation of children is the most important end of matrimony."

Stegienko v. Stegienko, 1940, Supreme Court of Michigan
"[P]rocreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimony""

Lindquist v. Lindquist, 1941, New Jersey Superior Court
"[O]ne of the leading and most important objects of the institution of marriage under our laws is the procreation of children."

Pretlow v. Pretlow, 1941, Virginia Supreme Court
"The State is interested in maintaining the sanctity of marriage relations, and it is interested in the ordered preservation of the race. It has a double interest""

Skinner v. Oklahoma, 1942, United States Supreme Court
"[m]arriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race."

Ramon v. Ramon, 1942
"The procreation of off-spring under the natural law being the object of marriage, its permanency is the foundation of the social order."

DeBurgh v. DeBurgh, 1952, Supreme Court of California
"The family is the basic unit of our society, the center of the personal affections that ennoble and enrich human life. It channels biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive; it ensures the care and education of children in a stable environment; it establishes continuity from one generation to another; it nurtures and develops the individual initiative that distinguishes a free people. Since the family is the core of our society, the law seeks to foster and preserve marriage."

Maslow v. Maslow, 1953, California Court of Appeals, 2nd District
"One of the prime purposes of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation. Ordinary marriage relations between husband and wife are the foundation on which the perpetuation of society and civilization rests."

Frost v. Frost, 1958, New York Supreme Court
"[D]iscussing one of the primary purposes of marriage, to wit, the procreation of the human species."

Zoglio v. Zoglio, 1960, District of Columbia Court of Appeals
"One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation."

Loving v. Virginia, 1967, United States Supreme Court
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Heup v. Heup, 1969, Supreme Court of Wisconsin
"Having children is a primary purpose of marriage."

Baker v. Nelson, 1971, Minnesota Supreme Court
"The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis."

Singer v. Hara, 1974, Washington Court of Appeals
"[M]arriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race."

Poe v. Gerstein, 1975, United States Distrct Court for the Southern District of Florida
"[P]rocreation of offspring could be considered one of the major purposes of marriage."

Adams v. Howerton, 1982, United States Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
"[T]he state has a compelling interest in encouraging and fostering procreation."

Dean v. District of Columbia, 1995, District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Procreation, the "central purpose...provides the kind of rational basis....permitting limitation of marriage to heterosexual couples."

Anderson v. King County, 2006, Supreme Court of Washington
"Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to the fundamental rights of procreation, chidlbirth, abortion, and childrearing."

Conaway v. Deane, 2007, Maryland Court of Appeals
"All of the cases infer the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the link to fostering procreation to our species"Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as a basis for the conclusion the institution"s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and woman."

The point isn't that legal marriage had absolutely nill to do with procreation- that simply isn't true.

Glad we agree on this; this is what I was rebutting.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 11:31:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/23/2013 5:34:17 PM, drafterman wrote:
Legal marriage has never been about procreation. Otherwise we'd demand fertility tests.

Try again.

This is one of the two key elements of the argument, and unfortunately some buy into.

First they have to force a separation of marriage and God. They turn it into a legal contract rather than a sacred institution created and blessed by God. Nobody even talks about "legal" marriages, except those arguing for gay marriage.

Secondly, they try and separate "legal" marriage from procreation. Since it's just a legal contract, procreation isn't part of marriage and family, is it?? Sounds kinda silly when you think about it. Up until the last couple decades, marriage, procreation, and God have all been intertwined.

Bottom line is that the government has a vested interest in supporting the only relationship that can supply well rounded future citizens, that is a stable marriage between a man and a woman.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2013 11:36:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/23/2013 5:31:50 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
As a result, I think is is entirely possible, even likely, that support for gay marriage, may have peaked, and that ten years from now, we will live in a country where a solid majority, oppose gay marriage. As a recent convert to the against gay marriage side, I certainly hope so.

Procreation is just one of the reasons. Tax is another one (save you a lot of money). Besides, historical discriminations towards gay/lesbian warrant the interventions of the states. Moreover, we have more than enough people to ensure the survival of human specie.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 8:13:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/23/2013 5:31:50 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
We have all heard of people evolving on gay marriage, for many, this means, people who were against it, are now for it. I am an example of how this "evolving". can go both ways. In the past, I have supported gay marriage, I figured "what is the harm". As a strong supporter of separation of Church and State, I also disregarded the religious arguments, as it pertains to government policy. Additionally I felt that some of the arguments against gay marriage were silly (ex. people will end up marrying their dogs). However, since I have been reading the opinions and debates on this web site, my opinion has evolved. While I read and considered many arguments, both pro and con, I was particularly swayed by screen name "Contradictions" debate arguments against gay marriage (Debate topic: Gay marriage should be legal, in all the US"). Contradictions argument that the only reason that a State has an interest in relationships is "when they affect the common good in structured ways that justify or warrant legal regulation." is very convincing. Procreation is a legitimate reason to afford such legal recognition An emotional bond, while nice, is not a reason for the States interest, if it was, then as Contradiction argues there would be legal recognition of just friendships. And while pro gay marriage advocates, will argue that lots of marriages do not result in procreation, there is no doubt that homosexual relationships can not procreate. As I read his arguments as well as others both Pro and Con, I found my own position evolving from a supporter of gay marriage, to a strong opponent. It has also occurred to me that others will evolve against it, as I have. I think this is especially true of people in their teens, and twenties, who as they get older, get married, and start families, will revert to the view that the definition of marriage should remain between a man and a women. In turn, their children, will be raised with that same view. As a result, I think is is entirely possible, even likely, that support for gay marriage, may have peaked, and that ten years from now, we will live in a country where a solid majority, oppose gay marriage. As a recent convert to the against gay marriage side, I certainly hope so.

Marriage is about the sexual act not the result. Whether or not spouses choose to have children is irrelevant.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 8:19:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I wasn't aware that we exist for the good of the state. I was under the impression that statists argued the opposite and that the state is our servant.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 8:21:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, even if we do exist for the good of the state, doesn't the state have an interest in keeping it's population happy and healthy? The massive stigma against homosexuals is pretty destructive, and legalizing gay marriage would definitely lead to acceptance and tolerance and make homosexual people happier.

Also, you can't ban something simply because it doesn't have a positive effect. If that were the case, chewing gum would have to be banned. The state needs to have a compelling reason to curtail liberty, and not a compelling reason to not curtail it.

Basically these arguments that Contradiction is advancing should appeal to fascists, but not anybody else.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 8:23:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Even if procreation is a reason for the institution of marriage, that doesn't rule out other reasons for the institution of marriage: love, commitment, financial stability, political expression, trust etc etc.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 8:28:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/23/2013 5:31:50 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
I think is is entirely possible, even likely, that support for gay marriage, may have peaked, and that ten years from now, we will live in a country where a solid majority, oppose gay marriage. As a recent convert to the against gay marriage side, I certainly hope so.

Here's hoping homophobia (even when dressed up in philosophical bullsh*t the way Contradiction did) instead follows the way of sexism and racism.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 8:35:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal, damn, you nuk'd 'em! ;) Way to go.

At 1/24/2013 8:23:00 AM, Kinesis wrote:
Even if procreation is a reason for the institution of marriage, that doesn't rule out other reasons for the institution of marriage: love, commitment, financial stability, political expression, trust etc etc.

Except for political expression, none of those things apply to homosexuality.

At 1/23/2013 11:36:26 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 1/23/2013 5:31:50 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
As a result, I think is is entirely possible, even likely, that support for gay marriage, may have peaked, and that ten years from now, we will live in a country where a solid majority, oppose gay marriage. As a recent convert to the against gay marriage side, I certainly hope so.

Procreation is just one of the reasons. Tax is another one (save you a lot of money). Besides, historical discriminations towards gay/lesbian warrant the interventions of the states. Moreover, we have more than enough people to ensure the survival of human specie.

Historical discrimination towards gays/lesbians doesn't warrant intervention anymore than discrimination against other mentally ill people does.

The survival of the the human specie isn't the goal here. It's the survival of people's well-being; something that active homosexuals don't have.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 8:35:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/24/2013 8:28:05 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 1/23/2013 5:31:50 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
I think is is entirely possible, even likely, that support for gay marriage, may have peaked, and that ten years from now, we will live in a country where a solid majority, oppose gay marriage. As a recent convert to the against gay marriage side, I certainly hope so.

Here's hoping homophobia (even when dressed up in philosophical bullsh*t the way Contradiction did) instead follows the way of sexism and racism.

Contradiction's arguments are based on a few hidden fascist premises. To take out his arguments, you just have to link-turn them based on those premises.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 8:39:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
LOL, Nur-Ab-Sal didn't use any fantastic argument. What the Supreme Court says really doesn't matter. Here's another decision the SC made:

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), also known as the Dred Scott Decision, was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. It held that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the territories, and that people of African descent (both slave and free) were not protected by the Constitution and were not U.S. citizens

What matter is whether or not the government has the right to make these decisions in the first place, and it clearly doesn't unless we are slaves of the state.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 8:40:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/24/2013 8:39:12 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
LOL, Nur-Ab-Sal didn't use any fantastic argument. What the Supreme Court says really doesn't matter. Here's another decision the SC made:

I actually think that was a pretty good argument against marriage never having been about procreation.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 8:46:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/24/2013 8:40:42 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 1/24/2013 8:39:12 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
LOL, Nur-Ab-Sal didn't use any fantastic argument. What the Supreme Court says really doesn't matter. Here's another decision the SC made:

I actually think that was a pretty good argument against marriage never having been about procreation.

It was the best possible argument that could be posted, pretty much.
royalpaladin, what the Supreme Court says DOES MATTER, in the context of the argument. Go back and read what Nur-Ab-Sal was responding to.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 8:51:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/24/2013 8:39:12 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
LOL, Nur-Ab-Sal didn't use any fantastic argument. What the Supreme Court says really doesn't matter. Here's another decision the SC made:

It's a really great thing I wasn't arguing against gay marriage. I was arguing against drafterman's assertion that marriage has never had a legal connection with procreation.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 9:04:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/24/2013 9:03:05 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Where is this debate by Contradiction, that I may read it?

Many of Contradiction's debates concern the legality of gay marriage.

http://debate.org...
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 9:50:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/24/2013 8:35:09 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/24/2013 8:23:00 AM, Kinesis wrote:
Even if procreation is a reason for the institution of marriage, that doesn't rule out other reasons for the institution of marriage: love, commitment, financial stability, political expression, trust etc etc.

Except for political expression, none of those things apply to homosexuality.

In what sense? Homosexual couples can certainly get married because they love each other, because they're committed romantically to one another, because they value the financial stability that marriage brings and so on.