Total Posts:101|Showing Posts:31-60|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolving on gay marriage can go both ways

Danielle
Posts: 26,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 10:35:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2013 9:03:05 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Where is this debate by Contradiction, that I may read it?

Contradiction is a little b!tch. I've begged him to debate me on gay marriage and he made excuses every time, promising he would in X amount of months... then he needed more months... then he needed more, and finally he left. His arguments are 100% crap. They're void of intellectual credibility. Are people really still arguing the gay marriage bit? *rolls eyes*
lannan13
Posts: 24,704
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 10:41:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2013 10:35:58 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 1/24/2013 9:03:05 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Where is this debate by Contradiction, that I may read it?

Contradiction is a little b!tch. I've begged him to debate me on gay marriage and he made excuses every time, promising he would in X amount of months... then he needed more months... then he needed more, and finally he left. His arguments are 100% crap. They're void of intellectual credibility. Are people really still arguing the gay marriage bit? *rolls eyes*

Whoa language! What was his stance on Gay Marriage. *Walks over to the door. Opens as a blinding light comes out. Walks in and closes the door.*
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

"Sometimes it is hell, trying to get to heaven."- Undertaker

Keep a Positive Mental Attitude!

DDO Hall of Famer
Danielle
Posts: 26,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 11:47:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
To everyone who brings up Contradiction and his STUPID arguments against gay marriage time and time again, here is the dismantling of his terrible, terrible case against legal marriage - once and for all:

http://debate.org...
teddy2013
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 6:36:14 PM
Posted: 6 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.

Just because someone opposes gay marriage, does not make them homophobic. I agree with you that gays could benefit from the financial stability of marriage, and that marriage does show love and emotional commitment. However, this is true of many relationships, sometimes best friends of the same sex may have a stronger emotional bond then they have with their spouses, or perhaps two same sex co-workers, are closer to each other then too their spouses. While these emotional bonds are nice, there is no compelling interest in the State recognizing these relationships in law. Where the line crosses to where the State does have an interest, is when procreation, or at least the possibility of procreation exists. And while not every heterosexual marriage will result in procreation, at least it is biologically possible. I also realize that due to infertility, or age, some heterosexual relationships can not procreate, however it is not practical to limit marriage among heterosexuals. I think that drawing the line on marriage, to include only opposite sex couples, is the appropriate place for the State to be.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 6:51:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Half of these aren't even statements of law. I don't deny that, socially, a primary purpose of marriage is to establish a family. Only a scant few directly tie legal marriage to procreation.

Further analysis would have to depend on what these cases were able. Simply because someone sits on a bench doesn't make every word they speak an official legal statement.

But, you needn't scour the internet for ready made quote lists you can cut and paste. Proving me wrong is simple:

Show me a single heterosexual marriage denied by the state on the grounds that the marriage could not produce children.

A single one. That's it and I'll shut my trap on this issue forever.

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."
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 6:54:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/23/2013 11:31:19 PM, medic0506 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 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.

Because that is what the issue is. No one is denying or arguing against marriages recognized by non-government entities. You can go still have your backwards ceremonies reading from dusty mythological books if you want. No one is taking that away from you, or suggesting it has to change. The issue has only ever been about the government's involvement in what is a legal government status.


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.

Yeah, And, up until the last couple of decades, we had to deal with polio. That's what we call progress.


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.

LOL. You're funny.
imabench
Posts: 20,541
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 7:27:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2013 8:35:09 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:

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.

So you honestly believe that we shouldnt legalize gay marriage because you think gay people make straight people ill?
DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

12/14/14 to 1/1/15 = VP of DDO
8/4/18 to 8/6/18 = Start of the Worst Spam Attack in DDO History (61 Hours, 21 Minutes, and 37 seconds... Estimated 63,175 Spam Posts during the main attack)

Be Today's Hero and Tomorrow's Hero
The trash from yesterday will still be trash from every day onwards
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 7:43:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2013 9:50:04 AM, Kinesis wrote:
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.

See, that right there is reason enough to ban gay marriage. Why should they get to marry because of love when no one else gets to.

Also, being in the gayest state in the union, marriage-wise, I can report that babies are still poppin' out of our ladies' vaginas at an acceptable rate such that the human race will stumble on.

All's quiet on the western c*nt.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 7:52:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2013 8:21:22 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
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.

Yes. But by legalizing gay marriage, states would necessarily antagonize the groups who are historically against gay marriage. Would there be a net gain in "happiness?" It is doubtful.

Agree. Yet states have strong interests in banning something that have a negative effect (drugs for example).

According to some, chewing gum has at least one positive effect: "Chewing Gum Is Good for Your Teeth."
http://www.mynewsmile.com...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 8:31:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2013 7:52:50 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 1/24/2013 8:21:22 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
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.

Yes. But by legalizing gay marriage, states would necessarily antagonize the groups who are historically against gay marriage. Would there be a net gain in "happiness?" It is doubtful.

Agree. Yet states have strong interests in banning something that have a negative effect (drugs for example).

According to some, chewing gum has at least one positive effect: "Chewing Gum Is Good for Your Teeth."
http://www.mynewsmile.com...

I feel the same way about school integration.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 8:35:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2013 8:31:51 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/24/2013 7:52:50 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 1/24/2013 8:21:22 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
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.

Yes. But by legalizing gay marriage, states would necessarily antagonize the groups who are historically against gay marriage. Would there be a net gain in "happiness?" It is doubtful.

Agree. Yet states have strong interests in banning something that have a negative effect (drugs for example).

According to some, chewing gum has at least one positive effect: "Chewing Gum Is Good for Your Teeth."
http://www.mynewsmile.com...

I feel the same way about school integration.

The integration was justified on the ground of equality/inequality, not entirely on the sum of happiness.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 8:48:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/23/2013 9:26:50 PM, Korashk wrote:
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.

^^^
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 8:50:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2013 6:51:46 PM, drafterman wrote:
Half of these aren't even statements of law. I don't deny that, socially, a primary purpose of marriage is to establish a family. Only a scant few directly tie legal marriage to procreation.

Further analysis would have to depend on what these cases were able. Simply because someone sits on a bench doesn't make every word they speak an official legal statement.

But, you needn't scour the internet for ready made quote lists you can cut and paste. Proving me wrong is simple:

Show me a single heterosexual marriage denied by the state on the grounds that the marriage could not produce children.

A single one. That's it and I'll shut my trap on this issue forever.

Oh. What's that? Can't find a ready-made insta-response someone else prepared for you on the internet to address this very simple task?

Didn't think so.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 9:29:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2013 8:50:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/24/2013 6:51:46 PM, drafterman wrote:
Half of these aren't even statements of law. I don't deny that, socially, a primary purpose of marriage is to establish a family. Only a scant few directly tie legal marriage to procreation.

All of these are statements of law. All of them, in fact, tie marriage and procreation together in some way, and a great majority (if not, at least more than a "scant few") mention the word "procreation." Look through the list again. Your statement that marriage has never been about procreation is simply wrong.

Further analysis would have to depend on what these cases were able. Simply because someone sits on a bench doesn't make every word they speak an official legal statement.

Sure, not every word spoken by a juror is a legal statement. These were not, however, quotes from jurors. These were all taken from court cases.

But, you needn't scour the internet for ready made quote lists you can cut and paste. Proving me wrong is simple:

Show me a single heterosexual marriage denied by the state on the grounds that the marriage could not produce children.

A single one. That's it and I'll shut my trap on this issue forever.

That's simply not logically equivalent to the initial burden. You stated that marriage has never been tied with procreation. I provided a list where they were, and you've even conceded this by stating that there are a "scant few" that mention procreation, even though there's obviously quite a bit more.

Oh. What's that? Can't find a ready-made insta-response someone else prepared for you on the internet to address this very simple task?

Didn't think so.

I was taking a nap. Considering that your response was almost a day after mine, you needn't be using the time-gap between this one and your's around as evidence I can't answer a question.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
teddy2013
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 9:43:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2013 9:29:51 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 1/24/2013 8:50:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/24/2013 6:51:46 PM, drafterman wrote:
Half of these aren't even statements of law. I don't deny that, socially, a primary purpose of marriage is to establish a family. Only a scant few directly tie legal marriage to procreation.

All of these are statements of law. All of them, in fact, tie marriage and procreation together in some way, and a great majority (if not, at least more than a "scant few") mention the word "procreation." Look through the list again. Your statement that marriage has never been about procreation is simply wrong.

Further analysis would have to depend on what these cases were able. Simply because someone sits on a bench doesn't make every word they speak an official legal statement.

Sure, not every word spoken by a juror is a legal statement. These were not, however, quotes from jurors. These were all taken from court cases.

But, you needn't scour the internet for ready made quote lists you can cut and paste. Proving me wrong is simple:

Show me a single heterosexual marriage denied by the state on the grounds that the marriage could not produce children.

A single one. That's it and I'll shut my trap on this issue forever.

That's simply not logically equivalent to the initial burden. You stated that marriage has never been tied with procreation. I provided a list where they were, and you've even conceded this by stating that there are a "scant few" that mention procreation, even though there's obviously quite a bit more.

Oh. What's that? Can't find a ready-made insta-response someone else prepared for you on the internet to address this very simple task?

Didn't think so.

I was taking a nap. Considering that your response was almost a day after mine, you needn't be using the time-gap between this one and your's around as evidence I can't answer a question.

Your nap must have been invigorating, you came out fighting You also have evidence and logic on your side
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 9:55:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2013 9:43:31 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/24/2013 9:29:51 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 1/24/2013 8:50:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/24/2013 6:51:46 PM, drafterman wrote:
Half of these aren't even statements of law. I don't deny that, socially, a primary purpose of marriage is to establish a family. Only a scant few directly tie legal marriage to procreation.

All of these are statements of law. All of them, in fact, tie marriage and procreation together in some way, and a great majority (if not, at least more than a "scant few") mention the word "procreation." Look through the list again. Your statement that marriage has never been about procreation is simply wrong.

Further analysis would have to depend on what these cases were able. Simply because someone sits on a bench doesn't make every word they speak an official legal statement.

Sure, not every word spoken by a juror is a legal statement. These were not, however, quotes from jurors. These were all taken from court cases.

But, you needn't scour the internet for ready made quote lists you can cut and paste. Proving me wrong is simple:

Show me a single heterosexual marriage denied by the state on the grounds that the marriage could not produce children.

A single one. That's it and I'll shut my trap on this issue forever.

That's simply not logically equivalent to the initial burden. You stated that marriage has never been tied with procreation. I provided a list where they were, and you've even conceded this by stating that there are a "scant few" that mention procreation, even though there's obviously quite a bit more.

Oh. What's that? Can't find a ready-made insta-response someone else prepared for you on the internet to address this very simple task?

Didn't think so.

I was taking a nap. Considering that your response was almost a day after mine, you needn't be using the time-gap between this one and your's around as evidence I can't answer a question.

Your nap must have been invigorating, you came out fighting You also have evidence and logic on your side

Thank you, I guess?
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
teddy2013
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 10:04:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2013 9:55:06 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 1/24/2013 9:43:31 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/24/2013 9:29:51 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 1/24/2013 8:50:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/24/2013 6:51:46 PM, drafterman wrote:
Half of these aren't even statements of law. I don't deny that, socially, a primary purpose of marriage is to establish a family. Only a scant few directly tie legal marriage to procreation.

All of these are statements of law. All of them, in fact, tie marriage and procreation together in some way, and a great majority (if not, at least more than a "scant few") mention the word "procreation." Look through the list again. Your statement that marriage has never been about procreation is simply wrong.

Further analysis would have to depend on what these cases were able. Simply because someone sits on a bench doesn't make every word they speak an official legal statement.

Sure, not every word spoken by a juror is a legal statement. These were not, however, quotes from jurors. These were all taken from court cases.

But, you needn't scour the internet for ready made quote lists you can cut and paste. Proving me wrong is simple:

Show me a single heterosexual marriage denied by the state on the grounds that the marriage could not produce children.

A single one. That's it and I'll shut my trap on this issue forever.

That's simply not logically equivalent to the initial burden. You stated that marriage has never been tied with procreation. I provided a list where they were, and you've even conceded this by stating that there are a "scant few" that mention procreation, even though there's obviously quite a bit more.

Oh. What's that? Can't find a ready-made insta-response someone else prepared for you on the internet to address this very simple task?

Didn't think so.

I was taking a nap. Considering that your response was almost a day after mine, you needn't be using the time-gap between this one and your's around as evidence I can't answer a question.

Your nap must have been invigorating, you came out fighting You also have evidence and logic on your side

Thank you, I guess?

I meant it as a compliment.
Nidhogg
Posts: 503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 10:04:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2013 8:50:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/24/2013 6:51:46 PM, drafterman wrote:
Half of these aren't even statements of law. I don't deny that, socially, a primary purpose of marriage is to establish a family. Only a scant few directly tie legal marriage to procreation.

Further analysis would have to depend on what these cases were able. Simply because someone sits on a bench doesn't make every word they speak an official legal statement.

But, you needn't scour the internet for ready made quote lists you can cut and paste. Proving me wrong is simple:

Show me a single heterosexual marriage denied by the state on the grounds that the marriage could not produce children.

A single one. That's it and I'll shut my trap on this issue forever.

Oh. What's that? Can't find a ready-made insta-response someone else prepared for you on the internet to address this very simple task?

Didn't think so.

That's a bit of a dick move drafterman. Even if someone else did compile that list. (And I don't think they did) You have no right to suspect his debating quality over this one event. You of all people on this website should respect other debaters and not deny their well-sourced lists on the grounds of being "ready made". It's the f*cking Internet, just about everything's on here, and there isn't any shame in using it to support a topic you feel strongly about?

So, here's a challenge: Find a list of court cases that define marriage as being non-reproductively based instead of complaining about Nur's extensive list that shows the opposite.

NOTE: I won't share my opinion on gay marriage here, as I'd prefer not to participate in this argument.
Ridiculously Photogenic Debater

DDO's most mediocre member since at least a year ago
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 10:46:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2013 8:35:20 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 1/24/2013 8:31:51 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/24/2013 7:52:50 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 1/24/2013 8:21:22 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
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.

Yes. But by legalizing gay marriage, states would necessarily antagonize the groups who are historically against gay marriage. Would there be a net gain in "happiness?" It is doubtful.

Agree. Yet states have strong interests in banning something that have a negative effect (drugs for example).

According to some, chewing gum has at least one positive effect: "Chewing Gum Is Good for Your Teeth."
http://www.mynewsmile.com...

I feel the same way about school integration.

The integration was justified on the ground of equality/inequality, not entirely on the sum of happiness.

Happiness comes from self-esteem. Self-esteem comes from a feeling of equality or superiority. The unhappiness one feels from being made to feel less than equal is greater than the unhappiness one feels when they are made equal with someone after being superior to them.

Also, any unhappiness is strictly finite and only occurs during the generation of transition.

Your conclusion was both intellectually dishonest and only designed to continue a system of genetic classism.

or, it was satire. I wasn't paying enough attention.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 11:19:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2013 9:43:31 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/24/2013 9:29:51 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 1/24/2013 8:50:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/24/2013 6:51:46 PM, drafterman wrote:
Half of these aren't even statements of law. I don't deny that, socially, a primary purpose of marriage is to establish a family. Only a scant few directly tie legal marriage to procreation.

All of these are statements of law. All of them, in fact, tie marriage and procreation together in some way, and a great majority (if not, at least more than a "scant few") mention the word "procreation." Look through the list again. Your statement that marriage has never been about procreation is simply wrong.

Further analysis would have to depend on what these cases were able. Simply because someone sits on a bench doesn't make every word they speak an official legal statement.

Sure, not every word spoken by a juror is a legal statement. These were not, however, quotes from jurors. These were all taken from court cases.

But, you needn't scour the internet for ready made quote lists you can cut and paste. Proving me wrong is simple:

Show me a single heterosexual marriage denied by the state on the grounds that the marriage could not produce children.

A single one. That's it and I'll shut my trap on this issue forever.

That's simply not logically equivalent to the initial burden. You stated that marriage has never been tied with procreation. I provided a list where they were, and you've even conceded this by stating that there are a "scant few" that mention procreation, even though there's obviously quite a bit more.

Oh. What's that? Can't find a ready-made insta-response someone else prepared for you on the internet to address this very simple task?

Didn't think so.

I was taking a nap. Considering that your response was almost a day after mine, you needn't be using the time-gap between this one and your's around as evidence I can't answer a question.

Your nap must have been invigorating, you came out fighting You also have evidence and logic on your side

LOL, nice.

At 1/24/2013 7:27:11 PM, imabench wrote:
At 1/24/2013 8:35:09 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:

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.

So you honestly believe that we shouldnt legalize gay marriage because you think gay people make straight people ill?

Yea.

At 1/24/2013 10:04:21 PM, Nidhogg wrote:
At 1/24/2013 8:50:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/24/2013 6:51:46 PM, drafterman wrote:
Half of these aren't even statements of law. I don't deny that, socially, a primary purpose of marriage is to establish a family. Only a scant few directly tie legal marriage to procreation.

Further analysis would have to depend on what these cases were able. Simply because someone sits on a bench doesn't make every word they speak an official legal statement.

But, you needn't scour the internet for ready made quote lists you can cut and paste. Proving me wrong is simple:

Show me a single heterosexual marriage denied by the state on the grounds that the marriage could not produce children.

A single one. That's it and I'll shut my trap on this issue forever.

Oh. What's that? Can't find a ready-made insta-response someone else prepared for you on the internet to address this very simple task?

Didn't think so.

That's a bit of a dick move drafterman. Even if someone else did compile that list. (And I don't think they did) You have no right to suspect his debating quality over this one event. You of all people on this website should respect other debaters and not deny their well-sourced lists on the grounds of being "ready made". It's the f*cking Internet, just about everything's on here, and there isn't any shame in using it to support a topic you feel strongly about?

So, here's a challenge: Find a list of court cases that define marriage as being non-reproductively based instead of complaining about Nur's extensive list that shows the opposite.

NOTE: I won't share my opinion on gay marriage here, as I'd prefer not to participate in this argument.

Your opinion on gay marriage is that you support gay marriage.

It says so on your profile under the Big Issues.

SAY WHAT

P
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Nidhogg
Posts: 503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 11:26:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Screw you garret, I didn't think people would go stalk my profile to find my views
Ridiculously Photogenic Debater

DDO's most mediocre member since at least a year ago
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 11:32:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2013 7:52:50 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 1/24/2013 8:21:22 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
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.

Yes. But by legalizing gay marriage, states would necessarily antagonize the groups who are historically against gay marriage. Would there be a net gain in "happiness?" It is doubtful.

Well, considering that the majority of Americans are in favor of legalizing gay marriage according to polls, I do think there would be a net gain in happiness. Plus, I don't think that the degree of unhappiness would be the same even if this were not the case. The homosexuals would be much happier gaining marriage rights than the idiots would be in not being able to control who gets married to whom.

Moreover, utility isn't a reason to curtail liberty. Ending slavery antagonized slave owners. That doesn't mean that it should not have been ended.
Agree. Yet states have strong interests in banning something that have a negative effect (drugs for example).

States aren't supposed to have interests except to be the servants of the people. We are not tools of the states. States are not moral agents with rational capacities. They are tools we use to protect our rights according to most statists.

You need to show a compelling reason to negate liberty, and there simply isn't one in this case.
According to some, chewing gum has at least one positive effect: "Chewing Gum Is Good for Your Teeth."
http://www.mynewsmile.com...
Ok, how about the activity of making paper airplanes?
OberHerr
Posts: 12,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 12:19:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
So......on a completely related note, does anyone want a bagel? I've got blueberry, plain, and whole wheat, with butter, cream cheese, and some strawberry jam.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
imabench
Posts: 20,541
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 12:21:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/25/2013 12:19:33 AM, OberHerr wrote:
So......on a completely related note, does anyone want a bagel? I've got blueberry, plain, and whole wheat, with butter, cream cheese, and some strawberry jam.

I masturbated with a bagel since my dominant hand is out of commission....
DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

12/14/14 to 1/1/15 = VP of DDO
8/4/18 to 8/6/18 = Start of the Worst Spam Attack in DDO History (61 Hours, 21 Minutes, and 37 seconds... Estimated 63,175 Spam Posts during the main attack)

Be Today's Hero and Tomorrow's Hero
The trash from yesterday will still be trash from every day onwards
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 12:50:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2013 10:35:58 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 1/24/2013 9:03:05 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Where is this debate by Contradiction, that I may read it?

Contradiction is a little b!tch. I've begged him to debate me on gay marriage and he made excuses every time, promising he would in X amount of months... then he needed more months... then he needed more, and finally he left. His arguments are 100% crap. They're void of intellectual credibility. Are people really still arguing the gay marriage bit? *rolls eyes*


You apparently aren't worth his time. Besides, he would own you.

Has he even lost a debate?
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 1:19:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/25/2013 12:50:39 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 1/24/2013 10:35:58 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 1/24/2013 9:03:05 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Where is this debate by Contradiction, that I may read it?

Contradiction is a little b!tch. I've begged him to debate me on gay marriage and he made excuses every time, promising he would in X amount of months... then he needed more months... then he needed more, and finally he left. His arguments are 100% crap. They're void of intellectual credibility. Are people really still arguing the gay marriage bit? *rolls eyes*


You apparently aren't worth his time. Besides, he would own you.

Has he even lost a debate?

Once.
'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
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 9:00:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2013 10:04:21 PM, Nidhogg wrote:
At 1/24/2013 8:50:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/24/2013 6:51:46 PM, drafterman wrote:
Half of these aren't even statements of law. I don't deny that, socially, a primary purpose of marriage is to establish a family. Only a scant few directly tie legal marriage to procreation.

Further analysis would have to depend on what these cases were able. Simply because someone sits on a bench doesn't make every word they speak an official legal statement.

But, you needn't scour the internet for ready made quote lists you can cut and paste. Proving me wrong is simple:

Show me a single heterosexual marriage denied by the state on the grounds that the marriage could not produce children.

A single one. That's it and I'll shut my trap on this issue forever.

Oh. What's that? Can't find a ready-made insta-response someone else prepared for you on the internet to address this very simple task?

Didn't think so.

That's a bit of a dick move drafterman. Even if someone else did compile that list. (And I don't think they did) You have no right to suspect his debating quality over this one event. You of all people on this website should respect other debaters and not deny their well-sourced lists on the grounds of being "ready made". It's the f*cking Internet, just about everything's on here, and there isn't any shame in using it to support a topic you feel strongly about?

Actually, no, I shouldn't respect his well-source list. Why? Because it isn't well-source and almost certainly was ready made. Know how I know? Because just about any search on those quotes simply pulls up that list of quotes! The internet is litter with the quote list, rather than the source material. Which is a red flag, IMO.

If I can't find the source material with which to do an independent analysis, to determine who actually said the quotes, in what context (as well as the context of the debates), then they aren't "well-sourced."


So, here's a challenge: Find a list of court cases that define marriage as being non-reproductively based instead of complaining about Nur's extensive list that shows the opposite.

That's like asking me to find a court case that defines marriage as not being about ritual suicide. They don't exist. Courts don't define marriage, the legislature does. Furthermore, it's defined by restriction. That is, you can get married unless you meet a set of restrictions (age, relatedness, etc.) Since the inability to procreate is not one of those restrictions, and since no court has ever denied a heterosexual couple a marriage license on the basis of inability to procreate, we can only conclude that it isn't a factor here, as far as the state is concerned.


NOTE: I won't share my opinion on gay marriage here, as I'd prefer not to participate in this argument.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 12:45:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/24/2013 10:35:58 AM, Danielle wrote:
Contradiction is a little b!tch.

At 1/24/2013 11:47:56 AM, Danielle wrote:
To everyone who brings up Contradiction and his STUPID arguments against gay marriage

I suspected someone could only hate Contradiction as much as you do because they have a deep emotional investment in the gay marriage debate.

Apparently, I was right. Your sexual interest is not public on your profile, so you must be bisexual or homosexual.

Oh man I'm Sherlock Holmes v2.0.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.