Total Posts:101|Showing Posts:91-101|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolving on gay marriage can go both ways

GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 3:20:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/26/2013 10:29:42 AM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/26/2013 9:57:44 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 1/26/2013 9:46:15 AM, drafterman wrote:
Listen, i know that my point is ultimately untenable. It is simply too universal and absolute to work. But, unless the state actually acts according to those principles in your quotes, they are hollow and dont hold any weight.

I don't think that marriage's base in procreation means that every couple who gets married must act on that procreative base. I see marriage as an institution that promotes human nature, which involves in theory the act of procreation. Infertile couples still promote this view of human nature -- the union of a man and a woman which in type could bear children. To me, marriage just makes the most sense viewed this way.

Well said. The argument on procreation, is simply the strongest argument, available to traditional marriage advocates, but it extends beyond that, as you stated. And while not every heterosexual marriage will result in procreation, at least it is biologically possible in theory. 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

And remember, people who have been declared infertile have given birth, just like people who have been declared 'too old' have given birth.

As far as I know, no gay couple has ever given birth.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
teddy2013
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 3:51:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/26/2013 3:20:19 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/26/2013 10:29:42 AM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/26/2013 9:57:44 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 1/26/2013 9:46:15 AM, drafterman wrote:
Listen, i know that my point is ultimately untenable. It is simply too universal and absolute to work. But, unless the state actually acts according to those principles in your quotes, they are hollow and dont hold any weight.

I don't think that marriage's base in procreation means that every couple who gets married must act on that procreative base. I see marriage as an institution that promotes human nature, which involves in theory the act of procreation. Infertile couples still promote this view of human nature -- the union of a man and a woman which in type could bear children. To me, marriage just makes the most sense viewed this way.

Well said. The argument on procreation, is simply the strongest argument, available to traditional marriage advocates, but it extends beyond that, as you stated. And while not every heterosexual marriage will result in procreation, at least it is biologically possible in theory. 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

And remember, people who have been declared infertile have given birth, just like people who have been declared 'too old' have given birth.

As far as I know, no gay couple has ever given birth.

Good point. When the first child is conceived through homosexual sex. I am sure we will both change our opinions against gay marriage. I am sure drafterman will let us know when that happens. I'll be waiting.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 6,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 4:03:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Read my thread: "Three Bad Arguments for Same-Sex Marriage"

Read the OP and the long post on the last page.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 11:15:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/26/2013 3:51:56 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/26/2013 3:20:19 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/26/2013 10:29:42 AM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/26/2013 9:57:44 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 1/26/2013 9:46:15 AM, drafterman wrote:
Listen, i know that my point is ultimately untenable. It is simply too universal and absolute to work. But, unless the state actually acts according to those principles in your quotes, they are hollow and dont hold any weight.

I don't think that marriage's base in procreation means that every couple who gets married must act on that procreative base. I see marriage as an institution that promotes human nature, which involves in theory the act of procreation. Infertile couples still promote this view of human nature -- the union of a man and a woman which in type could bear children. To me, marriage just makes the most sense viewed this way.

Well said. The argument on procreation, is simply the strongest argument, available to traditional marriage advocates, but it extends beyond that, as you stated. And while not every heterosexual marriage will result in procreation, at least it is biologically possible in theory. 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

And remember, people who have been declared infertile have given birth, just like people who have been declared 'too old' have given birth.

As far as I know, no gay couple has ever given birth.

Good point. When the first child is conceived through homosexual sex. I am sure we will both change our opinions against gay marriage. I am sure drafterman will let us know when that happens. I'll be waiting.

Actually I was just thinking about this point. A lesbian couple I know recently had a child. Not adopted. She gave birth. So, they were a lesbian couple, and they procreated. Granted it was a result of artificial insemination, but that's irrelevant.

So, they are a gay couple. They gave birth.

So your objection is... what now?
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 12:20:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/26/2013 11:15:17 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/26/2013 3:51:56 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/26/2013 3:20:19 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/26/2013 10:29:42 AM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/26/2013 9:57:44 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 1/26/2013 9:46:15 AM, drafterman wrote:
Listen, i know that my point is ultimately untenable. It is simply too universal and absolute to work. But, unless the state actually acts according to those principles in your quotes, they are hollow and dont hold any weight.

I don't think that marriage's base in procreation means that every couple who gets married must act on that procreative base. I see marriage as an institution that promotes human nature, which involves in theory the act of procreation. Infertile couples still promote this view of human nature -- the union of a man and a woman which in type could bear children. To me, marriage just makes the most sense viewed this way.

Well said. The argument on procreation, is simply the strongest argument, available to traditional marriage advocates, but it extends beyond that, as you stated. And while not every heterosexual marriage will result in procreation, at least it is biologically possible in theory. 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

And remember, people who have been declared infertile have given birth, just like people who have been declared 'too old' have given birth.

As far as I know, no gay couple has ever given birth.

Good point. When the first child is conceived through homosexual sex. I am sure we will both change our opinions against gay marriage. I am sure drafterman will let us know when that happens. I'll be waiting.

Actually I was just thinking about this point. A lesbian couple I know recently had a child. Not adopted. She gave birth. So, they were a lesbian couple, and they procreated. Granted it was a result of artificial insemination, but that's irrelevant.

So, they are a gay couple. They gave birth.


No, they didn't give birth. They didn't procreate. 'They' didn't do anything.

One of the lesbians, and an unknown man, procreated, and the lesbian (singular) had a child.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 7:09:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2013 12:20:26 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/26/2013 11:15:17 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/26/2013 3:51:56 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/26/2013 3:20:19 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/26/2013 10:29:42 AM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/26/2013 9:57:44 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 1/26/2013 9:46:15 AM, drafterman wrote:
Listen, i know that my point is ultimately untenable. It is simply too universal and absolute to work. But, unless the state actually acts according to those principles in your quotes, they are hollow and dont hold any weight.

I don't think that marriage's base in procreation means that every couple who gets married must act on that procreative base. I see marriage as an institution that promotes human nature, which involves in theory the act of procreation. Infertile couples still promote this view of human nature -- the union of a man and a woman which in type could bear children. To me, marriage just makes the most sense viewed this way.

Well said. The argument on procreation, is simply the strongest argument, available to traditional marriage advocates, but it extends beyond that, as you stated. And while not every heterosexual marriage will result in procreation, at least it is biologically possible in theory. 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

And remember, people who have been declared infertile have given birth, just like people who have been declared 'too old' have given birth.

As far as I know, no gay couple has ever given birth.

Good point. When the first child is conceived through homosexual sex. I am sure we will both change our opinions against gay marriage. I am sure drafterman will let us know when that happens. I'll be waiting.

Actually I was just thinking about this point. A lesbian couple I know recently had a child. Not adopted. She gave birth. So, they were a lesbian couple, and they procreated. Granted it was a result of artificial insemination, but that's irrelevant.

So, they are a gay couple. They gave birth.


No, they didn't give birth. They didn't procreate. 'They' didn't do anything.

One of the lesbians, and an unknown man, procreated, and the lesbian (singular) had a child.

And that's relevant because....?
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 2:47:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2013 7:09:05 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/27/2013 12:20:26 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/26/2013 11:15:17 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/26/2013 3:51:56 PM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/26/2013 3:20:19 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/26/2013 10:29:42 AM, teddy2013 wrote:
At 1/26/2013 9:57:44 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 1/26/2013 9:46:15 AM, drafterman wrote:
Listen, i know that my point is ultimately untenable. It is simply too universal and absolute to work. But, unless the state actually acts according to those principles in your quotes, they are hollow and dont hold any weight.

I don't think that marriage's base in procreation means that every couple who gets married must act on that procreative base. I see marriage as an institution that promotes human nature, which involves in theory the act of procreation. Infertile couples still promote this view of human nature -- the union of a man and a woman which in type could bear children. To me, marriage just makes the most sense viewed this way.

Well said. The argument on procreation, is simply the strongest argument, available to traditional marriage advocates, but it extends beyond that, as you stated. And while not every heterosexual marriage will result in procreation, at least it is biologically possible in theory. 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

And remember, people who have been declared infertile have given birth, just like people who have been declared 'too old' have given birth.

As far as I know, no gay couple has ever given birth.

Good point. When the first child is conceived through homosexual sex. I am sure we will both change our opinions against gay marriage. I am sure drafterman will let us know when that happens. I'll be waiting.

Actually I was just thinking about this point. A lesbian couple I know recently had a child. Not adopted. She gave birth. So, they were a lesbian couple, and they procreated. Granted it was a result of artificial insemination, but that's irrelevant.

So, they are a gay couple. They gave birth.


No, they didn't give birth. They didn't procreate. 'They' didn't do anything.

One of the lesbians, and an unknown man, procreated, and the lesbian (singular) had a child.

And that's relevant because....?

It's relevant because I f*cking refuted your f*cking argument. What's up with you? This isn't the first time you have an argument soundly refuted and try to brush it off like it's irrelevant.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 3:00:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2013 2:47:41 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:

As far as I know, no gay couple has ever given birth.

Good point. When the first child is conceived through homosexual sex. I am sure we will both change our opinions against gay marriage. I am sure drafterman will let us know when that happens. I'll be waiting.

Actually I was just thinking about this point. A lesbian couple I know recently had a child. Not adopted. She gave birth. So, they were a lesbian couple, and they procreated. Granted it was a result of artificial insemination, but that's irrelevant.

So, they are a gay couple. They gave birth.


No, they didn't give birth. They didn't procreate. 'They' didn't do anything.

One of the lesbians, and an unknown man, procreated, and the lesbian (singular) had a child.

And that's relevant because....?

It's relevant because I f*cking refuted your f*cking argument. What's up with you? This isn't the first time you have an argument soundly refuted and try to brush it off like it's irrelevant.

So, let me get this straight, because of your refutation, if I call up my friends, their child will suddenly have never existed? Because they had a kid. I've seen the pictures. The issue here, the supposed "argument" against allowing same sex couples to marry is procreation. Period. Not HOW the procreate, just THAT they procreate.

Two individuals came together in a loving, committed relationship. Decided they wanted to start a family. Through their will and actions had a child. And now they are a family and have all of the responsibilities and duties of any other parent in raising their child. They have added to the substance of our population and no more can or should be expected of them.

On what basis would you deny them the right to get married. That they can't procreate, which they did?! How they procreated is irrelevant! Completely irrelevant! Artificial insemination is a method use by plenty of heterosexual couples in order to overcome the draw back of infertility, why can't homosexual couples benefit from it?

The pedantic technical issue of the fact that one of the parents did not contribute DNA is completely irrelevant. They. Yes, THEY had a child. That is what is meant by having a child: two people come together, decide to have a child, they go through the appropriate acts, and the child is born. Period.

Now, you may be a heartless a$$hole and look at ALL couples that rely on artificial insemination as not really being parents to their children - that's your right - but if you are going to leverage that as a reason said parents can't get married (unless they have a pairing of sexual organs you personally approve of) then you're going to have to actually stay why, rather than simply noting that the sperm came from outside the marriage.
sadolite
Posts: 10,006
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 3:06:52 PM
Posted: 6 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."

You do understand that posting all these painfully obvious and irrefutable court precedents has no bearing on what the primary purpose of marrige is for. The purpose of marrige is Johnny loves Suzi and they want to be together for ever and ever or what ever combination of who loves who is what marrige is for and it's primary purpose. Posting legal arguments, what a joke. That's so old school. It's all about feelings now. Feelings are are what legal decisions are based upon not legal precedent, logic and reason. (Empathy)
Beware of the people who are in your circle but are not in your corner.

And with the stroke of a pen people 18 to 21 who own a gun became criminals and public enemy #1 having committed no crime and having said nothing. Just like the Jews in Germany during WW2. Must be a weird feeling.

When I hear people crying and whining about their first world problems I think about the universe with everything in it and people in wheelchairs and all of their problems go away.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 3:36:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2013 3:00:07 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/27/2013 2:47:41 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:

As far as I know, no gay couple has ever given birth.

Good point. When the first child is conceived through homosexual sex. I am sure we will both change our opinions against gay marriage. I am sure drafterman will let us know when that happens. I'll be waiting.

Actually I was just thinking about this point. A lesbian couple I know recently had a child. Not adopted. She gave birth. So, they were a lesbian couple, and they procreated. Granted it was a result of artificial insemination, but that's irrelevant.

So, they are a gay couple. They gave birth.


No, they didn't give birth. They didn't procreate. 'They' didn't do anything.

One of the lesbians, and an unknown man, procreated, and the lesbian (singular) had a child.

And that's relevant because....?

It's relevant because I f*cking refuted your f*cking argument. What's up with you? This isn't the first time you have an argument soundly refuted and try to brush it off like it's irrelevant.

So, let me get this straight, because of your refutation, if I call up my friends, their child will suddenly have never existed? Because they had a kid. I've seen the pictures. The issue here, the supposed "argument" against allowing same sex couples to marry is procreation. Period. Not HOW the procreate, just THAT they procreate.

Two individuals came together in a loving, committed relationship. Decided they wanted to start a family. Through their will and actions had a child. And now they are a family and have all of the responsibilities and duties of any other parent in raising their child. They have added to the substance of our population and no more can or should be expected of them.

On what basis would you deny them the right to get married. That they can't procreate, which they did?! How they procreated is irrelevant! Completely irrelevant! Artificial insemination is a method use by plenty of heterosexual couples in order to overcome the draw back of infertility, why can't homosexual couples benefit from it?

The pedantic technical issue of the fact that one of the parents did not contribute DNA is completely irrelevant. They. Yes, THEY had a child. That is what is meant by having a child: two people come together, decide to have a child, they go through the appropriate acts, and the child is born. Period.

Now, you may be a heartless a$$hole and look at ALL couples that rely on artificial insemination as not really being parents to their children - that's your right - but if you are going to leverage that as a reason said parents can't get married (unless they have a pairing of sexual organs you personally approve of) then you're going to have to actually stay why, rather than simply noting that the sperm came from outside the marriage.

Did you fail biology 101? Only a heterosexual human couple can procreate, idiot.
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.