Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Obergefell v. Hodges: Get your bets inFollow

#52 May 01 2015 at 5:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
gbaji wrote:
Why do you think marriage exists then? It's just amusing to me that when I say this a whole ton of people insist I'm wrong, but then they can't come up with an alternative purpose of marriage that fits the historical pattern of marriage *and* which also fits their proposed modifications to the institution (while presumably also retaining limits against polygamy and incest). It just seems like a heck of a lot of effort to find the most convoluted and nonsensical way of looking at something just so you can ignore the most obvious explanation because it doesn't allow for something you want.


gbaji wrote:
Then write up a response. Don't just tell me that one exists, or that it's already been given. I hear that every single time I ask for this. What I don't get? An actual answer that contains the information I'm asking for.


lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Then write up a response.
I did. "Wrong."



No. You didn't. "Wrong", doesn't contain the information I'm asking for. Specifically:

An alternative purpose of marriage that fits the historical pattern of marriage *and* which also fits their proposed modifications to the institution (while presumably also retaining limits against polygamy and incest)

I'm sure you'll just say "wrong" again. But you'll just be proving my point so go ahead.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#53 May 01 2015 at 5:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's amusing to me that the answers given for a decade have pretty consistently been exactly the one you just gave.

That's true. You've been in this state of denial for a decade now. I don't why you'd be amused by that but then there's a number of things about you I find perplexing. Probably best to just let you be you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#54 May 01 2015 at 5:43 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
"Wrong", doesn't contain the information I'm asking for.
Sure it does. You know you're wrong, and you need someone to tell you you're wrong so you have something to rail against to get attention.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#55 May 01 2015 at 6:35 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's just amusing to me that when I say this a whole ton of people insist I'm wrong, but then they can't come up with an alternative purpose of marriage that fits the historical pattern of marriage *and* which also fits their proposed modifications to the institution (while presumably also retaining limits against polygamy and incest).

It's amusing to me that you can spend a decade pretending that no one has answered this. Well, more "tiresome" than amusing but I suppose I can smirk for old time's sake.
Beat me to it, Jophiel. Smiley: mad

It's like he reads people words in threads but doesn't really understand them. Or maybe when he reads something he can't agree with the words get blurry?
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#56 May 01 2015 at 8:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
He has a vested interest in pretending that no one has responded to him since his argument is "No one else can explain this so my answer must be right". As soon as he admits that someone else has explained it, he has no argument.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#57 May 02 2015 at 2:31 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Remind me again why we don't end marriages of people who don't end up procreating?


Read the paper I linked. There's an entire section that addresses this question.
I'm not vested enough in this to read through a 43 page document of garbage.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#58 May 02 2015 at 2:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Not even one written by a Heritage Foundation member and some guy heralded as the "most important Christian conservative of our time"? I'm sure it strives to give a balanced and historically factual view of the issues.

Edited, May 2nd 2015 3:34pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#59 May 02 2015 at 2:41 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
I tried to download it a second time to see if I could skim through it and find it but it came up with some garbage about detecting weird IP patterns. I fear I'm not conservative enough to read it.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#60 May 03 2015 at 2:09 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
670 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Remind me again why we don't end marriages of people who don't end up procreating?


Read the paper I linked. There's an entire section that addresses this question.
I'm not vested enough in this to read through a 43 page document of garbage.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say they argue that if the potential for children is there, that is good enough. Of course, if that is the logic, all marriages should be annulled if either partner ever becomes unable to have child, such as through having their tubes tied or menopause.
#61 May 03 2015 at 3:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
xantav wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Remind me again why we don't end marriages of people who don't end up procreating?


Read the paper I linked. There's an entire section that addresses this question.
I'm not vested enough in this to read through a 43 page document of garbage.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say they argue that if the potential for children is there, that is good enough. Of course, if that is the logic, all marriages should be annulled if either partner ever becomes unable to have child, such as through having their tubes tied or menopause.



Exactly, Because clearly we're all living our lives like 17th Century European royalty, and heirs and successions define our lives.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#62 May 03 2015 at 6:26 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Samira wrote:
xantav wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Remind me again why we don't end marriages of people who don't end up procreating?


Read the paper I linked. There's an entire section that addresses this question.
I'm not vested enough in this to read through a 43 page document of garbage.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say they argue that if the potential for children is there, that is good enough. Of course, if that is the logic, all marriages should be annulled if either partner ever becomes unable to have child, such as through having their tubes tied or menopause.



Exactly, Because clearly we're all living our lives like 17th Century European royalty, and heirs and successions define our lives.


Well, that explains the lunacy.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#63 May 03 2015 at 8:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
And the rancid odor.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#64 May 03 2015 at 11:09 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
One day Gbaji will learn to use the cat box, but not today.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#65 May 04 2015 at 8:46 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Pretty sure teaching a cat to do anything is the safer bet.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#66 May 04 2015 at 4:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
He has a vested interest in pretending that no one has responded to him since his argument is "No one else can explain this so my answer must be right". As soon as he admits that someone else has explained it, he has no argument.


Oh. Several people have responded to me. Even did just now! Note though, that you guys didn't actually bother to provide what I asked. You've once again just insisted that you did it one time in the past, sometime, way back when, but you can't be bothered to repeat it, or link it, or prove it. And when I ask again? Same answer: "We already told you, and you ignored us!".

You sound a lot like Alma.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#67 May 04 2015 at 4:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
xantav wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Remind me again why we don't end marriages of people who don't end up procreating?


Read the paper I linked. There's an entire section that addresses this question.
I'm not vested enough in this to read through a 43 page document of garbage.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say they argue that if the potential for children is there, that is good enough. Of course, if that is the logic, all marriages should be annulled if either partner ever becomes unable to have child, such as through having their tubes tied or menopause.


And again. Read the document. Or I guess you can continue to speculate about what straw man would be easiest to argue against if that makes you feel better. Seems like a poor way to decide what position to take on an issue though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#68 May 04 2015 at 5:03 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
xantav wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Remind me again why we don't end marriages of people who don't end up procreating?
Read the paper I linked. There's an entire section that addresses this question.
I'm not vested enough in this to read through a 43 page document of garbage.
I'm going to take a wild guess and say they argue that if the potential for children is there, that is good enough. Of course, if that is the logic, all marriages should be annulled if either partner ever becomes unable to have child, such as through having their tubes tied or menopause.
And again. Read the document. Or I guess you can continue to speculate about what straw man would be easiest to argue against if that makes you feel better. Seems like a poor way to decide what position to take on an issue though.
Or you could copy and paste the relevant section. That would take you, what, 30 seconds?

Edited, May 4th 2015 5:03pm by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#69 May 04 2015 at 5:53 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
can't be bothered to repeat it
Bingo.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#70 May 04 2015 at 5:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Note though, that you guys didn't actually bother to provide what I asked.

You're right. Past instances have shown it's pointless. Seriously, who do you think you're convincing here? Shaowstrike and Xsarus are going to go away thinking "Boy, I guess Gbaji is right and Jophiel never did address that in the past decade of this stupid ass debate I've been reading!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#71 May 04 2015 at 7:42 PM Rating: Good
It's pretty god damn simple.

The Equal Protection Clause of The 14th Amendment assures us that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" And that Federal Preemption makes that Amendment the supreme law of the land. With the Full Faith and Credit Clause, this means that if just one state legalizes SSM, all must recognize it. That's it.

So, these ******* goons here (Arkansas (2004, 1997), Georgia (2004, 1996), Kentucky (2004, 1998), Louisiana (2004, 1999), Michigan (2004, 1996), Mississippi (2004, 1997), Missouri (2004, 1996), North Dakota (2004, 1997), Ohio (2004, 2004), South Dakota (2006, 1996), Tennessee (2006, 1996), Texas (2005, 1997) Nebraska (2000)) are in violation of the Constitution. With 37 states already recognizing SSM, it's time to stop this ******** and make it an explicit federal law.

I can't even imagine SCOTUS not ruling in favor.
#72 May 05 2015 at 7:41 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
So very very pointless.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#73 May 05 2015 at 8:37 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Kaelesh wrote:
I can't even imagine SCOTUS not ruling in favor.
I can imagine it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#74 May 05 2015 at 9:37 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
If you think procreation is "magic", then I guess that's how you might view things.

As it applies to marriage? No,but your argument requires it. There's no requirement of being able to produce children required to be married. There's no sanction preventing a 90 year old woman from marrying. There's no encouraging of 1 man marrying 20 women. In point of fact, that's prohibited. How odd! Surely if procreation is the goal, society would encourage one to many man to women polygamy. Oddly, that isn't the case. The societal benefit to marriage (assuming there is one, but for argument sake..) is that it provides more stable families for children. Not that it provides vaginas for them to fall out of. Same sex couples provide very stable families for children, as Kenendy noted in his questions, most of the children same sex couples adopt come from failed hetero marriages. Reason #9000 he's going the distance here, likely writing the landmark decision, shoring up his legacy.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#75 May 05 2015 at 3:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
I'm not sure how you leap from:

Kaelesh wrote:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"


To:

Quote:
With the Full Faith and Credit Clause, this means that if just one state legalizes SSM, all must recognize it. That's it.


It's not that simple at all. So if one state legalizes marijuana, then all must? If one state changes its legal drinking age to 12, then all must? If one state makes prostitution legal, then all must?

Full Faith and Credit means that a contract entered into in one state is considered valid in any other state, unless that other state disallows that form of contract. It's why, for example, you'll see small print on contest entry forms saying things like "Except in States X, Y, and Z". Because states X, Y, and Z, don't allow that kind of contest perhaps. The law does not allow the federal government to force all states to comply with the laws of all other states. If that was the case, then the opposite argument could also be made. That if SSM is disallowed in any state, then the clause would require it to be disallowed in all states. Right?

There's a lot more to this issue than that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#76 May 05 2015 at 3:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And again. Read the document. Or I guess you can continue to speculate about what straw man would be easiest to argue against if that makes you feel better. Seems like a poor way to decide what position to take on an issue though.
Or you could copy and paste the relevant section. That would take you, what, 30 seconds?


It would take you all of 30 seconds too, right? But ok. Don't say I didn't warn you:

Quote:
D. If Not Same‐Sex Couples, Why Infertile Ones?
Revisionists often challenge proponents of the conjugal view
of marriage to offer a principled argument for recognizing the
unions of presumptively infertile couples that does not equally
justify the recognition of same‐sex partnerships. But this chal‐
lenge is easily met.

1. Still Real Marriages
To form a real marriage, a couple needs to establish and live
out the kind of union that would be completed by, and be apt
for, procreation and child‐rearing.53 Since any true and honor‐
able harmony between two people has value in itself (not
merely as a means), each such comprehensive union of two
people—each permanent, exclusive commitment sealed by or‐
ganic bodily union—certainly does as well.

Any act of organic bodily union can seal a marriage, whether
or not it causes conception.54 The nature of the spouses’ action
now cannot depend on what happens hours later independ‐
ently of their control—whether a sperm cell in fact penetrates
an ovum. And because the union in question is an organic bod‐
ily union, it cannot depend for its reality on psychological fac‐
tors. It does not matter, then, if spouses do not intend to have
children or believe that they cannot. Whatever their thoughts
or goals, whether a couple achieves bodily union depends on
facts about what is happening between their bodies.55

It is clear that the bodies of an infertile couple can unite or‐
ganically through coitus. Consider digestion, the individual
body’s process of nourishment. Different parts of that proc‐
ess—salivation, chewing, swallowing, stomach action, intesti‐
nal absorption of nutrients—are each in their own way
oriented to the broader goal of nourishing the organism. But
our salivation, chewing, swallowing, and stomach action re‐
main oriented to that goal (and remain digestive acts) even if
on some occasion our intestines do not or cannot finally absorb
nutrients, and even if we know so before we eat.56

Similarly, the behavioral parts of the process of reproduction do
not lose their dynamism toward reproduction if non‐behavioral
factors in the process—for example, low sperm count or ovarian
problems—prevent conception from occurring, even if the
spouses expect this beforehand. As we have argued,57 bodies
coordinating toward a single biological function for which each
alone is not sufficient are rightly said to form an organic union.

Thus, infertility is no impediment to bodily union and there‐
fore (as our law has always recognized) no impediment to mar‐
riage. This is because in truth marriage is not a mere means,
even to the great good of procreation.58 It is an end in itself,
worthwhile for its own sake. So it can exist apart from children,
and the state can recognize it in such cases without distorting the
moral truth about marriage.

Of course, a true friendship of two men or two women is also
valuable in itself. But lacking the capacity for organic bodily un‐
ion, it cannot be valuable specifically as a marriage: it cannot be
the comprehensive union59 on which aptness for procreation60
and distinctively marital norms61 depend. That is why only a
man and a woman can form a marriage—a union whose norms
and obligations are decisively shaped by its essential dynamism
toward children. For that dynamism comes not from the actual
or expected presence of children, which some same‐sex partners
and even cohabiting brothers could have, and some opposite‐sex
couples lack, but from the way that marriage is sealed or con‐
summated:62 in coitus, which is organic bodily union.

2. Still in the Public Interest
Someone might grant the principled point that infertility is
not an impediment to marriage, and still wonder what pub‐
lic benefit a marriage that cannot produce children would
have. Why, in other words, should we legally recognize an
infertile marriage?

Practically speaking, many couples believed to be infertile
end up having children, who would be served by their parents’
healthy marriage; and in any case, the effort to determine fertil‐
ity would require unjust invasions of privacy. This is a concern
presumably shared by revisionists, who would not, for exam‐
ple, require interviews for ascertaining partners’ level of affec‐
tion before granting them a marriage license.

More generally, even an obviously infertile couple—no less
than childless newlyweds or parents of grown children—can live
out the features and norms of real marriage and thereby contrib‐
ute to a healthy marriage culture. They can set a good example for
others and help to teach the next generation what marriage is and
is not. And as we have argued63 and will argue,64 everyone bene‐
fits from a healthy marriage culture.

What is more, any marriage law at all communicates some
message about what marriage is as a moral reality. The state has
an obligation to get that message right, for the sake of people who
might enter the institution, for their children, and for the commu‐
nity as a whole. To recognize only fertile marriages is to suggest
that marriage is merely a means to procreation and child‐
rearing—and not what it truly is, namely, a good in itself.65 It may
also violate the principle of equality to which revisionists appeal,66
because infertile and fertile couples alike can form unions of the
same basic kind: real marriages. In the absence of strong reasons
for it, this kind of differential treatment would be unfair.

Finally, although a legal scheme that honored the conjugal con‐
ception of marriage, as our law has long done, would not restrict
the incidents of marriage to spouses who happen to have chil‐
dren, its success would tend to limit children to families led by
legally married spouses. After all, the more effectively the law
teaches the truth about marriage, the more likely people are to
enter into marriage and abide by its norms. And the more people
form marriages and respect marital norms, the more likely it is
that children will be reared by their wedded biological parents.
Death and tragedy make the gap impossible to close completely,
but a healthier marriage culture would make it shrink. Thus, en‐
shrining the moral truth of marriage in law is crucial for securing
the great social benefits served by real marriage.


I fully expect a chorus of TL;DR now. Of course, you also have to have read some of the earlier sections where they explain some of the concepts they reference here (like the whole biological aspect of two humans becoming one, which is actually a pretty interesting take on things).


You really should just read the freaking document in its entirety if you actually want to understand the ideas behind it. Reading one section would be like reading one chapter in a book and trying to understand the whole thing. But hey! You asked.





Edited, May 5th 2015 2:38pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 361 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (361)