1st Circuit Court of Appeals: Defense of Marriage Act is Unconstitutional

Great Debates
341

I have not, please look at the thread title

No he used a statement with an AND to make that claim, e.g. if Party A says “Apples and Toothpaste are good for your teeth”

Party B is not correct when they say “A says because of toothpaste apples are good”

Irrelevant in this thread, were are talking about a federal law, but this does not answer the question.

You claimed that allowing gays to marry would hurt the institution and discourage hetro’s from marrying. You have not provided any evidence of this, it was just empty rhetoric.

We are social animals, the lack of a mate causes issues way past and issue with reproduction rates.

Heck even if you want to go back to the MN Judges claim and back to Genesis.

[QUOTE=God]
“But for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.”
[/QUOTE]

There are dozens of family structures around the world that work great for raising children that have nothing to do with the Catholic ideal of marriage, which is part of the issue with.

Remember Focus on the Family? I know he thinks he is a god but Dobson is not a court of law.

You used the argument of the MN Supreme court, which was based on “tradition” to bolster your claim that changing the institution would discourage others from getting married. Yet you seem unwilling to also claim we should roll back no fault divorce etc…which have a real direct action, even when offered.
Previously you claimed

Here is the quote from Skinner,

[

](Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson | 316 U.S. 535 (1942) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center)

To quote SCOTUS in Heller, “The prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause.”

There is not one iota of evidence that they would have allowed the involuntary sterilization of those who were unlikely to either enter marriage and/or reproduce.

Nor is there a single standing SCOTUS opinion that I can find outside of the opinion that was penned by the MN Supreme Court that links the purpose of marriage to reproduction.

What there is, is dozens of cases concerned about inheritance, and the prevention of bigamy.

You have refuse put forward a definition of traditional marriage is.

As far as I can tell there is no cohesive concept of “traditional marriage”

The Puritans believed that marriage was a civil contract, not a religious ceremony.

Virginians followed the Anglican view of marriage and required church involvement

Quakers in Delaware form a committee of community members who approved without the use of priests or ministers.

Catholics set the rules in Maryland with much stricter rules and required the use of the church.

With these vast differences the onus is on you to provide proof that the small change of allowing SSM in states that vote to allow it, and to allow those contracts to be held valid with full faith and credit as they freely travel through the states would cause harm.

342

I would like a cite that God told a couple, bound through civil or religious ceremony and law “to go forth and multiply”

I’m quite sure, assuming they were real, Adam and Eve were “shacking up” by the modern “traditional concept” of marriage.

343

And I bet Eve didn’t even wear a white gown! Since it was, y’know… fig leaves and all.

344

I spoke of the bible as a historical document of what the beliefs and practices of an ancient people were, noting that it belies the assertions of those who contradict my claim that the right to marriage flows from the right to procreate.

If you want to debate someone on the existence of God or whether he makes commands or whatever, find someone else, and hopefully another thread.

Adam and Eve could marry under the common law if you want to compare them to contemporaries and our modern ideas of what a marriage is.

345

Is our modern concept of traditional marriage one that marriage is invalid without a white gown?

346

Eve’s useless anyway - Adam would have had a spicier relationship with Lilith.

347

OK, lets look how it goes for you claims, all from the first book.

Hagar had kids for Abrahm,they were not married.
Lot and his daughters have a heck of a time in a cave and reproduce, they are not married. God found it to be good.
Bilhah had a son for Jacob they were not married.
Zilpah had a son for Jacob they were not married.
Judah took the daughter of a certain Canaanite..went in unto her. And she conceived Er
She hard another one with Judah named Onan they were not married

Rachel, married, barren by act of God.
Sarah, married, barren by act of God.
Rebekah, married… barren!!!

It is a bit odd, if marriage was for procreation, why did God promote sleeping with the help so much and not your multiple wives?

As “a historical document of what the beliefs and practices of an ancient people were” it isn’t matching up with your claims. Of course it doesn’t matter if it is real…but I just don’t see any data to match your baseless claims.

348

First you talk about the MN court opinion and add additional words to it to destroy it. When I point out your strawman, you then claim the court had to be talking about DOMA. Because the thread title is about DOMA doesn’t mean that exchange was specifically about DOMA. You cannot use DOMA to prove the MN court said “one” man and “one” woman.

Now you claim you weren’t goalpost shifting by saying talking about DOMA is within the O.P.!

Which sentence of which court with the word “and” in it is this supposed to apply to? Of course, if I just guess, you can just claim you meant some other sentence with the word “and” in it from a court opinion. If you want to debate what a particular sentence means please identify the statement, and even more helpful, quote it.

The more you do stuff that lends itself to confusion the more you show how desperate you are to impair my ability to impart knowledge.

Not my burden, those seeking change should show there will be no harm, and their empty rhetoric is not convincing.

I’m not Catholic, and I do not subscribe to specific parts of their ideas, especially on birth control and abortion.

I have never said anything about FoF or Dobson. you are confused, as usual.

The explanation I gave you before included no fault divorce as one of the changes in the marriage concept that resulted in increased divorce and lower marriage rate. I do happen to believe that we should restructure marriage so that it is closer to what we had before the 1930’s.

If you’re gonna quote a court, especially when it’s not apparently relevant, please explain how it applies. What does Heller have to do with anything?

So what if Skinner wouldn’t allow the sterilization of those “unlikely to marry.” What is your point?

Whether or not there is another, Baker is still standing precedent of the Supreme Court. You refuse to accept it as the state of the law, and it does in fact support my claim which you say is entirely unsupportable. Nor do your poor research skills resulting in inability to find cases mean very much at all.

I’m not championing historical traditional marriage. I see no reason for me to define it. There really isn’t any such thing, but we can gather what’s important by looking at what they all had in common.

There is a lot of variation on historical concepts of marriage. as practiced by any culture, (not as practiced by some childless individual couples) there is one thing and one thing alone they had in common, though, and that was the importance of procreation. See? everything else can vary, but that one’s always there.

SSM is not a small change. The modern concept of SSM has never been tried before. historical examples of Greek and Roman “gay” marriage do not fit the modern model. In those, the gay who took on the “female” role was ridiculed, and most of the ridicule was for being a barren wife. But the gays do not want this concept. We cannot gather hard evidence until after the fact.

It’s not on me to prove it will do harm. it is on those who want the change to prove that it won’t, and they have had no way of gathering apprpriate evidence.

Nevertheless, the trend is that changes result in more divorce and/or fewer marriages. And in this case, half the country is pissed off.

349

Of course it has. Even if you myopically can’t look beyond your own borders, Massachusetts has had legal SSM since 2004.

Eight years not enough? Is a particularly slow social catastrophe building in Boston that will utterly undermine the fabric of reality in the Bay state?

Sure, we do. We can look at countries and even U.S. states where SSM is legal and see if there’s a negative effect.

Explain how gay marriage is related to this. And use some actual statistics, not vague crap like “disillusionment”.

350

You mean your distorted version of my claims. Recall, I never raised the bible, but when others did, I pointed out stuff about it that disproves their claims.

Gen 16:3 **And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. **

What do you wanna bet there’s a verse that says she did that because she was concerned that she was barren, and Abram needed sons? (In other words, procreation was so improtant she WANTED her husband to have a second wife!

if you wanna learn about what the bible says, why don’t you read it instead of filtering it through gay websites first?

351

yes, because if you can’t name another aspect of marriage that makes it so fundamental, then you have no explanation for why I am incorrect in claiming that Skinner/Loving shows that the right to marriage flows from procreation.

To ensure responsible procreation is the only reason we need marriage. The fact that we do not require it is a different story. How to put teeth in such a requirement?

Should we require a divorce after 10 barren years as one culture did?

(But of course no culture EVER found procreation so important that it only officially allowed procreative ones, right?)

Skinner: A case having nothing to do with marriage, says “Procreation and Marriage are fundamental to the existence and survival of the race.”

See how they link the two? What’s the point in raising marriage in a case that does not need surplusage of a marriage discussion in deciding it, if they are not linking the two?

Then See how Loving cites Skinner? But Loving had nothing to do with procreation, either, in the sense they did not need to discuss procreation in order to decide it, but they say Skinner, nevertheless is precedent that applies to their reasoning that marriage is a fundamental right.

For what purpose did the Supreme Court cite Skinner in Loving, if they did not view marriage and procreation to be fundamentally linked?

See? You say that toothpaste does not make apples good for you, but you are desperately trying to put the Supreme Court in a position of citing toothpaste as a reason apples are good for you.

352

Adoption.

353

If you’d have read the thread you might not be going over what has already been gone over.

We may know with some certainty in a couple generations. You seem utterly unaware that I have said I am entirely in favor of some states trying this experiment so we can find out. I don’t particularly want my state to find out the hard way, it is true. I’d prefer to see if Mass has growing numbers of homosexuals and the associated problems, just how many gays indeed do marry and raise kids when the spotlight for good behavior is not on them, just how many of those kids turn out gay, and how well kids do over a lifetime when raised by gays.

The few short year studies you’ve seen aren’t quite as optimistic as you might think. As usual, serious methodology flaws. One counted homosexual kids as a “positive” result, while drawing no conclusion as to hetero kids. Others avoided asking the question if gay families have higher incidences of gay kids altogether.

Like the increased gay suicide, and short duration of gay marriages in Holland we are seeing? In a country with virtually no homophobia/mistreatment of gays?

Read the thread.

354

Can you quote the Supreme Court to comparable effect to Skinner, such as “Marriage and adoption are fundamental to the very survival and existence of the race?”

Authority please, on the fundamental nature of adoption, so that we would not survive without it.

Adoption is important, and we should promote it, but that is because the marriage scheme is not perfect in inducing all aprents to marry and responsibly care for their offspring. There would still be accidents and murder to manufacture orphans, of course, and government does have an interest in not having to pay for the upbringing of children.

I suppose you are prepared to say that the nation could not survive without adoption?

Wouldn’t we be better off lowering the number of orphans/children in need of care by inducing their parents to marry? (for those who are in need because their parents didn’t marry of course)

You are putting the cart before the horse in claiming that adoption is where the right to marry flows from.

Adoption is an incidental to marriage, not the reason to do it. The reaosn for marriage is to prevent the need for adoption, as much as it can, in the first place.

Hey! I know! Let’s destroy potential families so other people can have a reason to get married–to adopt the kids!

Again, please provide some evidence that the race could not exist without adoption.

355

I don’t see why it’s necessary for me to care what the origins of the right to marriage are. What are the current legal requirements for marriage and can you narrowly tailor a version where heterosexuals get a pass and homosexuals do not?

It is? Please define “responsible procreation”. If a couple are not married and have children, and both parents are emotionally and financially involved in the childrearing, is that “responsible”?

No, because we don’t punish people for not procreating. I can vaguely imagine one spouse, or both, using the lack of children as a grounds for divorce. I’d have to do some googling, but it wouldn’t surprise me if there was a venue that has (or until relatively recently had) something like this as a valid grounds.

I don’t know. Is it relevant?

Yeah… in 1942. It’s worth putting the social standards of the time in perspective. We’re somewhat less scandalized by out-of-wedlock births these days. Love and marriage no longer need go together, like a horse and carriage. You can have one without the other.

So let them link their hearts out. It’s clearly not an unbreakable link. It’s not even a necessary link. I have confidence that a U.S. Supreme Court Justice in modern times will be aware of this.

Anyway, let’s agree marriage is indeed a fundamental right. Now prove that procreation is a mandatory aspect (not a suggested aspect, not a likely aspect, not an important aspect, not a “fundamental” aspect … a mandatory aspect) in the exercise of that right, like being 18 or older is for voting. I’d be genuinely surprised if there was any language in Skinner or Loving or any relevant ruling that said so.

I never said anything about toothpaste or apples. You’re losing track, again, of which person you’re trying to talk down to at a given moment.

356

If you truly believe this, then you are completely clueless about modern-day America and your opinion on modern-day issues comes from a position of massive ignorance and is therefore…less than relevant. If you don’t believe it but said it anyway, it’s dangerously close to trolling IMO.

357

I have read the thread, and I’ve you present 31 mildly varying flavours of nonsense.

I’m utterly unaware of a good reason for delay.

There are children in your country, (well, adults now) who were raised by gays. Given any thought to talking to them?

Methodology flaws in looking around and not seeing the early signs of gay-driven social upheaval?

Got a cite with any indication gay marriage is a causal factor in gay suicides? And if their marriages are short… so? Heck, Britney Spears had a perfectly legal marriage that lasted for 55 hours.

I have. Your arguments are indistinguishable from the vapid anti-SSM arguments in earlier threads. If your intent was just to present a devil’s advocate position on how an anti-SSM position could be legally justified… well, I’ll wager Thomas and Scalia will find such when the time comes (possibly joined by Alito and Roberts). My personal hope is their opinion will be the dissenting one.

358

Heh, silly me, I forgot a verb in the first sentence of my last post. It should read:

I have read the thread, and I’ve seen you present 31 mildly varying flavours of nonsense.

359

Bad, most likely intentionally mistranslated bibles do not turn concubines into wives.

[

](HAGAR - JewishEncyclopedia.com)

360

I’m talking about Holland.

That statement comes from my ever ongoing habit of acquiring new information.

It is not important whether or not I am actually playing devil’s advocate, as is suggested, but you have to admit that these debates would not go anywhere if everyone agreed. I am not debating here to raise people’s emotions, and I am not saying anything needlessly inflammatory. Please do not imply I am a troll.

Sorry that’s a google search, but the PDF was direct, click on the first link.