DOMA Case was Corrupt Horse & Pony Show that SCOTUS Had No Authority to Hear.

[CaptainCourtesy]

You have never refuted what I've said, at all, and instead have generally engaged in lots of hand-waving and statements, without any support, and only your opinion. Not only have your statements not refuted anything, but they have often been invalid and/or irrelevant.

I have consistently refuted everything you have said. None of your positions are valid, and each one I have painstakingly taken apart and shown to be false, for everyone to see. Your denial of this is irrelevant. I will now do precisely as i said I will.

1) As has been stated before, "requirement" to produce offspring is irrelevant to the fact of every offspring in existence being from heterosexual pairings. "Requirement" is only your irrelevant insertion, and is a flaw of logic.

Fail. Point #1, Post #321.

2) As has been stated, recognizing that marriage has always been between a man and woman, and stating why, is NOT ANY SORT of "appeal to tradition". Appeal to tradition is stating that women binding their feet in China is a good thing, because they've always done it. The biological fact is of human reproduction is only falsely dismissed as an "appeal to tradition" because the whole recognition of WHY marriage has always been valued and promoted by societies, entirely destroys the fabrication of gay unions being the equivalent of marriage. Tradition has nothing to do with the recognition of biological fact, and societal value.

Fail. Point #2, Post #321.

3) I am involved in neither the legal issues nor the philosophical issues of same sex marriage. Marriage is not created by law, but rather only recognized "IN law". Same sex marriage is only being fabricated by abuse of Positive man-made law, and principles of the Constitution, in order to promote by fiat a false equivalence that is nowhere supported by reality, biological fact, societal valuation nor societal need, since those gay unions cannot possible themselves provide offspring, that they then do not raise, and thereby no not promote society. Thus far, same sex marriage is only promoted by abuse of law, and dictation upon the populace.

Fail. Point #3, Post #321.

4) The existence of marriage, is a result of the recognition by societies throughout history of the value that committed heterosexual couples represent to a stable society in rearing their children in that committed environment. marriage is not "sanctioned", as in given official approval but rather recognized and licensed. The purpose of marriage is not just rearing children, but rather rearing children that are a product of that union, in a stable, committed environment provided by that union, thereby providing stability to society by a real and biological interest and avowed commitment. The only means that gay marriage might have children, is from having severed biological ties and/or commitments, thereby serving as a destabilization of society, and not in society's interest, and certainly not an equivalent benefit to society that is heterosexual marriage.

Fail. Point #4, Post #321.

5) No past constructs are invalided by current fabrications, and these have no bearing on biological fact. "Why people marry" is entirely irrelevant to "why society values, recognizes and has institutionalized marriage", which still IS IN FACT bound to procreation, and the promotion of that society. If that procreation were actually irrelevant, our hospitals would have no new births, our elementary schools would be empty and devoid of students, and gradually this lack of procreation would be seen to advance through society.

However this is obviously not the case. What we actually have is social structure being devalued by these "social engineering geniuses", resulting in the increase of gang associations and violence, flash-gang lootings, youth murders and gunfights, youth drug abuse, teen pregnancy, and a whole array of social consequences of increasing severity due to the devaluation of the committed family unit, even reaching to the devaluation of life itself.

Fail. Point #5, Post #321.

6) The claimed studies of gay couples having raised children as well as heterosexual couples, itself undeniably a subjective valuation, is irrelevant to the reason why heterosexual marriage has been recognized, valued, and institutionalized by societies throughout mankind's history. And the prejudicial intent of such studies is further demonstrated at their outset by the fact that they ignore that such children could not possibly have originated from those gay couples themselves in the first place, thereby pushing a false equivalence, and trying to mitigate a clear disadvantage and social disruption - thereby biased in their goal being to promote a social engineering agenda. The only such studies that would be valid and at all scientific, would be a double-blind survey intending to evaluate children of unknown upbringing, by previously established parameters, thereby removing evaluation bias, but this really has not been done. Also other problematic conditions such as sampling bias, analysis terms, and study longevity need to be resolved, as jwzg has pointed out. But all of this is ignored in what you're offering as "proof", and really not any sort of proof at all.

Furthermore, the idea that you would indicate "repeatability" in reference to such studies is laughable, and shows you really don't understand the difference between the validation of scientific process, and objective sociological studies. The claimed repeatability of such studies only serves to validate the consistency of testing bias, and not any sort of actual demonstration of validity. I would mock this repeatability claim further, by examining its alleged significance in more specific application, but it would be a waste of time.

Fail, point #6, Post #321.

As a result of your repetition of these and other irrelevant arguments, and false claims of their success and "proof", I will not be typing "fail" or anything else, but rather will be ignoring your posts entirely, until such time as you stumble upon a new and unaddressed argument that might somehow be valid, or at least in need of address.

Of course you will be ignoring my posts. Far better to avoid what you cannot refute. I, on the otherhand, will continue to demonstrate how you don't know what you are talking about, how invalid each and every position you hold on this issue is, and how poorly constructed your arguments are. I understand that you are wedded to your position, but it is a defeated position.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

...and with that, I'm satisfied and signing off.

I know. It's hard to add to that level of refuted positions.

 

[Trip]

I have consistently refuted everything you have said. None of your positions are valid, and each one I have painstakingly taken apart and shown to be false, for everyone to see. Your denial of this is irrelevant. I will now do precisely as i said I will.



Fail. Point #1, Post #321.



Fail. Point #2, Post #321.



Fail. Point #3, Post #321.



Fail. Point #4, Post #321.



Fail. Point #5, Post #321.



Fail, point #6, Post #321.



Of course you will be ignoring my posts. Far better to avoid what you cannot refute. I, on the otherhand, will continue to demonstrate how you don't know what you are talking about, how invalid each and every position you hold on this issue is, and how poorly constructed your arguments are. I understand that you are wedded to your position, but it is a defeated position.

It would be far better for you to ignore my posts, as claims of "fail" and "refuted" and "defeated" have not been provided by fact and only ... in hollow claim.


Evidently you choose to even ignore the fact of your own birth by heterosexual process, along with the entirety of mankind.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

It would be far better for you to ignore my posts, as claims of "fail" and "refuted" and "defeated" have not been provided by fact and only ... in hollow claim.

No, since all of my claims have been proven either factually or logically, and all of yours have been refuted under the same reasons, I will continue to point this fact out.

Evidently you choose to even ignore the fact of your own birth by heterosexual process, along with the entirety of mankind.

Fail, point #1, post #321.

 

[Trip]

No, since all of my claims have been proven either factually or logically, and all of yours have been refuted under the same reasons, I will continue to point this fact out.




Fail, point #1, post #321.

You've not provided even the most tissue-thin logic and fact, only having made unsupported and irrelevant statements of your own seeking to subvert both logic and fact unsuccessfully..

 

[CriticalThought]

Accurately historically speaking, marriage was never "contingent on producing offspring". Producing offspring is not a requirement to be recognized, but rather the fact of the offspring being produced is why stable committed unions are recognized - marriage.

Stable committed unions. You just moved the discussion from procreation to child rearing.

Game, set, match.

 

[winston53660]

WTH is that supposed to mean?

 

[Trip]

Stable committed unions. You just moved the discussion from procreation to child rearing.

Game, set, match.

Quite clearly you've either not been paying attention, or not understanding what you read.

There was nothing at all "just moved". My entire argument in this thread and the other SSM threads has involved these recognitions.

The only reason that it was only recognized as procreation, was 1) some individuals try to claim that procreation was never an obligation of marriage, which is true but irrelevant and 2) a number don't have the mental focus to making to the end of the compound sentence, much less understand that the upbringing of human offspring to adolescence is an extended period, and the critical part of why marriage is recognized. Any bovine intellect can reproduce, and generally do for entertainment purposes.


You're not even on the board.

 

[Lakryte]

I understand that you are wedded to your position, but it is a defeated position.

Was that pun intentional? :2razz:

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Was that pun intentional? :2razz:

I hate puns... but I wish I it was. :2razz:

 

[head of joaquin]

Accurately historically speaking, marriage was never "contingent on producing offspring". Producing offspring is not a requirement to be recognized, but rather the fact of the offspring being produced is why stable committed unions are recognized - marriage.

Maybe before divorce law emerged, and maybe even before no fault divorce emerged. Marriage isn't about stable relationships anymore; it's about creditor and property rights. The law evolved to recognize that adults can make up their own mind about when they begin and end relationships, and legislators should have little say in that, but instead simply make sure the economic consequences are predictable and fair.

So you're about half a century behind the times for basic marriage law; forget about the emerging law of SSM.

 

[donsutherland1]

The facts demonstrate that the recent DOMA case, U.S. v Windsor, was nothing but a corrupt hose and pony show that SCOTUS did not have the jurisdiction to hear...

Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states of the Supreme Court's authority, "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States..."

The Defense of Marriage Act (Public Law 104-199) was a federal law. It fell squarely within the Supreme Court's constitutional jurisdiction set forth in Article III, Section 2. One could accurately state that the Supreme Court was not obligated to hear the case. One cannot state that it had no jurisdiction over the case.

 

[Trip]

Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states of the Supreme Court's authority, "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States..."

The Defense of Marriage Act (Public Law 104-199) was a federal law. It fell squarely within the Supreme Court's constitutional jurisdiction set forth in Article III, Section 2. One could accurately state that the Supreme Court was not obligated to hear the case. One cannot state that it had no jurisdiction over the case.

Actually one can say that they had no Jurisdiction and that did not in fact have jurisdiction because, as recognized by Scalia, there was no "case" to resolve, there was no longer any conflict, and therefore no remedy that the court might provide.


Furthermore, there is no conflict under law or equity regarding Congress's authority to make law specifically regarding federal actions. There is no right to have a marriage by particular terms recognized, and no conflict when that marriage is not recognized.