After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overturn

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

digsbe said:

Again, it affects my society and the state that I live in. As a voting resident of my state, it affects me if the government I elect choses to extend marital rights and a marital status to a homosexual union. It would essentially be the government doing the opposite of what I believe, and as a voter I have the right to make my voice and opinion heard. How does it affect you if homosexual unions aren't recognized as marriages?

Click to expand...

This is literally the weakest attempt to justify the denial of basic rights I have ever heard of in my entire life. Congratulations. Really, your argument boils down to "because I don't want it."

You know what I don't want? You. In my country. Can we vote on that too?

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Boo Radley said:

There are those who hold Christian beliefs who would marry homosexuals.

Click to expand...

This reminds me of an ad campaign some Church ran where it was basically saying it would accept people you average church wouldn't, like gay couples.

And that ad was from quite a while ago.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Here's the thing, folks. The GM debate always boils down to morality vs. logic. This far, I have never seen a logical debate presented by someone who is anti-GM, that didn't eventually come down to morality, or "I don't want it" with no other explanation. Now, I am not mocking morality, but I do not believe that policy should be based on it, when logic completely defies what it dictates. The American people have the right to vote anyway they choose, whether it be on logic, morality, or because they "feel like it"... even if they are wrong, based on evidence, logic, or whatever. I have involved myself in the GM debate for many years and I do not hold illusions that I will change anti's minds, but I do hope I can at least educate them on how their positions are not logical and what they are actually based on. They can believe what they want; I just want them to see WHY.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Boo Radley said:

That's not an explination. You're talking in circles, it does because it does because it does. I want to know HOW it effects you? What is your real life tangiable effect to you and your marriage?

ONce you answer me, I'll gladly answer you.

Click to expand...

He already said there is a basis in religion. Do you need to be quoted chapter and verse? That's not necessary since the Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin like many other sins. IMO gay marriage is a redefinition of marriage that harms the institution. And don't keep asking why. It's been explained repeatedly.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

TurtleDude said:

I don't understand that at all/ YOu suffer no objective harm. You see when blacks or women or those between ages 18 and 21 were given say the right to vote, those who already could vote could claim that their voting power was DILUTED or DIMINISHED by extending the franchise to those who previously could not vote. That isn't EVEN THE CASE here. You suffer no DILUTION IN YOUR RIGHTS as a married couple by allowing Dave and Bob to call themselves a married couple. So what you are telling me is that you FEEL That your marriage to Mrs Digsbe is somehow CHEAPENED because Guido and Julious can call themselves Husband and Husband or whatever.

NOw that is not an objectively sound reason to stop them, Now I realize you might claim that this is not a case of active interference or denial but merely a REFUSAL of the government to RECOGNIZE Anna and Mary as a married couple but that is a specious argument. There is no reason to deny equal treatment of gays because you cannot even claim a diluation in your benefits as a married couple.

Sorry I couldn't give a flying F if it upsets some religions.

Click to expand...

Sexual self-identification has nothing to do with race. Gays already have the right to vote.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

CaptainCourtesy said:

Here's the thing, folks. The GM debate always boils down to morality vs. logic. This far, I have never seen a logical debate presented by someone who is anti-GM, that didn't eventually come down to morality, or "I don't want it" with no other explanation. Now, I am not mocking morality, but I do not believe that policy should be based on it, when logic completely defies what it dictates. The American people have the right to vote anyway they choose, whether it be on logic, morality, or because they "feel like it"... even if they are wrong, based on evidence, logic, or whatever. I have involved myself in the GM debate for many years and I do not hold illusions that I will change anti's minds, but I do hope I can at least educate them on how their positions are not logical and what they are actually based on. They can believe what they want; I just want them to see WHY.

Click to expand...

The fact that homosexuality is fairly common does not mean that it is normal in the sense of normal psychosexuality. Whether homosexuality is more harmful than, let's say, left-handedness is another debate.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

StevenA59 said:

The fact that homosexuality is fairly common does not mean that it is normal in the sense of normal psychosexuality. Whether homosexuality is more harmful than, let's say, left-handedness is another debate.

Click to expand...

Since normal is a completely arbitrary term, one based solely on relative opinion, nothing you say above is pertinent.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

StevenA59 said:

Sexual self-identification has nothing to do with race. Gays already have the right to vote.

Click to expand...

You completely missed his point and his analogy. Try again.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

StevenA59 said:

Sexual self-identification has nothing to do with race. Gays already have the right to vote.

Click to expand...

That still isn't a reason.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

StevenA59 said:

He already said there is a basis in religion. Do you need to be quoted chapter and verse? That's not necessary since the Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin like many other sins. IMO gay marriage is a redefinition of marriage that harms the institution. And don't keep asking why. It's been explained repeatedly.

Click to expand...

So is that what should be argued in court? "The Bible clearly says that homosexuality is a sin, your honor." That wouldn't go over very well.

Now, a better argument might be, "Your honor, many of the voters in this state view homosexuality as a sin and same sex marriage as a redefinition of marriage. This is why they voted for this Proposition." Then it is a matter of do voters have the right to deny equal treatment to a group, without actual proof that the group having that equal treatment will do harm to the existing institution but in fact with proof that actually allowing equal treatment to the group will most likely improve the lives of many of the group members and their families.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Redress said:

Actually, the genetic argument is not even one of the top 3 arguments used. Build that straw man up though, since you cannot actually argue against the real points used(eg GM is good for families, promotes social stability and so on). When you get around to arguing the points people are actually making, then we will be somewhere.

Click to expand...

Thats an amusing take considering you were one of the ones arguing genetics so heavily.

Name these arguments of yours. We are talking about changing law.

Name the logical and legitimate arguments that justify acceptance of homosexual marriage.

BTW, if you go back to "civil rights" as an argument you are back to the genetic argument.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

rivrrat said:

And?

Is there a gene that makes you attracted specifically to your wife?

No?

Then you shouldn't be allowed to marry her.

See how stupid the genetic thing is?

Click to expand...

Then don't use it to justify gay marriage as so many of your colleagues have done.

But we don't allow them marry until they are of age of consent. We don't allow them to do MANY things until they are certain ages. Not my rules dear, and you want to start a thread regarding dropping the legal age of consent, feel free. You'll see me backing that too.

Click to expand...

You are only making my point for me. We have made moral decisions about age of consent.

Actually, it was your argument.

Click to expand...

Completely false and I challenge you to provide the quote where I ever used that argument before exposing the ridiculousness of it as I have here.

Let's see it.

I have no issue at all with allowing siblings to sign a marriage contact together.

Click to expand...

Yet you would deny children. How is that any different than another moral stance just like those who are against gay marriage have done?

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

StevenA59 said:

He already said there is a basis in religion. Do you need to be quoted chapter and verse? That's not necessary since the Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin like many other sins. IMO gay marriage is a redefinition of marriage that harms the institution. And don't keep asking why. It's been explained repeatedly.

Click to expand...

NO, I need him to answer the question. Having in based in religion doesn't tell me HOW it effects him and his life, The question was what is the tangable effect on his life? Even you above don't explain how. YOu say it harms the institution, and refuse to explain how. The truth is it doesn't and can't harm the institution. If you believe otherwise, answer the question.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

texmaster said:

Then don't use it to justify gay marriage as so many of your colleagues have done.

Click to expand...

I wasn't, sweetie. I don't give a flying **** if there's a gene that made you attracted specifically to your wife, or if you just chose to marry her. All that matters is that while the government is involved in marriage, all people be treated equally with regards to it.

You are only making my point for me. We have made moral decisions about age of consent.

Click to expand...

Yes, "we" have. (many that I disagree with). And?

Completely false and I challenge you to provide the quote where I ever used that argument before exposing the ridiculousness of it as I have here.

Click to expand...

You're the one who asked about siblings marrying, not me.

Yet you would deny children. How is that any different than another moral stance just like those who are against gay marriage have done?

Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't. But that's beside the point. It's very different. We're talking about adults who ARE of the current legal age of consent. And men are allowed to marry women, yet I am not allowed to marry a woman. How is that even remotely correct? As far as your comparison with children, are you insinuating that the reason I cannot marry a woman is because I'm not emotionally mature enough? That's the reason we have laws limiting what children can or cannot do, you know. So, is that seriously your comparison for not allowing me to legally marry a woman? Emotional and/or physical immaturity?

If that's not your argument, then perhaps you should rethink your silly little children comparison.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

rivrrat said:

I wasn't, sweetie.

Click to expand...

What part of "as so many of your colleagues have done" did you not understand?

I don't give a flying **** if there's a gene that made you attracted specifically to your wife, or if you just chose to marry her. All that matters is that while the government is involved in marriage, all people be treated equally with regards to it.

Click to expand...

People are treated equally. Lifestyles aren't.

Yes, "we" have. (many that I disagree with). And?

Click to expand...

So you rip people for making a moral disagreement with gay marriage and you don't see that as a wee bit hypocritical?

You're the one who asked about siblings marrying, not me.

Click to expand...

So you can't back it up. NExt time please do not falsely accuse me of making arguments I never made.

No, I wouldn't. But that's beside the point.

Click to expand...

You've already citied the law about children. Do I need to quote your own words again?

It's very different. We're talking about adults who ARE of the current legal age of consent.

Click to expand...

We are talking about a moral decesion society has made on age. How can you continue to miss this?

And men are allowed to marry women, yet I am not allowed to marry a woman. How is that even remotely correct?

Click to expand...

Correct? This is about changing the law to accomodate an alternative lifestlyle and pretend its on equal footing to the family unit that our society is built upon. You are going to need more than your feelings to justify changing the law to accomodate it.

As far as your comparison with children, are you insinuating that the reason I cannot marry a woman is because I'm not emotionally mature enough? That's the reason we have laws limiting what children can or cannot do, you know. So, is that seriously your comparison for not allowing me to legally marry a woman? Emotional and/or physical immaturity?

Click to expand...

I'm saying the argument to change the law needs more than your opinion to justify it and you haven't provided that. You also fail to grasp that the age of consent is a moral decesion no different than the moral decesion some have of opposing gay marriage yet you only want to slam the one you don't agree with and completely miss the hypocracy of that.

If that's not your argument, then perhaps you should rethink your silly little children comparison.

Click to expand...

You need to read more carefully. The children example was to expose your hypocracy in opposing one moral decesion based in law while attacking another moral decesion some have against gay marriage.

Now calm down and stick to the facts. What makes gay marriage justifiable to change the law beyond your personal opinion?

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

StevenA59 said:

He already said there is a basis in religion. Do you need to be quoted chapter and verse? That's not necessary since the Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin like many other sins. IMO gay marriage is a redefinition of marriage that harms the institution. And don't keep asking why. It's been explained repeatedly.

Click to expand...

I think it's sick that you'd take Christian "rules" and use government force to make the rest of us obey them. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's a hell of a lot more damaging to the Republic than gay marriage itself could ever be.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

StevenA59 said:

He already said there is a basis in religion. Do you need to be quoted chapter and verse? That's not necessary since the Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin like many other sins. IMO gay marriage is a redefinition of marriage that harms the institution. And don't keep asking why. It's been explained repeatedly.

Click to expand...

The Bible doesn't say anything of the sort. People who read it as such are injecting their own fears and insecurities, their own homophobia into their reading of the bible.

The old testament puts it on par with eating shellfish and wearing clothing of mix threads...

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

texmaster said:

Thats an amusing take considering you were one of the ones arguing genetics so heavily.

Name these arguments of yours. We are talking about changing law.

Name the logical and legitimate arguments that justify acceptance of homosexual marriage.

BTW, if you go back to "civil rights" as an argument you are back to the genetic argument.

Click to expand...

I'll give you a few, again.

Some homosexual couples are parents. They have adopted children and children from previous heterosexual relationships. CC has provided the studies on the benefits of raising children in stable households, no matter the sex of the parents, several times. I'm pretty sure he has put it in this thread at least once or twice.

Also, since it is not a requirement that all heterosexual couples have children, whether by choice or biology, and in fact, some heterosexual couples are only allowed to marry if they can't have children, then it must be assumed that there are other benefits to society from marriage not dealing with the raising of children. One of those is stability of relationships is good for the community and the economy where the couple lives. Another, by entering into marriage, a couple is agreeing legally to take responsibility for each other, and especially for the financial debts they may each or both incur while in their marriage. This gives the government someone to charge for public debts, should one die, especially when the person has no immediate blood relatives. There are also those medical and after death decisions and expenses that with marriage, rest on the spouse, rather than the public. I am sure there are more.

Sort of related, is the boost to the economy that same sex weddings can add to the community where they may choose to hold their ceremony. Many couples prefer to have wedding ceremonies in either the community where they live or the community where one or both of their families is or is closest to. And it is easy to assume that a couple is more likely to spend more on a wedding ceremony and the associated party if they are getting legal recognition for that marriage, especially if they are legally allowed to wed in the area of their choosing. So allowing same-sex marriage would most likely be a boost to the economy, local, state, and federal.

Gay marriage can serve as boost to economy Thomas Kostigen's Ethics Monitor - MarketWatch

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

texmaster said:

People are treated equally. Lifestyles aren't.

Click to expand...

No, people aren't treated equally. You can marry a woman and I can't.

So you rip people for making a moral disagreement with gay marriage and you don't see that as a wee bit hypocritical?

Click to expand...

Not at all. I don't 'rip' anyone for having some moral disagreement with anything. I do, however, rip people for trying to use the law to force their own warped moral disagreements down my throat.

So you can't back it up. NExt time please do not falsely accuse me of making arguments I never made.

Click to expand...

Yes, I did back it up since you were the one who brought up the sibling argument, and that's right there in black and white.

You've already citied the law about children. Do I need to quote your own words again?

Click to expand...

WTF are you talkiing about? I said that a law exists, not that I agreed with it.

We are talking about a moral decesion society has made on age. How can you continue to miss this?

Click to expand...

No, we're talking about a decision made on the basis of emotional and physical maturity. Not someone's own brand of morality.

Correct? This is about changing the law to accomodate an alternative lifestlyle and pretend its on equal footing to the family unit that our society is built upon. You are going to need more than your feelings to justify changing the law to accomodate it.

Click to expand...

You're going to need more than your feelings to justify continued government inequality and discrimination.

I'm saying the argument to change the law needs more than your opinion to justify it and you haven't provided that.

Click to expand...

I'm saying the argument to continue inequality and discrimination needs more than your opinion to justify it and you haven't provided that.

You also fail to grasp that the age of consent is a moral decesion no different than the moral decesion some have of opposing gay marriage yet you only want to slam the one you don't agree with and completely miss the hypocracy of that.

Click to expand...

No, not moral at all. Show me what "moral code" says that a person must be 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 or 18 in order to marry? (those are all current legal ages of consent, depending on the state) What is the "moral code" there? It simply has to do with the fact that a child is not (in general) emotionally mature enough to make such decisions. Nothing to do with any kind of 'morality'.

You need to read more carefully. The children example was to expose your hypocracy in opposing one moral decesion based in law while attacking another moral decesion some have against gay marriage.

Click to expand...

Oh, well then I guess you failed. You should use a more apt example next time. You know, one that actually applies to the topic.

Now calm down and stick to the facts. What makes gay marriage justifiable to change the law beyond your personal opinion?

Click to expand...

What justifies your desire to use the government to openly discriminate beyond your personal opinion?

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

texmaster said:

People are treated equally. Lifestyles aren't.

Click to expand...

No they are not. They are discriminated against their gender. Why can I do something legally a woman can not do legally marry a woman.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

roguenuke said:

I'll give you a few, again.

Some homosexual couples are parents. They have adopted children and children from previous heterosexual relationships. CC has provided the studies on the benefits of raising children in stable households, no matter the sex of the parents, several times. I'm pretty sure he has put it in this thread at least once or twice.

Click to expand...

Yes and if you had read the studies cited you would have found the basis for their conclusions come from unsupervised questionaires without 1on1 interviews with the chdilren. Hardly concrete.

Also, since it is not a requirement that all heterosexual couples have children, whether by choice or biology, and in fact, some heterosexual couples are only allowed to marry if they can't have children, then it must be assumed that there are other benefits to society from marriage not dealing with the raising of children. One of those is stability of relationships is good for the community and the economy where the couple lives. Another, by entering into marriage, a couple is agreeing legally to take responsibility for each other, and especially for the financial debts they may each or both incur while in their marriage. This gives the government someone to charge for public debts, should one die, especially when the person has no immediate blood relatives. There are also those medical and after death decisions and expenses that with marriage, rest on the spouse, rather than the public. I am sure there are more.

Click to expand...

By that logic any couple that wanted to marry should be allowed. Have you thought about all the different combinations you are opening the door to?

Sort of related, is the boost to the economy that same sex weddings can add to the community where they may choose to hold their ceremony. Many couples prefer to have wedding ceremonies in either the community where they live or the community where one or both of their families is or is closest to. And it is easy to assume that a couple is more likely to spend more on a wedding ceremony and the associated party if they are getting legal recognition for that marriage, especially if they are legally allowed to wed in the area of their choosing. So allowing same-sex marriage would most likely be a boost to the economy, local, state, and federal.

Click to expand...

LOL That is hardly a reason to change the law based on a one time supposed economic benifit.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

winston53660 said:

No they are not. They are discriminated against their gender. Why can I do something legally a woman can not do legally marry a woman.

Click to expand...

Why can't an adult marry a child? Is that also being descriminated against since you want to use that argument?

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Children cannot enter into contract on their own. Legal guardian must consent before the age of consent for a contract is reached.

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

CaptainCourtesy said:

Since normal is a completely arbitrary term, one based solely on relative opinion, nothing you say above is pertinent.

Click to expand...

You can keep dismissing arguments out of hand. You can reject all arguments and proof. You can stick your head in the sand for all I care. Paraphrasing Jack Nicholson, you can't handle the debate. /pwnd

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

texmaster said:

Yes and if you had read the studies cited you would have found the basis for their conclusions come from unsupervised questionaires without 1on1 interviews with the chdilren. Hardly concrete.

Click to expand...

And this has been explained to you REPEATEDLY. Questionairres, when doing studies, are far more accurate than interviews because of their objectivity.