Page 25 of 61 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 609

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

  1. #241
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by StevenA59 View Post
    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.
    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.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  2. #242
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

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

    Quote Originally Posted by StevenA59 View Post
    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.
    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...

  3. #243
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

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

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    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.
    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
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  4. #244
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

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

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    People are treated equally. Lifestyles aren't.
    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?
    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.
    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?
    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?
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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?
    What justifies your desire to use the government to openly discriminate beyond your personal opinion?

  5. #245
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

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

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post


    People are treated equally. Lifestyles aren't.

    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.

  6. #246
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    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.
    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.
    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.
    LOL That is hardly a reason to change the law based on a one time supposed economic benifit.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  7. #247
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

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

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    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.
    Why can't an adult marry a child? Is that also being descriminated against since you want to use that argument?
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  8. #248
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    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.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  9. #249
    User
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-22-10 @ 03:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    111

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Since normal is a completely arbitrary term, one based solely on relative opinion, nothing you say above is pertinent.
    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

  10. #250
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,711

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

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    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.
    And this has been explained to you REPEATEDLY. Questionairres, when doing studies, are far more accurate than interviews because of their objectivity.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

Page 25 of 61 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •