Page 28 of 61 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 609

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

  1. #271
    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 StevenA59 View Post
    Okay. One. It diminishes marriage by saying that marriage can be between two men or two women. It's like me going on TV and calling Anjelina Jolie a crack whore. Yes it injures her. Two. It puts my kids at risk by advancing the idea that homosexuality is okay, merely a lifestyle choice and not a sexual perversion. I don't want gays going after my kids and claiming it's "normal." Three. It goes against nature and the Bible. You might as well argue "what's the harm in robbing a bank?"

    You're calling a cheap $10 knock-off a Gucci bag. What's the harm in it? Figure it out.
    If your marriage is so fragile that its validity relies upon who else is allowed to enter into the same legal contract, then you have some serious marital issues you should probably deal with. I dunno about about anyone else, but the value of my relationships isn't determined by other people's relationships. And any legal contracts I enter into don't change just because someone else entered into a legal contract.

    That's seriously ****ed up dude. Does your wife know you think so little of your relationship? Does she know that you base the value of your relationship on what legal contracts *I* sign?


    Quote Originally Posted by StevenA59 View Post
    The Constitution is also "some book." Cherry pick much?
    First, it's not a book, it's a document.
    Secondly, it's amended to change with the times
    Third, are you seriously going to compare rule of law with fairtale stories?

  2. #272
    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
    Okay. One. It diminishes marriage by saying that marriage can be between two men or two women. It's like me going on TV and calling Anjelina Jolie a crack whore. Yes it injures her. Two. It puts my kids at risk by advancing the idea that homosexuality is okay, merely a lifestyle choice and not a sexual perversion. I don't want gays going after my kids and claiming it's "normal." Three. It goes against nature and the Bible. You might as well argue "what's the harm in robbing a bank?"
    Telling your kids that there's something 'wrong' with homosexuality is advancing ignorance and bigotry the same way that racists in the 60's told their kids there was something wrong with blacks.

    I realize there is an entire generation of ignorant parents trying to pass their ignorant homophobic beliefs on to their kids, but the more homosexuals come out of the closet, the more smart kids understand it's not a 'choice' and it's not something you can 'catch'. It's the way God made them.

    Perhaps God put them here to teach us true love and tolerance. To test us, maybe. It's sad that so many so-called Christians fail this test with their ugly comments and bigotry.

    Is being left-handed immoral? People used to think so. Teachers used to force left-handed students to write with their right hand. Ignorance. Plain and simple.

  3. #273
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,357
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    The rearing of children is a component of state sanctioned marriage, but it is not the only component. Anti-GM people lose on rearing children, and they lose trying to argue that marriage is only for children.
    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Correct. Gays also in fairly large numbers have children, which further hurts the argument(roughly 1/3 lesbian couples, 1/4 gay male couples).
    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.
    There are my first two posts in this thread, both from the first page, and I think they make clear that I am not arguing gay marriage based on genetics. My first mention of genetics/evolution is on page 5, and in response to some one else who failed to understand how evolution and genetics work. Correcting other people's mistakes is not the same as pushing the argument myself.

    Gay Marriage should be legal for a number of reason. First and most importantly, gay couples are increasingly involved in raising children, with large numbers of them being primary caregivers for children. It is easier and easier for gay couples to have children through a variety of methods. For the benefit of society and those children, providing stable living arrangements is a positive.

    Married people are more likely to own homes, are more stable in terms of jobs, and overall contribute more to their community than unmarried people.

    There is no logical reason to deny marriage to gay people.

    There is no logical reason to give gay people the same benefits, but call it something else.

    Those are my arguments for gay marriage, and you have not argued against them. You have built your straw man and thought it meant something.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  4. #274
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

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

    Quote Originally Posted by StevenA59 View Post
    Okay. One. It diminishes marriage by saying that marriage can be between two men or two women. It's like me going on TV and calling Anjelina Jolie a crack whore. Yes it injures her. Two. It puts my kids at risk by advancing the idea that homosexuality is okay, merely a lifestyle choice and not a sexual perversion. I don't want gays going after my kids and claiming it's "normal." Three. It goes against nature and the Bible. You might as well argue "what's the harm in robbing a bank?"

    You're calling a cheap $10 knock-off a Gucci bag. What's the harm in it? Figure it out.
    How does it diminsh. You say it diminsihes, how? And no, it isn't at all similar to calling anyone a name, though calling someone a name means nothing if it isn't true. Too often it makes the name caller look bad and not the personn called a name.

    And how does it put your kids at risk? Do you think they will become gay if two people are allowed to love each other legally? If they have ebenfits of marriage? Again, how? If you misinform them that it is a pervesion, why won't they believe you? Other than the fact that you're wrong?

    The Bible is a faith, a belief. Those who follow any belief may be compelled to follow those tenents, but you're not allowed to force those tenents on others. I personally doubt the Bible actually says anything about homosexuality (and no need to get into that discussion), but it doesn't matter at all. Your faith is your faith. You either have the conviction to follow your tennets or you don't. But either way, you can't force your beliefs on others. Nor should the law if no one is harmed by someone's beliefs or life styles.

    And no matter what you think gay marriage is, the fact is you have not demonstrated harm in any way. If you cannot honor your own marriage if same sex marriage is a allowed, then you really don't have anything to begin with.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #275
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,990

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

    To mass reply to all the people that quoted me.

    Even if gay marriage doesn't affect me directly, it does affect me indirectly and it goes against what I believe. It gay marriage is considered marriage then that means the state I live in recognizes a homosexual union as equal and as morally right as a heterosexual marriage. I have a right to stand up and vote for what I believe. Does this mean all middle class/poor people have no right to vote on candidates who want to raise taxes for the rich? After all, raising taxes on the rich doesn't affect them.

    No one has replied to my point that overturning Prop 8 is a bigoted imposition of morals upon social conservatives. It's hypocrisy for them to say "no one has the right to impose their morals upon another" while they do the very thing. Not calling a homosexual union is not imposing anyone's morals upon another. No one is preventing homosexual sex or preventing them from living together or proclaiming themselves as partners. People are just not going to call what they have a marriage that is equal and morally acceptable like a heterosexual marriage. Now, Proposition 8 is a positive statement asserting that in California, the marital union is legally defined by the voters as a union between one man and one woman. If they repeal this they are telling the majority of voters that their opinion regarding marriage is illegal, that they have no right to vote regarding this social issue, and essentially that the state may impose liberal social values upon everyone that lives there against their will. They are imposing their definition of marriage upon everyone. The majority voted and said that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, many other states have done similar things and none have been shot down in court. When asked about a social issue, society decided and that decision was not in line with what many California Democrats wanted. It would be bigoted to tell the voters that their opinion is not only illegal, but that it doesn't count. It is bigoted to say "your definition of marriage is wrong, we are going to impose our definition upon you even though you voted as a majority to uphold the traditional definition of marriage."
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  6. #276
    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
    So basically you can't really argue much on my points?
    Said the person who refused to go point for point and quoted everything? Could you be a little more dishonest?

    Are you going to argue that you have valid proof that all or even most homosexual couples do not make good parents? Keep in mind, that the research should focus on couples not raising children that are biologically the product of both partners, whatever their sexuality is. Otherwise, you are not arguing a 1 to 1 comparison.
    I said the studies were not conclusive. There is far more and better evidence of polygamists raising children but that doesn't justify changing the law for them either. Unless you want to dismiss entire countries who allow it now.

    Also, so tell me what those combinations are that it opens marriage up to as legally accepted relationships currently in the US. They should meet the same scrutiny that homosexual relationships are providing proof for. The couples who would be restricted would need to show their need for legal recognition and why their being allowed to legally marry would provide benefits to society like those I have listed. The only one I can think of is polygamy, since the others normally listed already are part of each other's legal family or are not legal relationships anyway.
    Can you explain why you limit it to couples? What evidence are you using for that limitation or "discrimination"? Could it be a simple moral judgment on your part?

    And since you kept it at couples that being your moral choice, why do you have the right to limit the age of marriage? If you point to age of consent, that is simply a law just like the law against gay marriage and you want to change that. Starting to pick up on the hypocrisy? You lambaste people against gay marriage claiming couples have the "right" to marry yet you want to limit that "right" only to homosexual couples of a certain age even though your justification could be used by many different groups you would continue to disallow from marriage. That is the hypocritical nature of your argument.

    What is the harm in using civil unions to achieve the goal of state recognition?

    Why are you and the far left so militant it must be called "marriage"?

    Despite popular arguments from anti-gm side, there is an interest in limiting relationships that are proven to be harmful, so then it is necessary to prove that why it is not in the state's interest to limit those relationships. Lawrence v. Texas already established that what two consenting adults do in there bedroom is not in the state's interest.
    Which means nothing in this discussion but do continue.

    There are even some good arguments against legalizing polygamy already.
    Not using the same arguments you are using for gay marriage absolutely not.

    Whether it should be open or not, I am back and forth on, but realize the complications that come with making polygamous marriage legal. It is not something that is easy to compare like homosexual and heterosexual relationships.
    So you would discriminate based on personal opinion. Exactly how are you different from people opposed to gay marriage?

    Since, the economic benefit is not my only argument, then it is worth it to mention. Of course it shouldn't be considered worth it for that alone. But considering the other benefits, it adds to those benefits. It helps to trump some of those perceived "harms" that the anti-gm side fears might happen, with no actual proof.
    You still don't understand that the same argument you are using for gay marriage can be used by the polygamists. Nothing in what you are arguing could stop polygamists for demanding the same "right" based on your arguments for gay marriage.

    That is the reality you seem to want to avoid.
    Last edited by texmaster; 06-21-10 at 02:40 PM.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  7. #277
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

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

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    To mass reply to all the people that quoted me.

    Even if gay marriage doesn't affect me directly, it does affect me indirectly and it goes against what I believe. It gay marriage is considered marriage then that means the state I live in recognizes a homosexual union as equal and as morally right as a heterosexual marriage. I have a right to stand up and vote for what I believe. Does this mean all middle class/poor people have no right to vote on candidates who want to raise taxes for the rich? After all, raising taxes on the rich doesn't affect them.

    No one has replied to my point that overturning Prop 8 is a bigoted imposition of morals upon social conservatives. It's hypocrisy for them to say "no one has the right to impose their morals upon another" while they do the very thing. Not calling a homosexual union is not imposing anyone's morals upon another. No one is preventing homosexual sex or preventing them from living together or proclaiming themselves as partners. People are just not going to call what they have a marriage that is equal and morally acceptable like a heterosexual marriage. Now, Proposition 8 is a positive statement asserting that in California, the marital union is legally defined by the voters as a union between one man and one woman. If they repeal this they are telling the majority of voters that their opinion regarding marriage is illegal, that they have no right to vote regarding this social issue, and essentially that the state may impose liberal social values upon everyone that lives there against their will. They are imposing their definition of marriage upon everyone. The majority voted and said that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, many other states have done similar things and none have been shot down in court. When asked about a social issue, society decided and that decision was not in line with what many California Democrats wanted. It would be bigoted to tell the voters that their opinion is not only illegal, but that it doesn't count. It is bigoted to say "your definition of marriage is wrong, we are going to impose our definition upon you even though you voted as a majority to uphold the traditional definition of marriage."
    What you haven't shown is how it effects you. For some, drinking alcohol is against the beliefs, but we allow the consumption of alcohol. And the person who doesn't believe in partaking, simply doesn't partake. Some people frimly believe in celibacy, sex being against their personal morals, yet we don't outlaw sex or prevent heterosxuals from marrying to appease these people.

    And definition of marriage is a personal thing. Do you believe you and I have the same definition? If not, who chooses? What allows you to decide for me what my definition of marriage is. I'm quite willing to let you define marriage for you as you see fit. You don't believe ins same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. It is that simple. I won't prevent you from marrying someone of the opposite sex. Quite clearly, the imposition is coming from your side of this debate. You are telling others what they can and can't do, what they can define as what, and all without showing any just cause at all.

    So, again I ask, exactly how does this effect you negatively? Be specific please.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #278
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,340
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    I shouldn't be forced to call a happy meal a happy meal!!!!!!! I will stand up and vote for it to be called a corporate money grabbing method meal!!!!!!

    I don't agree with definitions of words, so I'll stand up and vote for my religious values to be reflected upon an institution that shouldn't even have anything to do with the state in the first place... RAR!!!!!!!!!
    Last edited by Jetboogieman; 06-21-10 at 02:48 PM.

  9. #279
    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 digsbe View Post
    No one has replied to my point that overturning Prop 8 is a bigoted imposition of morals upon social conservatives. It's hypocrisy for them to say "no one has the right to impose their morals upon another" while they do the very thing. Not calling a homosexual union is not imposing anyone's morals upon another. No one is preventing homosexual sex or preventing them from living together or proclaiming themselves as partners. People are just not going to call what they have a marriage that is equal and morally acceptable like a heterosexual marriage.
    Wrong.

    Allowing same-sex marriage imposes nothing at all upon you. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. Zilch.

    Continuing to keep it banned DOES impose your warped morality on others. We are discriminated against, treated unequally by our own government. We are forbidden from entering into the same contract you can enter into.

    So, try again with the whole "imposing" bull****. Nothing is imposed upon you if I'm allowed to marry a woman. Nothing at all. But something surely is imposed upon me by denying me the same right you have.

  10. #280
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,054

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

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    Said the person who refused to go point for point and quoted everything? Could you be a little more dishonest?



    I said the studies were not conclusive. There is far more and better evidence of polygamists raising children but that doesn't justify changing the law for them either. Unless you want to dismiss entire countries who allow it now.



    Can you explain why you limit it to couples? What evidence are you using for that limitation or "discrimination"? Could it be a simple moral judgment on your part?

    And since you kept it at couples that being your moral choice, why do you have the right to limit the age of marriage? If you point to age of consent, that is simply a law just like the law against gay marriage and you want to change that. Starting to pick up on the hypocrisy? You lambaste people against gay marriage claiming couples have the "right" to marry yet you want to limit that "right" only to homosexual couples of a certain age even though your justification could be used by many different groups you would continue to disallow from marriage. That is the hypocritical nature of your argument.

    What is the harm in using civil unions to achieve the goal of state recognition?

    Why are you and the far left so militant it must be called "marriage"?



    Which means nothing in this discussion but do continue.



    Not using the same arguments you are using for gay marriage absolutely not.



    So you would discriminate based on personal opinion. Exactly how are you different from people opposed to gay marriage?



    You still don't understand that the same argument you are using for gay marriage can be used by the polygamists. Nothing in what you are arguing could stop polygamists for demanding the same "right" based on your arguments for gay marriage.

    That is the reality you seem to want to avoid.
    First of all, I am replying to everything in one big post because my computer is being onery, and auto-scrolling on me. It is taking me long enough just to respond in this manner.

    Okay, on to the debate.

    As for the research, saying that it isn't conclusive, yet failing to provide any research that might prove it wrong, does nothing for your argument. You are essentially saying that the research can't prove to you that homosexuals can make good parents. There is no way that any research ever 100% proves that something actually occurs, which is generally why we have so many studies done on the same things. Logic says that where findings repeat themselves in research, once accounting for as many variables as possible, without evidence to refute a different reason for these findings happening, then the reasoning given is most likely true. So to refute the research that homosexuals can be good parents, you need to have sound research to suggest that all or most homosexuals don't make good parents.

    As for polygamists raising children better than homosexuals, how about a little evidence? Links to studies? Without research, you can't compare how the two actually do raise children, so you can't really come to such a conclusion.

    Moving on to other reasons outside childrearing. Age of consent is a law. It is really not the same thing as legalizing gay marriage. There are laws against an adult sleeping with a minor. The adult who sleeps with a minor could very likely face criminal charges and possibly punishment. This is not how marriage laws work. If a gay couple goes to try to obtain a marriage license, they are simply denied it. No one faces criminal charges for the attempt. In fact, there are cases right now, where some couples have their marriage in question, due to how their state recognizes their gender. If a state has rules that recognize gender as what the person is living their life as, and they changed their gender after marrying someone of the opposite sex, then would their marriage now be invalid or annulled automatically if their state does not recognize same sex marriages? This type of couple would not be arrested or face any kind of criminal charges for having a marriage license. The reason for age of consent laws deals with emotional maturity to be able to legally enter into contracts with another person. Civil marriage is a contract. In fact, many, if not all, states allow for at least some minors to legally marry if their parents consent. This argument is dishonest since you should be well aware of the reasoning behind age of consent laws, which do not follow the reasons in denying gays marriage.

    Polygamy is different than opening up the current marriage rules to homosexual couples. This has been argued in a different thread. There could be benefits as well as harms to society for legalizing polygamy. Those possible benefits as well as possible harms must be studied before society should consider legalizing polygamy. If there is no evidence to suggest that polygamy will prove harmful to society but will provide benefits or even that the benefits will outweigh the harm, then it should be legal. The side for same sex marriage has listed tons of benefits and no one has provided evidence of any possible, quantifiable harm to society. When you can provide proof of potential harm to society because of homosexual marriage being legalized, then you will at least have a start for an argument against it.

    I am not "militant" about it being called "civil union", however, I am against it. If the compromise was to call same sex marriage "civil union" and they had all the same benefits and privileges of marriage, I would consider it a huge victory. However, I would still be verbally fighting to have it called marriage. I would also be rather ticked off that our government wasted so much money just to appease the whining of a group of people who believe wrongly that they deserve the right to own a legal word and its meaning. Especially when I know that on a personal/private level all those couples in a "civil union" will consider and call themselves "married", just as I would if my own marriage was called a "civil union" on paper for whatever reason.

    I do not discriminate on my opinion. I agree with most laws and limitations/restrictions that are based in research and can show a point that harm would reasonably be caused if the limitation did not exist or where something is not needed from a logical standpoint. I do not base discrimination on my own sense of what is or isn't right for me, or even my family. I consider the facts that go with the laws. For instance, I consider it wrong to preach hate speech against anyone or any group, but I am against laws that would make it illegal to preach such speech, because it could very likely lead to further restrictions on speech in the name of cutting down on hate. This is actually another big problem I have with DOMA, because if the government can enact a law that limits what couples it will accept as legitimate couples without a sound reason for why it is in the state's interest to do so, then what is to stop them from limiting marriage even further to couples who can only have their own children or to only couples who are religious?
    "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.

Page 28 of 61 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... 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
  •