Page 51 of 61 FirstFirst ... 414950515253 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 609

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

  1. #501
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    The problem though is that marriage is a legal institution and not just a social one. .
    And this is precisely why your argument that you should get to define it to the exclusion of others based solely on your archaic religious sensibilities falls flat.

  2. #502
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,982

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    And this is precisely why your argument that you should get to define it to the exclusion of others based solely on your archaic religious sensibilities falls flat.
    Please don't make personal attacks against my religion/religious beliefs.

    Your argument is that you should get to define it to the inclusion of others that do not fit the definition of marriage.
    Last edited by digsbe; 06-29-10 at 08:52 PM.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  3. #503
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Please don't make personal attacks against my religion/religious beliefs.
    I'm sorry you find the irrelevance of your religious beliefs when it comes to matters of secular law offensive. But you're just going to have to deal with the simple fact that your ancient religious practices have zero to do with modern law.

    Your argument is that you should get to define it to the inclusion of others that do not fit the definition of marriage.
    No, my argument is that the issue of civil marriage is separate, distinct, and exclusive of the influence of archaic religious definitions that have no bearing on modern society. Let the religious do whatever the hell they want in their churches but the state has zero obligation to define it's civil contracts based on your blind devotion to a dying sect.

  4. #504
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,982

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    I'm sorry you find the irrelevance of your religious beliefs when it comes to matters of secular law offensive. But you're just going to have to deal with the simple fact that your ancient religious practices have zero to do with modern law.
    What was offensive was your description of my religious beliefs. And when it comes to matters of social law in a secular society, the religious have a right to voice and vote their moral code into law. My "ancient religious practices" have nothing to do with modern law, you are right. However, those that believe in "ancient religious practices" are allowed to voice their beliefs into law through the democratic and constitutional process of voting. Marriage is a social, religious, and legal union.
    No, my argument is that the issue of civil marriage is separate, distinct, and exclusive of the influence of archaic religious definitions that have no bearing on modern society. Let the religious do whatever the hell they want in their churches but the state has zero obligation to define it's civil contracts based on your blind devotion to a dying sect.
    The archaic religious definitions obviously have bearing on modern society when many states have voted these definitions into law. People have every right to believe and support a traditional/religious definition of marriage, just as others can believe and support irreligious/new definitions of marriage. The state has obligation to define social and civil contracts based on what the voters say, who do happen to believe and have devotion to a living set of religious beliefs. I won't demean secular morals or borderline flame you, so I ask that you do the same. But whatever
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  5. #505
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

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

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    What was offensive was your description of my religious beliefs. And when it comes to matters of social law in a secular society, the religious have a right to voice and vote their moral code into law. My "ancient religious practices" have nothing to do with modern law, you are right. However, those that believe in "ancient religious practices" are allowed to voice their beliefs into law through the democratic and constitutional process of voting. Marriage is a social, religious, and legal union.

    The archaic religious definitions obviously have bearing on modern society when many states have voted these definitions into law. People have every right to believe and support a traditional/religious definition of marriage, just as others can believe and support irreligious/new definitions of marriage. The state has obligation to define social and civil contracts based on what the voters say, who do happen to believe and have devotion to a living set of religious beliefs. I won't demean secular morals or borderline flame you, so I ask that you do the same. But whatever
    By your definition, if people voted against inter-relgious marriages, that should be okay, too.

  6. #506
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,982

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

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    By your definition, if people voted against inter-relgious marriages, that should be okay, too.
    In a democratic society why not? I believe that's wrong, but marriage is a social, religious, and legal construct. Likewise, we could also recognize a human to animal union as a marriage.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  7. #507
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,033

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

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    In a democratic society why not? I believe that's wrong, but marriage is a social, religious, and legal construct. Likewise, we could also recognize a human to animal union as a marriage.
    One of the main problems with the slippery slope argument (especially in this debate) is that you make it begin with gay marriage entirely arbitrarily. The ultimate conclusion of the slippery slope isn't just that it ends with people marrying their furniture (or whatever), but that it begins with men and women marrying. Once you give men and women the right to marry, then you have to give people of the same sex the right to marry as well.

    The slippery slope always starts at the top.

    I wouldn't bother pointing this out to most other people in the gay marriage debate because usually when they bring up the people-marrying-their-pets argument they're just trolling. But you seem like an honest guy so I thought I'd demonstrate why the slippery slope argument in this case doesn't work.
    Last edited by Cardinal; 06-29-10 at 10:06 PM.

  8. #508
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,982

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    One of the main problems with the slippery slope argument (especially in this debate) is that you make it begin with gay marriage entirely arbitrarily. The ultimate conclusion of the slippery slope isn't just that it ends with people marrying their furniture (or whatever), but that it begins with men and women marrying. Once you give men and women the right to marry, then you have to give people of the same sex the right to marry as well.

    The slippery slope always starts at the top.

    I wouldn't bother pointing this out to most other people in the gay marriage debate because usually when they bring up the people-marrying-their-pets argument they're just trolling. But you seem like an honest guy so I thought I'd demonstrate why the slippery slope argument in this case doesn't work.
    I'm not trying to argue from the slippery slope point of view. What I am alluding to is that for the same reasons, if people felt that a human and animal have a right to marry, then they can vote on it and define marriage to include bestiality. I'm not saying that gay marriage is equal to bestiality, I'm saying that the debate centers around what fits the definition of marriage and that as a society, we have a right to vote and legally define marriage in our state constitutions.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  9. #509
    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
    The problem though is that marriage is a legal institution and not just a social one. I want the government to recognize only monogamous hetero unions as marriage. Homosexual unions would not be recognized as marriage, but given some form of legal status.
    Well, the government doesn't recognize only monogamous hetero unions as marriage. There is nothing that prevents a marriage from being polyamorous. There is nothing that requires the participants be heterosexual. What you want will never happen.

    But I guess you can go on wanting discrimination, and even vote for it. Maybe we should vote on whether white people can marry black people too. Maybe some people don't think THOSE are marriages. (The government surely didn't at one time)

    It's astounding to me how people can think it's "wrong" to discriminate based on race, but not wrong to discriminate based on gender.

  10. #510
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,982

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    Well, the government doesn't recognize only monogamous hetero unions as marriage. There is nothing that prevents a marriage from being polyamorous. There is nothing that requires the participants be heterosexual. What you want will never happen.
    The law prevents polygamy, and under the definition of marriage it required that those entering the contract be of the opposite gender. And many state governments only recognize only monogamous hetero marriage.
    But I guess you can go on wanting discrimination, and even vote for it. Maybe we should vote on whether white people can marry black people too. Maybe some people don't think THOSE are marriages. (The government surely didn't at one time)
    Homo marriage do not equate with bi racial marriages. That is also a slippery slope fallacy. Not all discrimination is wrong. We discriminate against murder and recognize it to be illegal. There is nothing wrong with excluding homosexuality from the definition of marriage.
    It's astounding to me how people can think it's "wrong" to discriminate based on race, but not wrong to discriminate based on gender.
    There is no gender discrimination. Any woman can marry any man who consents, and any man can marry any woman who consents. However, a man and man nor woman and woman can "marry" because that union does not fit the 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.

Page 51 of 61 FirstFirst ... 414950515253 ... 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
  •