Page 52 of 61 FirstFirst ... 2425051525354 ... LastLast
Results 511 to 520 of 609

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

  1. #511
    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 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.
    Having sex with someone who isn't your spouse isn't polygamy. And neither is it monogamy in the modern definition of the word meaning that two people are sexually monogamous with each other. And yet a ****load of married couples do it. Hell, I could go marry someone tomorrow and never see him again and have sex with the entire Dallas Cowboys football team AND cheerleaders. And I'd STILL be married.

    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.
    Homosexuality really has nothing to do with it since homosexuals can get married. What's happening is gender discrimination. So tell me why it was wrong when the law didn't recognize mixed race marriages, but it's right when it refuses to recognize same gender marriages?

    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.
    Wrong, you can marry a woman and I cannot. That is gender discrimination. And the definition of marriage used to be "a white man and a white woman" or a "black man and a black woman", but not a black and a white mix. See how laws and definitions can change with the times? This is just another step towards equality that is necessary. It's amazing how many are resistant to it, but I gather the same was true when it was a racial discrimination too.
    Last edited by rivrrat; 06-29-10 at 10:40 PM.

  2. #512
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,953

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    Having sex with someone who isn't your spouse isn't polygamy. And neither is it monogamy in the modern definition of the word meaning that two people are sexually monogamous with each other. And yet a ****load of married couples do it.
    You're right, having sex with someone who isn't your spouse is adultery, not polygamy. I'v never talked about adultery though. Polygamy is illegal in that the state does not recognize marriage licenses where one person has multiple spouses. A monogamous marriage is a marriage between strictly 2 people. Adultery is a violation of the marriage contract and isn't part of marriage.
    Homosexuality really has nothing to do with it since homosexuals can get married. What's happening is gender discrimination. So tell me why it was wrong when the law didn't recognize mixed race marriages, but it's right when it refuses to recognize same gender marriages?
    Homosexuals can form a union, but they can't get married. Their union is not marriage by definition. Marriage is a union between a man and woman, and it is the building block of the family. Obviously the homosexual family and homosexual union are different, and this they are not under the same definition. It's wrong for the law to not recognize mixed race marriages because the definition of marriage has nothing to do with race. It's right to refuse to recognize same gender marriages because they do not fit the definition of marriage.
    Wrong, you can marry a woman and I cannot. That is gender discrimination. And the definition of marriage used to be "a white man and a white woman" or a "black man and a black woman", but not a black and a white mix. See how laws and definitions can change with the times? This is just another step towards equality that is necessary. It's amazing how many are resistant to it, but I gather the same was true when it was a racial discrimination too.
    That is not gender discrimination. You can marry a man and I cannot. Males can only marry females, and females only males. It would be gender discrimination to say only males an marry females, and that females have no say in anything. Comparing homosexual unions to mixed race marriages is a slippery slope fallacy. The two are not the same, and the logic between the two are not the same.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  3. #513
    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
    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.
    I would be shocked by your comparison of marriage to murder; but then you've already said you think it's okay to encode making illegal inter-religious and inter-racial marriage. So why should I expect anyone to understand what equal protection under the law means.

    I'm simply going to propose that all Christian marriages be made illegal. Why not that?

    It's what you're arguing. Seriously.

    That said, you do realize that gay marriage and Christian marriage aren't exclusive, right? In fact, the gay couples I know who consider themselves married were all married in Christian churches. It's just that their government doesn't recognize them.

    So, I would say that your views are also anti-Christian - at least some Christians.

  4. #514
    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
    You're right, having sex with someone who isn't your spouse is adultery, not polygamy. I'v never talked about adultery though. Polygamy is illegal in that the state does not recognize marriage licenses where one person has multiple spouses. A monogamous marriage is a marriage between strictly 2 people. Adultery is a violation of the marriage contract and isn't part of marriage.
    Sex outside of marriage is a part of a ****load of marriages.

    Homosexuals can form a union, but they can't get married. Their union is not marriage by definition.
    Yes, they CAN get legally married. To the opposite sex.

    Marriage is a union between a man and woman, and it is the building block of the family.
    No, the relationship is the "building block of the family" if the people in the relationship even want a family to begin with. The legal contract really has little to do with "the family".

    Obviously the homosexual family and homosexual union are different, and this they are not under the same definition.
    No, they're really not different.

    It's wrong for the law to not recognize mixed race marriages because the definition of marriage has nothing to do with race.
    And yet at one time the legal definition of marriage DID have something to do with race.

    It's right to refuse to recognize same gender marriages because they do not fit the definition of marriage.
    Like the issue with race, it's time to change that definition yet again.

    That is not gender discrimination. You can marry a man and I cannot.
    LMFAO Yes, it IS. I can marry a man and you cannot. THAT is discrimination. How is it NOT?

    Males can only marry females, and females only males.
    Blacks can only marry blacks and whites can only marry whites.

    It would be gender discrimination to say only males an marry females, and that females have no say in anything. Comparing homosexual unions to mixed race marriages is a slippery slope fallacy. The two are not the same, and the logic between the two are not the same.
    LOL It is not a "slippery slope fallacy" much less any fallacy at all. The two ARE the same and the logic is identical. I'd love for you to be able to show me otherwise. I mean, whites were allowed to marry whites and blacks were allowed to marry blacks, so where was the discrimination? It's pretty clear where it was racially discriminatory, isn't it? It doesn't much matter that a white man could marry a white woman, what matters is that a white man couldn't marry a black woman. Much like how it's very clear that not allowing a woman to marry a woman while allowing a man to is gender discrimination.

  5. #515
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,953

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

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    I would be shocked by your comparison of marriage to murder; but then you've already said you think it's okay to encode making illegal inter-religious and inter-racial marriage. So why should I expect anyone to understand what equal protection under the law means.

    I'm simply going to propose that all Christian marriages be made illegal. Why not that?

    It's what you're arguing. Seriously.

    That said, you do realize that gay marriage and Christian marriage aren't exclusive, right? In fact, the gay couples I know who consider themselves married were all married in Christian churches. It's just that their government doesn't recognize them.

    So, I would say that your views are also anti-Christian - at least some Christians.
    I am not comparing marriage to murder. I am using an illustration where discrimination isn't a bad thing. I never said that I agree in making inter-religious marriages illegal.

    And you can propose that all Christian marriages can be illegal. You have a right to your opinion.

    What I am arguing is that homosexuality does not fit within the definition of marriage, and thus a homosexual union is not marriage. What I am arguing is that changing the definition of marriage to include homosexuality is just as valid as legally defining and restricting marriage to a one man and one woman union. This debate is over changing the definition of marriage, and what was on the California ballot was a proposition to legally define marriage in that state. We can define marriage as a union between a human and any living or non living thing. We can define it to be a union between one man and one woman, and we can define it to be a union between people of the opposite sex within the same religion and race. Marriage is a social and religious construct that is usually given special status under the law. Different countries and provinces have different definitions of marriage.

    The government doesn't recognize gay marriages because they aren't under the definition of marriage. If the US was a Christian theocracy then I guess they could recognize any gay marriage done in a church by a Christian minister.

    My views are not anti-Christian. The Christian definition of marriage is that marriage is a union between a man and woman. And because my views are Christian I will vote accordingly. The deal is already settled in my state so there is nothing more I need to do.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  6. #516
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,953

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    Sex outside of marriage is a part of a ****load of marriages.
    Yes, there is much adultery and extra marital sex.
    Yes, they CAN get legally married. To the opposite sex.
    Only in certain countries and states where they have defined for themselves that marriage includes homosexual unions.
    No, the relationship is the "building block of the family" if the people in the relationship even want a family. The legal contract really has little to do with "the family".
    I am not going to argue that childless hetero marriages are void and not marriage. But hetero marriage is different because that union produces children. It is biologically natural and fits the purpose of reproduction.
    No, they're really not different.
    They are different biologically and socially.
    And yet at one time the legal definition of marriage DID have something to do with race.
    And I think we can both agree tat the legal definition at the time was wrong. However, not all things present are wrong and not all laws are immoral.
    Like the issue with race, it's time to change that definition yet again.
    It isn't time to change the definition. Again, not all things as they currently stand are wrong.
    LMFAO Yes, it IS. I can marry a man and you cannot. THAT is discrimination. How is it NOT?
    It's not discrimination because I can marry a woman. We all have the right to wed, and to be wed means to marry. Marriage is a union between and man and woman, and thus we all have the right to legally unify in that relationship.
    Blacks can only marry blacks and whites can only marry whites.
    This would be wrong, and I'm glad the definition of marriage has nothing to do with race.
    LOL It is not a "slippery slope fallacy" much less any fallacy at all. The two ARE the same and the logic is identical. I'd love for you to be able to show me otherwise. I mean, whites were allowed to marry whites and blacks were allowed to marry blacks, so where was the discrimination? It's pretty clear where it was racially discriminatory, isn't it? It doesn't much matter that a white man could marry a white woman, what matters is that a white man couldn't marry a black woman. Much like how it's very clear that not allowing a woman to marry a woman while allowing a man to is gender discrimination.
    They are not the same and logic is not identical. I will prove it.
    The logic behind legalizing gay marriage is that a homosexual union is equal to a heterosexual one.
    Mixed race marriages are still heterosexual. The argument here is that race has nothing to do with marriage. One deals with race, and the other deals with altering the gender restriction on the marriage definition. The two are not the same.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  7. #517
    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
    Only in certain countries and states where they have defined for themselves that marriage includes homosexual unions.
    Dude. You're not reading. Homosexuals get legally married all over the country, all the fricken time. They just marry someone of the opposite gender. There is NOTHING in the current laws that states the participants in a marriage contract must be heterosexual or even be monogamous.

    I am not going to argue that childless hetero marriages are void and not marriage. But hetero marriage is different because that union produces children. It is biologically natural and fits the purpose of reproduction.
    Hetero coupling *can* produce children, but not inherently. But that's irrelevant to the paperwork since nothing in the marriage contract requires the bearing of children. Unless you DO think that all marriages without children should be abolished and/or that all people who get married must be capable of having children of their own, then this line of argument is perfectly pointless.


    They are different biologically and socially.
    How?

    And I think we can both agree tat the legal definition at the time was wrong. However, not all things present are wrong and not all laws are immoral.
    The definition is still wrong.

    It isn't time to change the definition. Again, not all things as they currently stand are wrong.
    Yes, it is time to change it again. The definition still discriminates.

    It's not discrimination because I can marry a woman.
    And *I* can't. Discrimination.

    This would be wrong, and I'm glad the definition of marriage has nothing to do with race.
    Thanks to changing the definition.

    They are not the same and logic is not identical. I will prove it.
    The logic behind legalizing gay marriage is that a homosexual union is equal to a heterosexual one.
    Mixed race marriages are still heterosexual. The argument here is that race has nothing to do with marriage. One deals with race, and the other deals with altering the gender restriction on the marriage definition. The two are not the same.
    They are the same in that they both discriminate. You just seem to feel that it's okay to discriminate based on gender.

  8. #518
    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

    By the way, I wrote the Maggie Gallagher of the OP, here's the conversation:

    I recently read a column of yours about the trial regarding Prop. 8 in California. You expressed that if Prop. 8 is overturned, you would be forced to give up some of your rights. I'm simply writing to ask, "What right?" What right would you be forced to give up? To say that you think gay marriage isn't right? As far as I know, there is no law that would abridge your 1st Amendment rights to state what you think. It would not upset your right to freedom of religion, as there is no bill proposed anywhere that I'm aware of that would force churches to perform ceremonies for same-sex couples (just as there is no bill that forces churches to marry heterosexual couples of different religions).

    So, instead of spouting out that you will lose your rights, please explain exactly what rights will be lost to you if gays and lesbians are allowed to marry.

    I've thought this through for a long time and I don't see how expanding marriage to same-sex couples inhibits the rights of anyone. It's not "mandatory same-sex marriage". No one is going to force you to attend a gay wedding against your will. You're still allowed to express your opinion against gay marriage. Your church will not have to marry same-sex couples. So what right do you lose?

    We have to debate this issue fairly. I don't believe that you are. You complain about being called a "hater" or "bigoted", but you use vague language about lost rights without ever enumerating what rights will be lost to you if same-sex couples can wed. Until you do that, you leave those opposed to your ideas with no real explanation as to why you're in such opposition. Are straight marriages the best place to raise a child? Sure. Agreed. But is the road to supporting traditional marriage truly paved with punishing the percentage of families who live differently? Is the divorce rate amongst heterosexual couples the result of gay rights? Or is it because of the economic pressures that have made nearly every family have to be a dual working-parent family? Or is it that, since suburbanization in the 1950's nuclear families left behind extended families who used to be part of their support system?

    I just believe that your views are too simplistic - or at least, they remain flawed by a lack of specifics. After all, Massachusetts has had same-sex marriage equality for six years now - and that state still has one of the highest marriage rates and lowest divorce rates in the Union. It didn't drop off into the ocean. The Earth didn't stop rotating and heterosexual couples don't appear to be under any additional pressure as a result.

    I'm not asking you to change your mind. It's your right to believe as you will (God bless America) - but if you're going to argue against the extension of rights to all citizens regardless of sexual orientation, you have to provide solid evidence to support the discrimination (read the majority decision in Romer v. Evans) that is inherent in your belief (please note: I'm not saying "bigotry" but "discrimination" in the legal sense). By claiming that you somehow lose "rights" without explaining what they are, you fail in your argument.
    Her response:

    Brian, what writing of mine have you read on this topic? I have written perhaps 50,000 words. Please go to iMAPP.org | Institute for Marriage and Public Policy if you are sincerely interested in my views.

    To answer your question about the civil right at stake: the right to organize with my fellow Americans, using the rights laid out to us by God and the California and U.S. Constitutions, to define marriage as its always been defined: the union of husband and wife. Specifically in California, the right to amend the state constitution through the arduous and expensive and difficult process of collecting signatures, speaking, organizing, donating and voting for marriage when we believed the California Supreme Court was likely to get this wrong. (Unlike say, courts in NY, Maryland, and Washington state).

    If you had devoted as miuch time, energy and money as the 7 million CAlifornians who voted for Prop 8 did, and then the group that lost went to court to nullify your vote, you would feel differently about whether any rights are at stake in this on the other side..

    I realize you and I disagree about this. You feel you have a right to win on this question, whether anyone disagrees with you or not, and that your are right to ask the courts to nullify our votes and our efforts.

    Thanks for writing to me, take care. Maggi
    I still don't see where she actually answered a question.

    By her definition the recent decision incorporating gun ownership took my right to speak about regulation of individual ownership of nuclear arms away from me. Did it? I don't think so.

    So, let me get this straight: Overturn Chicago's gun ban does NOT equal an overturning of their rights as voters; but overturning Cali Prop 8 DOES equal an overturning of Cali voters rights.

    Where do we draw the line?

  9. #519
    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
    I am not comparing marriage to murder. I am using an illustration where discrimination isn't a bad thing. I never said that I agree in making inter-religious marriages illegal.

    And you can propose that all Christian marriages can be illegal. You have a right to your opinion.

    What I am arguing is that homosexuality does not fit within the definition of marriage, and thus a homosexual union is not marriage. What I am arguing is that changing the definition of marriage to include homosexuality is just as valid as legally defining and restricting marriage to a one man and one woman union. This debate is over changing the definition of marriage, and what was on the California ballot was a proposition to legally define marriage in that state. We can define marriage as a union between a human and any living or non living thing. We can define it to be a union between one man and one woman, and we can define it to be a union between people of the opposite sex within the same religion and race. Marriage is a social and religious construct that is usually given special status under the law. Different countries and provinces have different definitions of marriage.

    The government doesn't recognize gay marriages because they aren't under the definition of marriage. If the US was a Christian theocracy then I guess they could recognize any gay marriage done in a church by a Christian minister.

    My views are not anti-Christian. The Christian definition of marriage is that marriage is a union between a man and woman. And because my views are Christian I will vote accordingly. The deal is already settled in my state so there is nothing more I need to do.
    You said government can "discriminate" against murder. You can't "discriminate" against acts. You misuse the word when you make that comparison.

    You specifically said that if people voted against inter-religious marriage, you said it's their right to do so.

    I don't believe that all Christian marriages should be illegal, but if I used your failed logic, I could believe that and vote for that and then complain if someone else said that my beliefs were unconstitutional. I understand that such a belief IS unconstitutional.

    Your views ARE actually anti-Christian. At least 6 Christian denominations perform same-sex weddings, so you're against them. It's anti-Christian from their point of view.

  10. #520
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    Well cry me a river. It is a legal contract and any one of age should be able to enter into one equally.
    That include siblings?

Page 52 of 61 FirstFirst ... 2425051525354 ... 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
  •