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

Redress said:

WE almost have the full set now. We have incest and pedophilia, now we just need bestiality and polygamy and we have the full set of gay marriage red herrings.

Click to expand...

YAY, a game of Gin Rummy using all the idiot arguments as they surface in the thread.

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

jallman said:

YAY, a game of Gin Rummy using all the idiot arguments as they surface in the thread.

Click to expand...

Did anybody use the "Gays are allowed to marry -- they can marry people of the opposite sex" argument yet, or has that fallen out of vogue lately?

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

StevenA59 said:

Don't expect me to call it a marriage.

Click to expand...

The only thing I expect you to do is to stay out of other people's business where it doesn't concern you. That's it. You personally don't have to call it marriage, but the marriage license being a government recognized and issued contract should be made available to all couples.

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

I've always found it hilarious how conservative views on personal liberty and choice make a complete u-turn when it comes to things they personally disapprove of. Keep the government out of my _____!! (except marriage. they should totally be able to decide who I can and cannot marry!)

edit: I mean really, you're opposing two consenting, adult people being able to enter into a legal contract with eachother because you have some sort of moral or religious opposition to their sex life.

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

digsbe said:

They have no right to overturn prop 8. This would be a giant smack to the face of democracy. the people voted and prop 8 set marriage as a man and woman in California. How dare they do this, if it is overturned this would just be a disgrace to democracy and a defeat for the rights of voters.

Click to expand...

Thanks for highlighting the main danger of strict democracy. Which is why we're a democratic Republic, where we place the emphasis on the rights and liberties of the individual.

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

From a different legal perspective, what about the Contract Clause of the federal Constitution?

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility"

If the government considers marriage a legal contract, then it seems the States cannot prevent the people involved from entering into it as they wish. If two people of the same sex enter into a marriage contract, then this clause seems to prevent the States from stopping it.

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

StevenA59 said:

.....whereas homosexuality contributes nothing and obviously wants all the benefits of marriage.

Click to expand...

Sure it contributes to something, population control. It makes sense that if a species populates at a faster growth rate than normal, evolution would take the path of some sort of population control.

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

Deuce said:

I've always found it hilarious how conservative views on personal liberty and choice make a complete u-turn when it comes to things they personally disapprove of. Keep the government out of my _____!! (except marriage. they should totally be able to decide who I can and cannot marry!)

edit: I mean really, you're opposing two consenting, adult people being able to enter into a legal contract with eachother because you have some sort of moral or religious opposition to their sex life.

Click to expand...

This is one post of yours that I can completely agree with.

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

Alex said:

From a different legal perspective, what about the Contract Clause of the federal Constitution?

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility"

If the government considers marriage a legal contract, then it seems the States cannot prevent the people involved from entering into it as they wish. If two people of the same sex enter into a marriage contract, then this clause seems to prevent the States from stopping it.

Click to expand...

Hi ALex, nice to see you posting again. Wish you posted here more often, I always enjoy your perspective.

It's an interesting view. Not sure how well it would do in court. Going to have to look into it though.

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

Redress said:

WE almost have the full set now. We have incest and pedophilia, now we just need bestiality and polygamy and we have the full set of gay marriage red herrings.

Click to expand...

They're not red herrings when the arguments being used to justify same sex marriage would also justify incestuous and polygamous marriages-- you can't argue that the State cannot prohibit consenting adults from marrying whomever they choose and then argue that the State can continue to prohibit certain couples from doing so. If you concede that the State has a legitimate interest in regulating marriage, you concede that it has the authority to prohibit same sex marriages as well, whether or not you believe that they should do so. In order to argue that the State should allow same sex marriages without allowing any marriage, you have to show some reason that same sex marriages benefit society in a way that incestuous and/or polygamous marriages do not.

Alex said:

If the government considers marriage a legal contract, then it seems the States cannot prevent the people involved from entering into it as they wish. If two people of the same sex enter into a marriage contract, then this clause seems to prevent the States from stopping it.

Click to expand...

Marriage is not a contract, and my response to Redress above indicates why it should not be considered as one. Marriage is a social institution that involves more than just the two spouses.

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

Korimyr the Rat said:

They're not red herrings when the arguments being used to justify same sex marriage would also justify incestuous and polygamous marriages-- you can't argue that the State cannot prohibit consenting adults from marrying whomever they choose and then argue that the State can continue to prohibit certain couples from doing so. If you concede that the State has a legitimate interest in regulating marriage, you concede that it has the authority to prohibit same sex marriages as well, whether or not you believe that they should do so. In order to argue that the State should allow same sex marriages without allowing any marriage, you have to show some reason that same sex marriages benefit society in a way that incestuous and/or polygamous marriages do not.

Click to expand...

Yes, there is a difference that makes GM different from the red herrings. The argument for gay marriage is that it is not harmfull(and as such the government should not disallow it), and that it is beneficial to society in providing stability both for the couple, but also for any children of that couple. I looked the numbers up recently for another thread, and roughly 1/3 of lesbian couples have a child living with them for a portion of the time, and 1/4 of gay male couples, and this number is rising.

Incestuous relationships can probably be argued as harmful(I am not particularly knowledgeable on the subject, so it's a guess), and I believe that polygamist relationships are not believed to be stable environments for raising children.

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

Korimyr the Rat said:

They're not red herrings when the arguments being used to justify same sex marriage would also justify incestuous and polygamous marriages-- you can't argue that the State cannot prohibit consenting adults from marrying whomever they choose and then argue that the State can continue to prohibit certain couples from doing so. If you concede that the State has a legitimate interest in regulating marriage, you concede that it has the authority to prohibit same sex marriages as well, whether or not you believe that they should do so. In order to argue that the State should allow same sex marriages without allowing any marriage, you have to show some reason that same sex marriages benefit society in a way that incestuous and/or polygamous marriages do not.

Click to expand...

The "same-sex marriage would lead to polygamy" argument is a false analogy and here is the proof...

When you apply for a marriage license you must answer two questions:

1) Are you the legal age to consent to marriage?

2) Have you been married before - if so please provide proof the previous marriage was dissolved or annulled.

Polygamists can not provide proof their previous marriage was dissolved/annulled (because it hasn't) and would therefore not qualify for a marriage license. Polygamists also typically marry underage girls, so their prospective "spouses" would not qualify.

Incest is illegal--you'd have to overturn those laws first.

Bill O'Reilly's notion that same-sex marriage would allow a man to marry a duck is also a false analogy because a duck can not consent.

Marriage is not a contract, and my response to Redress above indicates why it should not be considered as one. Marriage is a social institution that involves more than just the two spouses.

Click to expand...

As far as the state is concerned, marriage is a license you have to apply for. Couples need this license to have a ceremony and then qualify for certain legal rights and privileges. Gay couples would like to apply for this license and then get these privileges.

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

The way I see it, we have the right to do anything and everything that we want, until the government can show a compelling reason why they shouldn't allow me.

"What the hell, why can't I shoot people in the face?"

"Well, Deuce, doing so would cause them to die. If they die, they are unable to exercise any of their rights to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness."

"Ahh. Ok. Fair enough, government. So, why can't I marry a dude?"

"You don't have the right to marry a dude."

"That's not an answer."

"If we let you do that, we'd have to let people marry animals or their siblings or children or nine people at the same time!"

"...the ****? Says who? Did you just make a slippery slope argument against civil rights?"

"Marrying a dude is not a civil right for you"

"You're going in circles!"

"Ok. Uhh, the children. It's for the children."

"What children? I don't have any children. Besides, studies show that two men or two women provide just as stable a home as a man and a woman."

"GOD SAYS SO OK. ITS GROSS. THE PEOPLE DON'T WANT IT."

"...**** you, government."

edit:
"But Deuce, you're not even gay, why do you care? Why would you want the right to marry a dude?"

"The same reason I don't own a gun but want the right to own a gun: It's none of your damned business!"

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

Redress said:

WE almost have the full set now. We have incest and pedophilia, now we just need bestiality and polygamy and we have the full set of gay marriage red herrings.

Click to expand...

That certainly is a lot easier to say than confronting the massive hypocrcy towards only allowing gay marriage and excluding everything else you don't agree with.

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

texmaster said:

That certainly is a lot easier to say than confronting the massive hypocrcy towards only allowing gay marriage and excluding everything else you don't agree with.

Click to expand...

Why is it hypocrisy to support one thing, and not support different things?

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

texmaster said:

That certainly is a lot easier to say than confronting the massive hypocrcy towards only allowing gay marriage and excluding everything else you don't agree with.

Click to expand...

Well for one, isn't that exactly what the anti-gay marriage crowd is doing? Allowing straight marriage but excluding everything else they don't agree with?

In my opinion, it's not hypocritical. Animals and children can't enter legal contracts. Incest has a demonstrable harm in the form of genetic issues. Polygamy is not inherently harmful, despite its historical practices, but the way marriage works at the moment divorce would be vastly complicated in a multi-person marriage. If one person in a three-person union splits, who keeps the house? Who has custody of the children if the biological parents wont be together? Complicated, however, is not necessarily harmful. If you can work out the law to make sense on that subject I don't see any good reason to ban polygamy.

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

rivrrat said:

Did you know that only 7% of the people in the world are left handed? Does that mean they choose to be?

Click to expand...

Gene already found. Enjoy

Gene for Left-Handed Trait Discovered

We don't allow people who aren't adults to enter into legal contracts.

Click to expand...

Bull****. Of course we do. Kids work in stores, kids sign movie contracts, talent shows, etc.

I have no issue with that personally, but it's beside the point. It actually *can* be demonstrated that children of siblings have a higher risk of genetic abnormalities. Can you demonstrate anything negative at all related to me signing a legal contract with another woman?

Click to expand...

By that argument its well known that homosexual men spread aids easier so that would fit your criteria but creating law based on a personal claim of no negative consequence isn't sufficient for a justification for changing law.

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

texmaster said:

Gene already found. Enjoy

Gene for Left-Handed Trait Discovered

Click to expand...

Homosexuality may have a genetic link as well as being affected by social/environmental factors. Just because we haven't nailed it down doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Bull****. Of course we do. Kids work in stores, kids sign movie contracts, talent shows, etc.

Click to expand...

And they do these things with a signoff from their parents. They cannot enter such a contract on their own. Except talent shows... what the hell kind of talent show did you go to where a legal contract was signed?

By that argument its well known that homosexual men spread aids easier so that would fit your criteria but creating law based on a personal claim of no negative consequence isn't sufficient for a justification for changing law.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that marriage increases the transmission of STDs? If anything, marriage promotes monogamy which decreases transmission of STDs. Try again.

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

jallman said:

My motivations and feelings on the matter have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Click to expand...

LOL Riiight. And I'm a Chinese Jet Pilot.

Further, this is not a response to anything relevant in this thread as this thread is about legal issues and you are blathering on about biology.

Click to expand...

Thsi is about legal justification for allowing gay marriage. I am addressing the false claim that the legal justification lies in the genetic argument. Try to keep up.

I never made any claim in this thread concerning biology or genetics. Perhaps you would like to go back and actually ****ing read it before you start spewing your nonsense and showing everyone how deranged you become when this topic is approached?

Click to expand...

Nice dodge. Then explain your legal reasoning for allowing gay marriage. You can't compare it to race since that is genetic so what else you got?

Well thank you, Captain Obvious.

Click to expand...

You'd be surprised how many of your fellow gay marriage zealots deny this fact.

It isn't designed for anything. I mean, at least not until you speak to the Designer and ask him or her. Good luck with all that.

Click to expand...

LOL First you claim everyone knows that heteroseuxality is the only way for natural procreation then you turn around and claim the biological sexual reaction that prepares for procreation isn't? What are you smoking? Don't hog it for yourself, that must be good stuff.

Except when it's gay people or masturbation or recreational sex or sex with sperm barriers...:shrug:

Click to expand...

You're confused again. I understand. The point is it isn't different for either but only one has a biologicial natural function. Procreation which is only through heterosexuality.

Again, what's ridiculous here is your assertion that I have claimed a genetic link, whatever that nebulous terminology means. Do you ever bother to read what's posted before you start sputtering and spitting your nonsense?

Click to expand...

I suggest you actually read the threads in here and the claims in this very thread because that claim is everywhere.

You're correct. No one is claiming blow jobs are genetic.

Click to expand...

Well thank you Captain Obvious

I'm glad that incites more maniacal and demented laughter from you...or whatever it is you are trying to communicate. I don't think you even know what you're trying to say.

Click to expand...

I know its hard for you but please try and keep up. The same argument for gay marriage is being made that because someone gets their jollies off by finding a different hole that doesn't mean its genetic. I'm simply pointing to anyother method thats used for sexual gratification but no one is claiming its genetic either because that critieria doesn't justify the label.

When you stop having the same biological sexual reaction that gay people have, can we discuss whatever moronic claims I want to attribute to you whether you actually made them or not?

Click to expand...

Because the reaciton has a purpose, procreation, a purely heteroseuxal trait. Read slower.

No.

Click to expand...

Yes

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

Deuce said:

Homosexuality may have a genetic link as well as being affected by social/environmental factors. Just because we haven't nailed it down doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

Then be happy with civil unions which I support fully.

And they do these things with a signoff from their parents. They cannot enter such a contract on their own. Except talent shows... what the hell kind of talent show did you go to where a legal contract was signed?

Click to expand...

Not true. I needed no parental concent for my jobs when I was under 18.

Are you suggesting that marriage increases the transmission of STDs? If anything, marriage promotes monogamy which decreases transmission of STDs. Try again.

Click to expand...

You were the one claiming health was an issue. I gave you an example to fit that reqirement. I also said to you: creating law based on a personal claim of no negative consequence isn't sufficient for a justification for changing law.

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

texmaster said:

Not true. I needed no parental concent for my jobs when I was under 18.

Click to expand...

That's odd, and would depend on the age of consent laws of the individual state. I got my first job at 14. I had to get my Jr. High and my parents to sign contracts to allow me to do it. Before age of consent for a contract, a minor always has to have the signature of their guardian to go along with it.

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

obvious Child said:

After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overturn Law - Politics & Policy - Catholic Online

Read the article. Is the anti-homosexual marriage side defender on crack?

Seriously. Marriage is for making babies? Has he been living in a BOX for his whole life? If that's the best the anti-gay marriage side can do, gay marriage is coming a hell of a lot faster to this country then I initially believed.

Click to expand...

Its a catholic publication. I am pretty sure that they do view marriage to be for making babies, especially given their stance on birth control.

I disagree with them, but I think they are being logically consistent on this one.

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

texmaster said:

Thsi is about legal justification for allowing gay marriage. I am addressing the false claim that the legal justification lies in the genetic argument. Try to keep up.

Click to expand...

Who is making that claim here?

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

Korimyr the Rat said:

They're not red herrings when the arguments being used to justify same sex marriage would also justify incestuous and polygamous marriages-- you can't argue that the State cannot prohibit consenting adults from marrying whomever they choose and then argue that the State can continue to prohibit certain couples from doing so. If you concede that the State has a legitimate interest in regulating marriage, you concede that it has the authority to prohibit same sex marriages as well, whether or not you believe that they should do so. In order to argue that the State should allow same sex marriages without allowing any marriage, you have to show some reason that same sex marriages benefit society in a way that incestuous and/or polygamous marriages do not.



Marriage is not a contract, and my response to Redress above indicates why it should not be considered as one. Marriage is a social institution that involves more than just the two spouses.

Click to expand...

If people consent to marriage in any form, it is their business. I prefer to let people live their own lives.

The definition of marriage: "(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage"

Marriage is a contract. The Contracts Clause could very well apply here.

Marriage - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

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

texmaster said:

Thsi is about legal justification for allowing gay marriage. I am addressing the false claim that the legal justification lies in the genetic argument. Try to keep up.

Click to expand...

I would agree with you. There is no legal justification in the genetic argument... for either homosexuality OR heterosexuality. You continue to demonstrate that you do not know the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. I'm going to continue to point this out every time you demonstrate it in your posts. Which is pretty much every time you post on this topic. Now, you can choose to not respond to it, but I'm going to post it, anyway, because it's accurate and I do not want someone coming here and gathering inaccurate information without me correcting it.