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

StevenA59 said:

You can keep dismissing arguments out of hand. You can reject all arguments and proof. You can stick your head in the sand for all I care. Paraphrasing Jack Nicholson, you can't handle the debate. /pwnd

Click to expand...

Let me know when you show any proof. Thus far, you've shown nothing except unsubstantiated opinion. Your position is a loser and it is you that can't handle the truth, as evidencec by the fact that you have refused to listen to all of the debunking of your position that has been presented. Now, you can close your eyes, put your hand over your ears, and shout "LALALALALALALA" all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that you have demonstrated zero logic to your position.

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

StevenA59 said:

You can keep dismissing arguments out of hand. You can reject all arguments and proof. You can stick your head in the sand for all I care. Paraphrasing Jack Nicholson, you can't handle the debate. /pwnd

Click to expand...

Could you point out the arguments and 'proof' he's supposedly ignoring? I've read the thread and can't seem to find them anywhere.

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

roguenuke said:

So is that what should be argued in court? "The Bible clearly says that homosexuality is a sin, your honor." That wouldn't go over very well.

Now, a better argument might be, "Your honor, many of the voters in this state view homosexuality as a sin and same sex marriage as a redefinition of marriage. This is why they voted for this Proposition." Then it is a matter of do voters have the right to deny equal treatment to a group, without actual proof that the group having that equal treatment will do harm to the existing institution but in fact with proof that actually allowing equal treatment to the group will most likely improve the lives of many of the group members and their families.

Click to expand...

The Bible has been around as a code of ethics/law for thousands of years. The GM movement, about ten. You can laugh and ridicule the Bible, but that doesn't change its importance. As for gay rights, keep it behind closed doors. I'm not interested in that lifestyle, I personally think it's sick, and I don't want my family exposed to it.

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

rivrrat said:

Could you point out the arguments and 'proof' he's supposedly ignoring? I've read the thread and can't seem to find them anywhere.

Click to expand...

He can't. He has shown a shred of evidence to his position. All it is, is unsubstantiated opinion. I have no illusions that he will change his mind... he's locked into the lack of logic of what he believes. My job is to show how ridiculous what he believes happens to be. A very easy task, I must say.

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

StevenA59 said:

The Bible has been around as a code of ethics/law for thousands of years. The GM movement, about ten. You can laugh and ridicule the Bible, but that doesn't change its importance. As for gay rights, keep it behind closed doors. I'm not interested in that lifestyle, I personally think it's sick, and I don't want my family exposed to it.

Click to expand...

The bible is A code, not the code. And you have no right to not be offended. Don't like it? Too bad.

You make this so easy.

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

CaptainCourtesy said:

Let me know when you show any proof. Thus far, you've shown nothing except unsubstantiated opinion. Your position is a loser and it is you that can't handle the truth, as evidencec by the fact that you have refused to listen to all of the debunking of your position that has been presented. Now, you can close your eyes, put your hand over your ears, and shout "LALALALALALALA" all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that you have demonstrated zero logic to your position.

Click to expand...

Stop wasting my time. You are the one dismissing every argument is "irrelevant." So stop asking for endless repetition of the arguments.

Could you point out the arguments and 'proof' he's supposedly ignoring? I've read the thread and can't seem to find them anywhere.

Click to expand...

Pearls before swine.

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

StevenA59 said:

The Bible has been around as a code of ethics/law for thousands of years. The GM movement, about ten. You can laugh and ridicule the Bible, but that doesn't change its importance. As for gay rights, keep it behind closed doors. I'm not interested in that lifestyle, I personally think it's sick, and I don't want my family exposed to it.

Click to expand...

As for your lifestyple, keep it behind closed doors. I'm not interested in that lifestyle, I personally think it's sick, and I don't want my family exposed to it.

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

CaptainCourtesy said:

The bible is A code, not the code. And you have no right to not be offended. Don't like it? Too bad.

You make this so easy.

Click to expand...

I've got every right I need. My opinion is as valid as yours, moreso since I don't simply stick my head in the sand when I'm challenged. Anyone who thinks they can exclude the Bible from this discussion simply by ignoring it is living in a fantasy world.

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

texmaster said:

Yes and if you had read the studies cited you would have found the basis for their conclusions come from unsupervised questionaires without 1on1 interviews with the chdilren. Hardly concrete.



By that logic any couple that wanted to marry should be allowed. Have you thought about all the different combinations you are opening the door to?



LOL That is hardly a reason to change the law based on a one time supposed economic benifit.

Click to expand...

So basically you can't really argue much on my points?

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.

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. 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. There are even some good arguments against legalizing polygamy already. 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.

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.

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

StevenA59 said:

Stop wasting my time. You are the one dismissing every argument is "irrelevant." So stop asking for endless repetition of the arguments.

Click to expand...

That's because each of your arguments IS irrelevant, as shown by evidence and logic. You have demonstrated nothing. Show any research that supports your position. Unless you do, all you are doing is wasting everyone else's time with your personal, baseless opinions.

Pearls before swine.

Click to expand...

Try again. Or, if you have nothing, just admit it so we can just dismiss your comments as opinion.

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

StevenA59 said:

Stop wasting my time. You are the one dismissing every argument is "irrelevant." So stop asking for endless repetition of the arguments.



Pearls before swine.

Click to expand...

Seriously? Your reply to an inquiry for an actual argument is to paraphrase Matthew at me?

So, lemme get this straight... you have an actual argument somewhere, but you're just choosing not to let us know what it is?

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

StevenA59 said:

I've got every right I need. My opinion is as valid as yours, moreso since I don't simply stick my head in the sand when I'm challenged. Anyone who thinks they can exclude the Bible from this discussion simply by ignoring it is living in a fantasy world.

Click to expand...

Your book of mythology is as relevant as any other book of mythology. That is to say, irrelevant when discussing law and equality.

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

rivrrat said:

Seriously? Your reply to an inquiry for an actual argument is to paraphrase Matthew at me?

So, lemme get this straight... you have an actual argument somewhere, but you're just choosing not to let us know what it is?

Click to expand...

No, his argument is clear. It's one of those "nuh huh! The bible says so!" arguments. It cannot be supported in logical manner, nor can it be demonstrated through rational argument to be in accordance with the Constitution of the United States. It's a theocratic argument based in oppression and tyranny; a sickening thought process I had hoped died out in the Dark Ages, but has continued to exist in some form since.

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

StevenA59 said:

I've got every right I need.

Click to expand...

You have no right to not be offended. If you think you do, please quote that statute that says differently. If you cannot quote the statute, then, once again, your position has been proven erroneous and irrelevant.

My opinion is as valid as yours, moreso since I don't simply stick my head in the sand when I'm challenged.

Click to expand...

Your opinion is as valid as anyone elses. However, you are presenting it as factual, and in that case, it is valueless, because you have refused to see all the evidence that opposes you, and refused to provide any facts that support you. Now, you can keep yelling "LALALALALALA" but it doesn't change the fact that, from a factual position, you've got nothing. Be happy with living life with blinders on.

Anyone who thinks they can exclude the Bible from this discussion simply by ignoring it is living in a fantasy world.

Click to expand...

This is a staw man argument and demonstrates your dishonesty. Quote where I said that one should exclude the bible from the discussion, or retract.

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

Ikari said:

No, his argument is clear. It's one of those "nuh huh! The bible says so!" arguments. It cannot be supported in logical manner, nor can it be demonstrated through rational argument to be in accordance with the Constitution of the United States. It's a theocratic argument based in oppression and tyranny; a sickening thought process I had hoped died out in the Dark Ages, but has continued to exist in some form since.

Click to expand...

Ahh...so it's identical to the arguments used for sharia law. Because some book says so.

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

rivrrat said:

Ahh...so it's identical to the arguments used for sharia law. Because some book says so.

Click to expand...

It is exactly the same arguments used to implement Sharia law. How this thought process occurs in a nation as advanced and educated as ours, I don't know.

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

Boo Radley said:

NO, I need him to answer the question. Having in based in religion doesn't tell me HOW it effects him and his life, The question was what is the tangable effect on his life? Even you above don't explain how. YOu say it harms the institution, and refuse to explain how. The truth is it doesn't and can't harm the institution. If you believe otherwise, answer the question.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Ikari said:

It is exactly the same arguments used to implement Sharia law. How this thought process occurs in a nation as advanced and educated as ours, I don't know.

Click to expand...

The Constitution is also "some book." Cherry pick much?

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

StevenA59 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Seriously, the only response to this is a hearty guffah and then a walk in the opposite direction. Why even bother trying to debate logic with people like this? Their bigoted religion tells them it's bad and then they come up with reasons that make sense in their own minds why that is, and never attempt to look at the issue logically.

Waste of time debating it, seriously. Just rest assured knowing that history is proving them wrong, just like it has proved every other ridiculous prejudice wrong.

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

StevenA59 said:

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.

Click to expand...

One, it does nothing to diminish marriage. Marriage still works as the same institution wherein over half of all first marriages end in divorce. Nothing already done to marriage will happen by allowing other people the right to contract. Two, raising your children is your responsibility. You cannot augment my behavior because of how your children may perceive it. Raise you damned kids yourself. You cannot start acting against my rights because you can't parent effectively to deal with real life circumstances which may occur. Three, your imaginary god has no bearing on me, nor can you lawfully and legally use religious dogma to command the State against the rights and liberties of the individual. To do so is nothing short of an act of treason and tyranny.

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

StevenA59 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

StevenA59 said:

The Constitution is also "some book." Cherry pick much?

Click to expand...

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?

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

StevenA59 said:

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?"

Click to expand...

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.

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

Redress said:

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.

Click to expand...

Redress said:

Correct. Gays also in fairly large numbers have children, which further hurts the argument(roughly 1/3 lesbian couples, 1/4 gay male couples).

Click to expand...

texmaster said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

StevenA59 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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."