• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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:
I'll be looking for another forum where people can demonstrate a tad bit of critical thinking. Laters.
Click to expand...

Run Forrest, Run!!!!!!!!

This is nothing more than you swishing off in a huff cuz you got owned. Just man up about it and grow from it. Or you can storm off in a priss fit only to have the same thing happen to you when land at the next forum. :shrug:

But you know, it's everybody else. It couldn't possibly be you even though you're the only one having the problem.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

TheNextEra said:
Oh he's demonstrated that (to paraphrase) his feelings will be hurt if they legalize gay marriage. He would rather deny someone a right so his feelings won't get hurt.
Click to expand...

Well it's slightly better than the "we have to be controlled in such a way as to not do anything that would require one to parent his kids" as some have put forth. In the end, there is no logical or rational argument presented for denying same sex marriage. It's all more rooted in one's personal morals or religion. Well government doesn't enforce personal morals or religion. It is here in defense of the rights and liberties of the individual. Rights which include the right to contract. Some are so tyrannical that they will use government force against other people's rights in order to get the "moral" world they want. Pretty damned sick if you ask me.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

digsbe said:
why is it not logical for me to stand up for what I believe?
Click to expand...

Logic ceases to exist once you start endorsing the infringement of rights on one group based on your personal morality and/or religion without being able to demonstrate how the first party ever infringed upon your rights. That's your fundamental breakdown.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

This whole "X percentage of homosexual men have HIV means that they aren't fit for marriage" argument is complete BS. ****, by that logic the vast majority of Africa is in deep doo doo. And if we're going the STD route, how many heterosexuals have STDs? Herpes alone is something like 1 in 6, down slightly from the 1 in 5 during the late 80's early 90's. And what about all the others? I don't understand what STDs have to do with anything pertaining to the argument. Heterosexuals can be whores too.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

StevenA59 said:
That's your "proof?" Thanks for the laugh.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. sorry it destroys your position, but it really didn't need much help. Now, if you can define "normal", that might help you a little... but having seen this before, I'm pretty sure it won't.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

StevenA59 said:
That's wrong. HE claims "normal is a value judgement" which is supposed to prove somehow that gay marriage is okay?
Click to expand...

This is consistent with what you have done throughout this debate. Either misreprsent a position or make a position with no evidence. I never said that it "proved" gay marraige is OK. All it did was provem that your position is valueless. A rather simple task at that.

Wow, the lack of critical thinking here is stunning. You see, you can't prove a point by claiming everyone else is wrong.
Click to expand...

You should read what you just wrote, because that's all you've been doing. No evidence, nothing. Just "I don't like it, so I don't want it".

Yes I admit I misread the statistics. But even if the number is one in ten (as in this study) it is hardly a ringing endorsement for gay marriage or homosexual lifestyle.
Click to expand...

Actually, all it does is demonstrate the importance of education and the use of condoms. Nothing else.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

StevenA59 said:
Then there's the claim that gay marriages would lead to a more monogamous lifestyle, while simultaneously pointing to the fact that straights have a 50% divorce rate. Is someone suggesting that gays are more monogamous than straights? I'd like to see the evidence of that lol. This is a "kitchen sink" style of debate that entails throwing tons of senseless crap and hoping something sticks. I'll be looking for another forum where people can demonstrate a tad bit of critical thinking. Laters.
Click to expand...

So, to translate, your position has been shown to be fallacious and you are aware that you have no evidence to support anything you say, so, instead of showing integrity and admitting that you've got nothing, you will run away, holding onto your unproven position. Got it.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

digsbe said:
Incorrect. A child can consent to sex. They can allow someone to have sex with them even though they aren't as mature. Many kids experience masturbation at young ages like 8 or 9. they can be attracted to the opposite sex and consent to sex. Animals can consent as well. They consent with each other, and who are you to judge what is the in the mind of an animal? My sisters female dog likes to hump people at times, so clearly she wants sex. My argument was for illustrative purposes to show you that anyone can claim that something is a "right."
Click to expand...

No, a child cannot legally consent. I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong and are using faulty logic. Same with a dog. Sad that anyone would use this silly tractic.

That is only your opinion that it is an individual right. It is my opinion that it is not a right. The conflict was resolved by popular election to define marriage. When it's just my opinion against yours a vote is one logical conclusion when it comes to enacting policy and making legal definitions.
Click to expand...

All arguments have some degree of opinion, but would you allow me to pick your mate? If you can define it for everyone, what prevents us from defining it for you and demanding that you marry something not your choice, but what we deem better, and more suitable to our view of marriage? No, who we mate with, choose to live our lives with is personal and not up to the public to vote on.

Call it garbage, but it's truth. Homosexuals have absolutely the same rights that I have that are considered rights. Definition means everything with this debate, because Proposition 8 was about legally defining marriage. People can define marriage for themselves. A gay couple can call themselves married and have a ceremony, but their marriage is not legally recognized as marriage.
Click to expand...

No, it is nothing but bull**** and I have explained why. There are Christian chuches willing to recognize their marriage, but you seem to think you can tell them how to practice their faith. And yet, I still say you would not accept this the other way around. Would you? Can I demand that you have to marry someone of the same sex, if you want to marry, for no other reason than I say so?
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

StevenA59 said:
Then there's the claim that gay marriages would lead to a more monogamous lifestyle, while simultaneously pointing to the fact that straights have a 50% divorce rate. Is someone suggesting that gays are more monogamous than straights? I'd like to see the evidence of that lol. This is a "kitchen sink" style of debate that entails throwing tons of senseless crap and hoping something sticks. I'll be looking for another forum where people can demonstrate a tad bit of critical thinking. Laters.
Click to expand...

Yes.

Because their understanding of love and commitment has been tested and formed by years of having to endure intolerance and ignorance. Which also makes them better parents.

I think that's what freaks homophobes out -- that gays are actually better at raising kids.

Homophobes who get in trouble with their local DCFS are going to find themselves in Parenting Classes being taught by gays.... Gays are going to be teaching them how to be better parents.

And if they walk out of the class, the judge will leave the homophobe's kids in foster care...:)
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

hazlnut said:
Yes.

Because their understanding of love and commitment has been tested and formed by years of having to endure intolerance and ignorance. Which also makes them better parents.

I think that's what freaks homophobes out -- that gays are actually better at raising kids.

Homophobes who get in trouble with their local DCFS are going to find themselves in Parenting Classes being taught by gays.... Gays are going to be teaching them how to be better parents.

And if they walk out of the class, the judge will leave the homophobe's kids in foster care...:)
Click to expand...

There's no evidence that homos are better parents than heteros.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

jallman said:
There's no evidence that homos are better parents than heteros.
Click to expand...

I was just speculating as to why homophobes drag these threads out for so long... Fear.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

digsbe said:
Incorrect. A child can consent to sex. They can allow someone to have sex with them even though they aren't as mature. Many kids experience masturbation at young ages like 8 or 9. they can be attracted to the opposite sex and consent to sex. Animals can consent as well. They consent with each other, and who are you to judge what is the in the mind of an animal? My sisters female dog likes to hump people at times, so clearly she wants sex. My argument was for illustrative purposes to show you that anyone can claim that something is a "right."
Click to expand...
Then go ahead and campaign for the "rights" of kids and animals to legally have sex with adults. I'll have to say no on that one. As far as "discrimination" goes, suck it up. We can legalize same sex marriage, and choose to discriminate against underage/animal marriage "rights", and there's nothing you can do about it. Life's not fair. Best advice is to seek professional help if you think you can't be happy without having sex with a dog or a kid.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

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...

Actually, this is the opposite: according to the SCOTUS in Romer v. Evans, a constitutional amendment must reflect a rational relationship to the state's interests. In other words, a state law or constitution can discriminate only if it is clearly in the state's interest. With Prop. 8, we have an interesting conundrum because we already have 18,000 couples married and affirmed by the state, while other couples who weren't fast enough or who moved to the state at a later date are refused the right that was granted in the short term. So, the state's interest part is even stronger here (in my opinion).

No one - especially the attorney trying to defend Prop. 8 has any logical explanation as to how gay marriage harms the state and therefore justifies discrimination. No one. I've not seen a single argument of how it would harm anyone. I know we keep asking and if you're against gay marriage, it's probably annoying, but I've seen no harm demonstrated.

Do heterosexuals in Massachusetts and Iowa have fewer rights that those in Tennessee and Texas? I can't find the proof of that. If you can, please report it to me and I might believe you.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

FilmFestGuy said:
Actually, this is the opposite: according to the SCOTUS in Romer v. Evans, a constitutional amendment must reflect a rational relationship to the state's interests. In other words, a state law or constitution can discriminate only if it is clearly in the state's interest.
Click to expand...

Upholding the moral values of the citizens is within the State's interests. In order to overturn Prop 8, the lawyers have to demonstrate that allowing same sex marriage is consistent with those moral values.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

jallman said:
There's no evidence that homos are better parents than heteros.
Click to expand...

The evidence shows that they are exactly as good as heterosexual couples. Almost like those homosexuals are human beings who have the same abilities as the rest of us! Amazing!
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

I would like to see this issue taken care of and I think the SCOTUS will do just that and the will of the good people of California will finally be upheld.....
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Navy Pride said:
I would like to see this issue taken care of and I think the SCOTUS will do just that and the will of the good people of California will finally be upheld.....
Click to expand...

Keep dreaming. The SCOTUS probably won't even hear the case.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

jallman said:
Keep dreaming. The SCOTUS probably won't even hear the case.
Click to expand...

Maybe but I would like to see the issue settled one way or the other......You have to admit this has gone on long enough.........
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Navy Pride said:
Maybe but I would like to see the issue settled one way or the other......You have to admit this has gone on long enough.........
Click to expand...

You might not like the result.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

FilmFestGuy said:
Actually, this is the opposite: according to the SCOTUS in Romer v. Evans, a constitutional amendment must reflect a rational relationship to the state's interests. In other words, a state law or constitution can discriminate only if it is clearly in the state's interest. With Prop. 8, we have an interesting conundrum because we already have 18,000 couples married and affirmed by the state, while other couples who weren't fast enough or who moved to the state at a later date are refused the right that was granted in the short term. So, the state's interest part is even stronger here (in my opinion).

No one - especially the attorney trying to defend Prop. 8 has any logical explanation as to how gay marriage harms the state and therefore justifies discrimination. No one. I've not seen a single argument of how it would harm anyone. I know we keep asking and if you're against gay marriage, it's probably annoying, but I've seen no harm demonstrated.

Do heterosexuals in Massachusetts and Iowa have fewer rights that those in Tennessee and Texas? I can't find the proof of that. If you can, please report it to me and I might believe you.
Click to expand...

Thanks. This has always been my understanding as well.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Boo Radley said:
You might not like the result.
Click to expand...

I might not but unlike people like you I would accept it..........
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Navy Pride said:
I might not but unlike people like you I would accept it..........
Click to expand...

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

Navy Pride said:
I might not but unlike people like you I would accept it..........
Click to expand...

You mean like how you and other conservatives have accespted Roe vs. Wade and not tried to change it?

Fact is if SCOTUS ruled for gay marriage the religious and certain conservative nuts would still fight it.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

TheNextEra said:
You mean like how you and other conservatives have accespted Roe vs. Wade and not tried to change it?

Fact is if SCOTUS ruled for gay marriage the religious and certain conservative nuts would still fight it.
Click to expand...

And if SCOTUS ruled that the people's vote actually matters you and the rest of the pro gay marriage nuts would still fight it as you are proving now :)
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

texmaster said:
And if SCOTUS ruled that the people's vote actually matters you and the rest of the pro gay marriage nuts would still fight it as you are proving now :)
Click to expand...

Those dang gays, wont accept being treated as second-class citizens!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom