• 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

It has been ruled not a "right" my more states. Regardless...

The debate is about the definition of marriage. People who are against gay marriage aren't homophobes, bigots, or against equality. We define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, nothing bigoted about that. I am all for civil union benefits and some kind of legal status for gay couples, but I won't allow it to be called marriage or recognized as such. California voted to define marriage, not to ban homosexuality. Californians voted, and the majority voted to define marriage as a union between a man and woman. It is bigoted to impose the definition that marriage is between any consenting adult upon the majority who voted to define it as a union between a man and woman.

Words don't belong to any particular group....and sorry, you are wrong, people who seek to deny rights/privileges to others that they believe that they themselves are "entitled" to are absolutely bigoted.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Penises aren't "meant" to go anywhere.

It's mean to go wherever I put it, and you're gona shut up and like it :mrgreen:
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

It's mean to go wherever I put it, and you're gona shut up and like it :mrgreen:

Trying to turn me on? ;)
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

very well said.

Except he's wrong about what this is about. It's not about the definition of marriage, it's about equal treatment. You can personally call a same-sex marriage something else if it makes you feel better, but that's not good enough to have the government impose that definition on people.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Except he's wrong about what this is about. It's not about the definition of marriage, it's about equal treatment. You can personally call a same-sex marriage something else if it makes you feel better, but that's not good enough to have the government impose that definition on people.

It is about defining marriage. In your definition of marriage a homosexual union is the same as a hetero one. In my definition of marriage a homosexual union isn't marriage. I am for civil unions and giving them a legal status, but not marriage. Why is it ok for the government to impose your definition on everyone?
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

It is about defining marriage. In your definition of marriage a homosexual union is the same as a hetero one. In my definition of marriage a homosexual union isn't marriage. I am for civil unions and giving them a legal status, but not marriage. Why is it ok for the government to impose your definition on everyone?

In answer to your question: A little document called the Constitution.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

It is about defining marriage. In your definition of marriage a homosexual union is the same as a hetero one. In my definition of marriage a homosexual union isn't marriage. I am for civil unions and giving them a legal status, but not marriage. Why is it ok for the government to impose your definition on everyone?

You're free to consider a marriage to be whatever the hell you want it to be. No one can impose anything on you in that regard. The only thing we care about is that the government recognizes same-sex unions in the same manner they recognize opposite sex unions. You're free to go on believing whatever the hell you want to.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Except he's wrong about what this is about. It's not about the definition of marriage, it's about equal treatment. You can personally call a same-sex marriage something else if it makes you feel better, but that's not good enough to have the government impose that definition on people.

So you are open to all forms of marriage without descriminating against age, number of people or family bond? If you say no you yourself just denied equal treatment to people.


This is the fallacy that pro gay marriage people always seem to fail to understand.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

It is about defining marriage. In your definition of marriage a homosexual union is the same as a hetero one. In my definition of marriage a homosexual union isn't marriage. I am for civil unions and giving them a legal status, but not marriage. Why is it ok for the government to impose your definition on everyone?

Civil Unions and domestic partnerships are nothing more than paper coated terms or politically correct terms for marriage. If I call a cow dung a T-Bone steak are you going to eat it? **** no you wouldn't eat it because changing the name of something does not make it different. Civil Unions, domestic partnerships and other similar terms is nothing more than a con by closet gay marriage supporters to weasel in gay marriage and a ploy by politicians to kiss that ass of both the opponents and proponents of gay marriage. Its like calling a bong a water pipe because its illegal in a certain area to have a bong but legal to have a water pipe.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

So you are open to all forms of marriage without descriminating against age, number of people or family bond? If you say no you yourself just denied equal treatment to people.


This is the fallacy that pro gay marriage people always seem to fail to understand.

No, it is not a fallacy at all. It's a ridiculous notion brought up by people who want to discriminate against consenting adults. If you want to lower the age of marital consent, that's a different matter. (and I'm all for it, btw)

As it is currently, though, CONSENTING ADULTS can marry, children cannot. Just like adults can go to war, drink, drive, etc, etc. If you wish to allow 2 yr olds to drive because you think it's discriminatory, then I guess it's your perogative to petition for such legislation. But don't attempt to liken it to the fact that you - as a consenting adult - are allowed to marry a consenting adult woman, while I - another consenting adult - am not.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

So you are open to all forms of marriage without descriminating against age, number of people or family bond? If you say no you yourself just denied equal treatment to people.


This is the fallacy that pro gay marriage people always seem to fail to understand.

No, it simply exhibits your own ignorance of equal protection analysis. Not every group (age, numbers of people, family bond) is analyzed the same under the Equal protection clause. Y
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

LOL Wrong again. Show me the law that states that. Thats what I said in my statement, not a judge's interpretation of the law. The actual law.

Damn you are fun :D

I know you find it fun being wrong. You asked where it was "ruled", which to any clear thinking and rational person means "the courts ruled". So I ask again, do you ever get tired of being wrong?
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

It has been ruled not a "right" my more states. Regardless...

The debate is about the definition of marriage. People who are against gay marriage aren't homophobes, bigots, or against equality. We define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, nothing bigoted about that. I am all for civil union benefits and some kind of legal status for gay couples, but I won't allow it to be called marriage or recognized as such. California voted to define marriage, not to ban homosexuality. Californians voted, and the majority voted to define marriage as a union between a man and woman. It is bigoted to impose the definition that marriage is between any consenting adult upon the majority who voted to define it as a union between a man and woman.

And again...no one really gives a **** what you and your kind define marriage as. We only care how the law treats people. You can define it as the sour mess you people have treated it as all along with your 50% divorce rates, your Brittney Spears 24 hour marriages "just for fun" and your high infidelity rates. No one gives a flying rat's ass if you do that and if heteros continue to treat it with shame and disrespect. However, when you try to enforce that definition through rule of law on others who don't share your views, then we have a problem.

So Catholics believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman with limited recourse for divorce. Do you find it so bigoted that they are forced to accept the no fault divorce that comes along with marriage now? Somehow I think not.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

I'm really tired of people who believe that religion is justification for bigotry.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

No, it simply exhibits your own ignorance of equal protection analysis. Not every group (age, numbers of people, family bond) is analyzed the same under the Equal protection clause. Y

Then it isn't "equal" protection is it?
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

I'm really tired of people who believe that religion is justification for bigotry.

And I'm tired of people trying to force religions to accept their sexual orientation.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

I'm really tired of people who believe that religion is justification for bigotry.

I don't really care what their justification is: bigotry is bigotry. And I love how certain ones whine "if you don't let me limit your rights well....well...well it 's you that's the bigot!"

*cue up the tantrum induced foot stomping march to the nearest door to slam so they can go cry behind it

**** them, **** their idiotic fits, **** their dishonesty, and **** their beliefs. I am sick and tired of giving people the benefit of the doubt on this only to hear the same, tired diatribes over and over and over again punctuated by the stupidity of "You're intolerant because you won't tolerate my intolerance toward your equal treatment under the law".
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

I know you find it fun being wrong. You asked where it was "ruled", which to any clear thinking and rational person means "the courts ruled". So I ask again, do you ever get tired of being wrong?

I said law. Do you understand what a law is jallman?

Go find the law that backs you up and get back to us mmmkay?
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

And I'm tired of people trying to force religions to accept their sexual orientation.

Here you go being wrong again. No one, not one person in this thread has made any argument toward forcing religion to accept anything.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

I'm really tired of people who believe that religion is justification for bigotry.

While that is nothing new, it should be noted that religion can also be used to fight against bigotry.

Mind you, I'm an atheist, but I see how religion works both ways: Some people use it to limit their views of the world and to hold that everyone who isn't like them is evil and therefore should be denied rights or have planes flown into their buildings. Other people see religion the exact opposite and embrace many views and understand that "loving your neighbor" actually means something.

For every hate filled religious leader out there screaming that "God hates gays" there's another who is performing gay marriages and encouraging love in all its forms.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

I said law. Do you understand what a law is jallman?

Go find the law that backs you up and get back to us mmmkay?

You said "ruled". You can't even get straight what you said. mmkay?
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Here you go being wrong again. No one, not one person in this thread has made any argument toward forcing religion to accept anything.

LOL Try reading breaking news. The Supreme Court just did that.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

And I'm tired of people trying to force religions to accept their sexual orientation.


Yeah, of course. That would be terrible.

Except, of course, that not one person is doing that.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

LOL Try reading breaking news. The Supreme Court just did that.

LOLOLOLOL link to it or it didn't happen. LOLOLOLOLOL
 
Back
Top Bottom