• 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

Pedophilia was also accepted. Game, set and match.

Actually, pedophilia was not accepted by the greeks. Pederasty was accepted by the Greeks and even then it was only during a short period of their history.

And no one here has even entertained thoughts of pedophilia except, well, you at this point. What does that say?
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Homosexuality is not considered a paraphilia by scientists anymore. Fail.

Like I said, I can sit here and list sexual aberrations all day. None of which would lead me to rewrite the dictionary to change the definition of marriage. What the Greeks did thousands of years ago is less relevant. However,

Pedophilia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The word comes from the Greek: παιδοφιλία (paidophilia): παῖς (pais), "child" and φιλία (philia), "friendship". Paidophilia was coined by Greek poets either as a substitute for "paiderastia" (pederasty),[22] or vice versa.

You really don't want to go there with me. And besides, I'm off to work.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Yeah they do ;)
No they don't :)
We're a democratic republic, not a democracy - the way our Founders wanted it.
The founders instituted democratic elections with state's rights. California voted on gay marriage and it was shot down. If there is anything illegal in the bill they should have dealt with it before the election. It was nothing but a shot at legalizing it through the voters, and when that didn't work they had to take plan B and legislate from the bench.
That's a right they shouldn't have had, since this does not affect the people as a whole. Therefore I'm all for the Supreme court overturning it. I don't believe in referendum unless the law directly affects the voters.
It affects everyone living in the state of California. This does affect the voters because it essentially means that their votes and opinions mean absolutely nothing. The voted to prevent gay marriage, reversing this absolutely affects the voters and strips them of their right to vote on this issue.
How dare the religious morons vote against something just because they don't like it.
And how dare the secular/socially liberal world impose their morals upon us and say "deal with it." Who is imposing morals upon others in this case? Through a democratic process California voted on gay marriage, the majority voted to prevent it. Reversing this decision is imposing secular morals upon an entire state of people who democratically voted to prevent gay marriage. This is a prime example of imposing morals upon others and ignoring the democratic process.
If it's not overturned, it's a discrace to this country and a defeat of individual liberty. Go ahead and overturn it, and show these Christo-fascist who impose fascim descretely by legal means that the American people have had enough of there elitist, unpatriotic bullcrap.
If this is overturned it's a disgrace to this country and a defeat of individual liberty. It's a disgrace to the country because it means democracy was defeating and an imposing group has legislated their morals from the bench. It's a defeat of individual liberty because it means individuals have no voting rights when it comes to social issues. It means that even though individuals voted and the majority voted in favor of preventing gay marriage, that their votes don't matter. It strips an individual of their voting rights and essentially says "your opinion doesn't matter because it's not what we want."
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Actually, pedophilia was not accepted by the greeks. Pederasty was accepted by the Greeks and even then it was only during a short period of their history.

And no one here has even entertained thoughts of pedophilia except, well, you at this point. What does that say?

I dunno. Give me a hint. That pedophilia is okay because homosexuality is okay? Yeah, those Greeks really knew a thing or two.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Two things. One, what the law calls it is irrelevant. You can't equate legality with morality. They are not the same. Two, don't attempt to define my world. Your opinion is just that, an opinion. On my side, several hundred million years of evolution. I can be tolerant, but I don't need sexual perversity shoved down my throat.

This case is about what the law calls it, so it is very relevant to the discussion.

I am not attempting to define your anything. I am simply pointing out that what you call it is irrelevant to the big picture, which is the law. You show a lack of understanding of evolution, as homosexuality can be accounted for by evolution.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

I dunno. Give me a hint. That pedophilia is okay because homosexuality is okay? Yeah, those Greeks really knew a thing or two.

That's not what anyone said in this thread. True to form with your type, you are starting to break down into grunts and growls rather than maintaining any sense of rationality in your discussion.

To your credit, you crossed that line much quicker than most, though.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

That's not what anyone said in this thread. True to form with your type, you are starting to break down into grunts and growls rather than maintaining any sense of rationality in your discussion.

To your credit, you crossed that line much quicker than most, though.

Just kills you that homosexuality has no proven facutal basis in being anything more than a choice doesn't it?

Gay men have no different biological sexual reaction than straight men yet you want us to accept on belief that there is a genetic link to homosexuality despite any evidence in science in even a majority of homosexuals?

Heterosexuality is the only method for natural procreation. The biological sexual reaction is designed specifically for procreation. Our bodies react specifically to sexual stimuli to prepare for procreation.

So you've figured out you can get your jollies by going to another hole and that justifies a genetic link? Could you be a little more ridiculous?

No one is running around claiming blow jobs are genetic. :rofl

When you stop having the same biological sexual reaction that straight people have we can discuss your claims of "I was born this way"

Until then we can let the people to continue to vote down homosexual marriage.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

This case is about what the law calls it, so it is very relevant to the discussion.

I am not attempting to define your anything. I am simply pointing out that what you call it is irrelevant to the big picture, which is the law. You show a lack of understanding of evolution, as homosexuality can be accounted for by evolution.

I'm talking about social impact. You're talking about the law. Are you a lawyer? What is your legal argument then? Why are you trying to narrow this discussion to something utterly trivial?

You may be able to "account for homosexuality by evolution" (go ahead and try) but again, without straight sex the human race would come to an abrupt end, whereas homosexuality contributes nothing and obviously wants all the benefits of marriage.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

When you stop having the same biological sexual reaction that straight people have we can discuss your claims of "I was born this way"

When you can prove to me that all of your sexual attractions, sexual desires and sexual preferences are conscious choices, then we can discuss how sexuality is a choice too.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

When you can prove to me that all of your sexual attractions, sexual desires and sexual preferences are conscious choices, then we can discuss how sexuality is a choice too.

Sorry, I'm not the one who wants to change the law. The burden is on you.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Sorry, I'm not the one who wants to change the law. The burden is on you.

Burden is on me for what? I'm not the one claiming that heterosexuality is a choice.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Burden is on me for what? I'm not the one claiming that heterosexuality is a choice.

neither am I :)

I'm assuming you meant homosexuality. See if you want to change the law you need a basis beyond personal preference. Where is that when it comes to homosexuality?
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

neither am I :)

I'm assuming you meant homosexuality. See if you want to change the law you need a basis beyond personal preference. Where is that when it comes to homosexuality?

No, I meant heterosexuality. If you are claiming we consciously choose who we are attracted to, that means everyone. If sexuality is a choice, then that means heterosexuality too.

And no, I need only a basis of equality for all legal, adult citizens - regardless of "personal preference" perceived or otherwise
 
Last edited:
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

I'm talking about social impact. You're talking about the law. Are you a lawyer? What is your legal argument then? Why are you trying to narrow this discussion to something utterly trivial?

You said you would not call it marriage. I only said that what you call it does not matter. The big picture is what the law calls it. The courts will decide that.

You may be able to "account for homosexuality by evolution" (go ahead and try) but again, without straight sex the human race would come to an abrupt end, whereas homosexuality contributes nothing and obviously wants all the benefits of marriage.

Which would explain why homosexuals make up between only 3 and 10 % of people. AS far as accounting for homosexuality in evolution, we need to look more further than Hamilton's Rule, which explains, among other things, altruism.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

No, I meant heterosexuality. If you are claiming we consciously choose who we are attracted to, that means everyone. If sexuality is a choice, then that means heterosexuality too.

No it doesn't. How about actually addressing the argument I made on the boilogical sexual reaction in people?

Do you also think its just a coincidence that over 90% of the world is heterosexual? Seriously?

And no, I need no basis beyond personal preference. I need only a basis of equality for all legal, adult citizens.

And who told you that adults are the only ones allowed for this preference?

Does that mean adult sisters and brothers can marry as well?
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Does that mean adult sisters and brothers can marry as well?

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

Cool. A live one.

Two things. One, what the law calls it is irrelevant. You can't equate legality with morality.

Actually, when it comes to the law, your morality is irrelevant. If GM is legal, and your morality dictates that GM is sinful, you don't have to marry someone who is gay. Doesn't change the law, though. See? That's why from a legal perspective, your morality is irrelevant..

They are not the same. Two, don't attempt to define my world. Your opinion is just that, an opinion.

Just so you are aware, your opinion, too, is just that. An an opinion.

On my side, several hundred million years of evolution.

Appeal to popularity logical fallacy. Point negated.

I can be tolerant, but I don't need sexual perversity shoved down my throat.

As long as you understand that the term "sexual perversity" is nothing but your opinion.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

No it doesn't. How about actually addressing the argument I made on the boilogical sexual reaction in people?

Do you also think its just a coincidence that over 90% of the world is heterosexual? Seriously?
Did you know that only 7% of the people in the world are left handed? Does that mean they choose to be?

And who told you that adults are the only ones allowed for this preference?
We don't allow people who aren't adults to enter into legal contracts.

Does that mean adult sisters and brothers can marry as well?
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?
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Just kills you that homosexuality has no proven facutal basis in being anything more than a choice doesn't it?

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

Gay men have no different biological sexual reaction than straight men yet you want us to accept on belief that there is a genetic link to homosexuality despite any evidence in science in even a majority of homosexuals?

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?

Heterosexuality is the only method for natural procreation.

Well thank you, Captain Obvious.

The biological sexual reaction is designed specifically for procreation.

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.

Our bodies react specifically to sexual stimuli to prepare for procreation.

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

So you've figured out you can get your jollies by going to another hole and that justifies a genetic link? Could you be a little more ridiculous?

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?

No one is running around claiming blow jobs are genetic. :rofl

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

When you stop having the same biological sexual reaction that straight people have we can discuss your claims of "I was born this way"

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?

Until then we can let the people to continue to vote down homosexual marriage.

No.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

neither am I :)

I'm assuming you meant homosexuality. See if you want to change the law you need a basis beyond personal preference. Where is that when it comes to homosexuality?

Actually, you don't since the law takes into account that personal choice is a right of the individual. In this case, all one needs to do is dispel any notion that the state has a vested interest in the matter.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Just kills you that homosexuality has no proven facutal basis in being anything more than a choice doesn't it?

It just kills you that heterosexuality, like all sexual orientations has no factual basis in being anything more than a choice, doesn't it?

Gay men have no different biological sexual reaction than straight men yet you want us to accept on belief that there is a genetic link to homosexuality despite any evidence in science in even a majority of homosexuals?

It still kills you that there is no genetic evidence of what causes sexual orientation, straight or gay, doesn't it?

Heterosexuality is the only method for natural procreation.

Which is irrelevant to sexual orienation. It is only relevent to BEHAVIOR. You still haven't learned the difference.

The biological sexual reaction is designed specifically for procreation.

The BEHAVIOR is. Prove the causes for the orientations. Either point me to the designer's website, or show the genetic coding.

Our bodies react specifically to sexual stimuli to prepare for procreation.

This continues to show your lack of knowledge on human sexual response. There are plenty of reasons why are bodies react to sexual stimuli, Procreation is not the only one.

So you've figured out you can get your jollies by going to another hole and that justifies a genetic link? Could you be a little more ridiculous?

And you have still failed to show the genetic coding for heterosexuality or any sexual orientation. Until you do, your argument is meaningless.

No one is running around claiming blow jobs are genetic. :rofl

Again, you show complete ignorance on the difference between a behavior and an orientation. Would you like me to post the definitions of each word for you?

When you stop having the same biological sexual reaction that straight people have we can discuss your claims of "I was born this way"

When you can prove the the biological reactions... NOT BEHAVIORS are the same, then you will have a point. Since you haven't, you have none.

Until then we can let the people to continue to vote down homosexual marriage.

People vote it down because of ignorance and morality. It's their right, of course, but that's why they do it.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Sorry, I'm not the one who wants to change the law. The burden is on you.

Actually, the burden is on you because you cannot prove that heterosexual ORIENTATION is not a choice.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

No it doesn't. How about actually addressing the argument I made on the boilogical sexual reaction in people?

Do you also think its just a coincidence that over 90% of the world is heterosexual? Seriously?

Do you think it's a coincidence that the vast majority of folks are right handed? You keep digging yourself deeper everytime you post on this issue, tex.



And who told you that adults are the only ones allowed for this preference?

Does that mean adult sisters and brothers can marry as well?

Slipperly slope that has nothing to do with sexual orientation... so that would be a red herring as well. Hmmm... two logical fallacies in one short sentence. Impressive.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Do you think it's a coincidence that the vast majority of folks are right handed? You keep digging yourself deeper everytime you post on this issue, tex.

Now I understand.....I'm a freak of nature for being left handed.....I even jerk off left handed.....I'm perverted :mrgreen:
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

I think we need to take time out for definitions to avoid confusion: A Paradox of Evolution

To answer why homosexuality exists we must first identify it. "Homosexuality" has two principle meanings which are distinct but related. Homosexuality is sexual activity between two individuals of the same gender. This includes same-sex coitus or genital contact, whether ventro-ventral, dorso-ventral, or otherwise and whether male-male or female-female.

Homosexuality is also the innate sexual preference for one's own gender or the biological urge for same-sex coitus. While much is said about the distinction between homosexual desires (or innate sex drive) and homosexual behavior in humans, this distinction is of limited or negligible significance in non-human populations in which we infer "desire" (be it instinctive or learned) primarily from behavior. The distinctive gulf between human desire/biological impulse and behavior (Marmor, 1980) is attributed to human social mores and cultural constraints (Dickemann, 1993), which epigenetic forces can also be accounted for with biological/evolutionary explanations (Alcock, 1984, pp. 522 & 524).

In summary, homosexuality is both the biological drive for same-sex coitus as well as the performance of same-sex coitus. Homosexuality (as defined by both definitions) has been observed in both males and females in both human and non-human populations. While it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate innate urge from action in non-human animals, the distinction between these two definitions will be important later as we discuss possible evolutionary explanations for homosexuality.

Definition 1: homosexual behavior

Definition 2: homosexual orientation
 
Back
Top Bottom