- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 3,969
- Reaction score
- 1,209
- Location
- Dallas TEXAS
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt
Said the person who refused to go point for point and quoted everything? Could you be a little more dishonest?
I said the studies were not conclusive. There is far more and better evidence of polygamists raising children but that doesn't justify changing the law for them either. Unless you want to dismiss entire countries who allow it now.
Can you explain why you limit it to couples? What evidence are you using for that limitation or "discrimination"? Could it be a simple moral judgment on your part?
And since you kept it at couples that being your moral choice, why do you have the right to limit the age of marriage? If you point to age of consent, that is simply a law just like the law against gay marriage and you want to change that. Starting to pick up on the hypocrisy? You lambaste people against gay marriage claiming couples have the "right" to marry yet you want to limit that "right" only to homosexual couples of a certain age even though your justification could be used by many different groups you would continue to disallow from marriage. That is the hypocritical nature of your argument.
What is the harm in using civil unions to achieve the goal of state recognition?
Why are you and the far left so militant it must be called "marriage"?
Which means nothing in this discussion but do continue.
Not using the same arguments you are using for gay marriage absolutely not.
So you would discriminate based on personal opinion. Exactly how are you different from people opposed to gay marriage?
You still don't understand that the same argument you are using for gay marriage can be used by the polygamists. Nothing in what you are arguing could stop polygamists for demanding the same "right" based on your arguments for gay marriage.
That is the reality you seem to want to avoid.
So basically you can't really argue much on my points?
Said the person who refused to go point for point and quoted everything? Could you be a little more dishonest?
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.
I said the studies were not conclusive. There is far more and better evidence of polygamists raising children but that doesn't justify changing the law for them either. Unless you want to dismiss entire countries who allow it now.
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.
Can you explain why you limit it to couples? What evidence are you using for that limitation or "discrimination"? Could it be a simple moral judgment on your part?
And since you kept it at couples that being your moral choice, why do you have the right to limit the age of marriage? If you point to age of consent, that is simply a law just like the law against gay marriage and you want to change that. Starting to pick up on the hypocrisy? You lambaste people against gay marriage claiming couples have the "right" to marry yet you want to limit that "right" only to homosexual couples of a certain age even though your justification could be used by many different groups you would continue to disallow from marriage. That is the hypocritical nature of your argument.
What is the harm in using civil unions to achieve the goal of state recognition?
Why are you and the far left so militant it must be called "marriage"?
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.
Which means nothing in this discussion but do continue.
There are even some good arguments against legalizing polygamy already.
Not using the same arguments you are using for gay marriage absolutely not.
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.
So you would discriminate based on personal opinion. Exactly how are you different from people opposed to gay marriage?
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.
You still don't understand that the same argument you are using for gay marriage can be used by the polygamists. Nothing in what you are arguing could stop polygamists for demanding the same "right" based on your arguments for gay marriage.
That is the reality you seem to want to avoid.
Last edited: