• 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

texmaster said:
LOL Try reading breaking news. The Supreme Court just did that.
Click to expand...

They give that power based on law not personal feelings.

What part of that don't you get?
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

texmaster said:
They give that power based on law not personal feelings.

What part of that don't you get?
Click to expand...

What part of "we aren't making an argument about religious acceptance" don't you get?
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

jallman said:
What part of "we aren't making an argument about religious acceptance" don't you get?
Click to expand...

I just gave you the link. Try reading it.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

texmaster said:
LOL Easily.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...tian-group-cant-bar-gays-and-get-funding.html
Click to expand...

And here again, you're flat out wrong. They didn't rule that the Christian group had to accept gays. They ruled that the Christian group had to follow the same rules as everyone else to get funding. They can discriminate all they want and I support their right to do it on principle. However, I do not support handing them public money so they can do it. The Supreme Court didn't rule anything about religious acceptance of gays; they ruled on how public money can be spent.

You wanna try again or are you happy having struck out three times already?
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

jallman said:
And here again, you're flat out wrong. They didn't rule that the Christian group had to accept gays. They ruled that the Christian group had to follow the same rules as everyone else to get funding. They can discriminate all they want and I support their right to do it on principle. However, I do not support handing them public money so they can do it. The Supreme Court didn't rule anything about religious acceptance of gays; they ruled on how public money can be spent.

You wanna try again or are you happy having struck out three times already?
Click to expand...

LOL If they want public money they certainly would.


Talk about pathetic. You won't even acknolwedge they are being punished for not accepting homosexuality.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

jallman said:
And your link didn't say anything you said it did.
Click to expand...

Of course it did. You simply aren't being honest about the law or what it denies groups who don't believe they should be forced to accept homosexuality.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

texmaster said:
LOL If they want public money they certainly would.


Talk about pathetic. You won't even acknolwedge they are being punished for not accepting homosexuality.
Click to expand...

If they want public money, they can follow the same rules as everyone else. It's not punishment when you are withheld something by your own actions and something you aren't entitled to anyway. Funny how you're all up in arms about entitlements being withheld when it's something you agree with but how you would otherwise be ****ting a brick over it.

Game set match. You're done.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

texmaster said:
Of course it did. You simply aren't being honest about the law or what it denies groups who don't believe they should be forced to accept homosexuality.
Click to expand...

No it didn't. You simply aren't being honest about the law or how it hands out money to groups based on Constitutional protections and equal treatment.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

texmaster said:
LOL If they want public money they certainly would.

Talk about pathetic. You won't even acknolwedge they are being punished for not accepting homosexuality.
Click to expand...

They are being denied access to public money because they do discriminate, in the same way that they can deny the KKK or a Muslim group that won't let women join.

This is the typical response of the religious nuts: they discriminate left and right for reasons that have no basis in logic, but when someone challenges them they claim to be the victims. Pitiful, actually.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Groucho said:
They are being denied access to public money because they do discriminate, in the same way that they can deny the KKK or a Muslim group that won't let women join.

This is the typical response of the religious nuts: they discriminate left and right for reasons that have no basis in logic, but when someone challenges them they claim to be the victims. Pitiful, actually.
Click to expand...

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

texmaster said:
LOL If they want public money they certainly would.


Talk about pathetic. You won't even acknolwedge they are being punished for not accepting homosexuality.
Click to expand...

It's not like getting that money is a right or anything.

They're forced to follow the same rules as everyone else. And now you're suggesting that different rules be made for the churches? That they should get some special privilege?
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Groucho said:
They are being denied access to public money because they do discriminate, in the same way that they can deny the KKK or a Muslim group that won't let women join.

This is the typical response of the religious nuts: they discriminate left and right for reasons that have no basis in logic, but when someone challenges them they claim to be the victims. Pitiful, actually.
Click to expand...

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

texmaster said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, that's a dumb ass argument on your part. You can discriminate with just cause or reason. What you can't do is discriminate without just cause or reason. You not liking it is not reason enough. Each issue has to stand on it's own, and either you have just cause or you don't. The issue before us is same sex marriage; do you have just cause or not. If you don't have more than you don't like it, you don't have just cause or reason. So, let's not throw up anymore fallacuous arguments like you do above.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Boo Radley said:
No, that's a dumb ass argument on your part. You can discriminate with just cause or reason. What you can't do is discriminate without just cause or reason. You not liking it is not reason enough. Each issue has to stand on it's own, and either you have just cause or you don't. The issue before us is same sex marriage; do you have just cause or not. If you don't have more than you don't like it, you don't have just cause or reason. So, let's not throw up anymore fallacuous arguments like you do above.
Click to expand...

...but then he wouldn't have anything to say :(
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

texmaster said:
LOL What are you talking about? The people voted against gay marriage. A pro gay marriage judge overturned it. The people AGAIN voted against gay marriage. Now the pro gay marriage crowd is looking for another round of judicial activism and bypass the send proposition voted on by the people.

You are the ones wanting to circumvent the law. Not the majority of the people who voted against it.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to know your history very well:

In a Primary election in 2002: Prop 22 passes making by statute, marriage defined as between a man and a woman (which, by the way, was already California law since AB 607 in 1977, so it was a redundancy.)

In 2005: California Legislature passes AB 849, negating Prop. 22 and AB 607 from 1977 and making California law recognize marriage between same-sex partners.
Later that month: Schwarzenegger vetoes AB 849 because of court challenges to Prop 22; stating he believed that the issue of constitutionality should be settled by the courts.

In 2007: California Legislature passes AB 43, once again legalizing same-sex marriage; once again Schwarzenegger vetoes citing the case before the California Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of Prop 22.

In May, 2008: California Supreme Court overturns Prop 22 and AB 607 of 1977 stating that sexual orientation is a protected class on the same order of gender, race, and that, according to precedent in the courts 1948 ruling in Perez v. Sharp, marriage is a "basic civil right" (as did SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia).

In November, 2008: Prop 8 passes.

So, you're right in the sense that the people voted twice. However, you fail to recognize that twice, the legislature - the representatives of the people voted to legalize marriage; only to be vetoed by the governor simply because the constitutionality of the first law was already in the process of being questioned.

Thus, marriage discrimination was deemed unconstitutional once; the constitution was altered; BUT the biggest flaw in Prop 8 is that it only addresses marriage; when the California Supreme Court ruled that sexual orientation IS a protected class on the same par as race and gender - Prop 8 became a constitutional conundrum.

You have one part saying: gays are equal in all aspects of due process and treatment under California law; and another part (one sentence basically) saying they are not.

You claim that I want to circumvent the law; you wish to circumvent the constitution - which is now in crisis because California lets people amend it at the whims of special interest groups.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

texmaster said:
And I'm tired of people trying to force religions to accept their sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

NO ONE is forcing any religion to accept homosexuality! Where do you get this crap?

You are trying to make US follow your religious belief that gays shouldn't be treated equally.

No one anywhere has proposed a bill that will make a church anywhere be forced to be nice to gays or marry them.

Find me that bill or that court ruling. Find it.
_______

Oh, I then read on. Somehow I KNEW you would completely misinterpret that ruling.

It's not at all about who gets to be a member of a club. It's about getting public money to fund said club.

You want to hate gays. Go right ahead. But you're not going to get government money to do it.

No one's right was restricted at all - except for their right to sponge off public funds without following public rules.

Do you believe that your religion allows you to walk around Wal Mart calling everyone you suspect of being gay the f-bomb without being kicked out of the store? If you do, then you don't understand how our entire system works. It's your right to insult Wal Mart customers all you like. But you can't do it inside their stores and then sue them when they kick you out.

It's the same for the Christian Lawyers at the Cal-Hastings Law School. To get the money, they have to follow the rules set forth. If they don't like the rules, then they don't get the money.

It's not nearly as hard to figure out as you like to think.
 
Last edited:
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

rivrrat said:
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.
Click to expand...
And I have the right to vote so that my government doesn't recognize something that isn't marriage as marriage. I am for special legal status, but not marriage status because a homosexual union is not marriage. The government can recognize same sex unions, but they shouldn't recognize them as a marriage.
disneydude said:
In answer to your question: A little document called the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the Constitution gives states the right to govern. My state made homosexual marriages illegal, and all legal ones will be annulled if the couple moves to TN. It also outlaws polygamy. California voted, gay supporters are mad because their definition of marriage wasn't pushed. I have every right to vote and stop what I believe to be immoral perversion from being legally accepted as marriage. It's not unconstitutional to legally define marriage as a union solely between one man and one woman. My state (along with many others) have legally defined marriage this way, and none have found them or ruled them to be unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

digsbe said:
And I have the right to vote so that my government doesn't recognize something that isn't marriage as marriage. .
Click to expand...

Then you should advocate that the government only recognizes civil unions and leaves the term marriage in the private sector. One reason being is that religions do recognize gay marriage and others don't.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

winston53660 said:
Then you should advocate that the government only recognizes civil unions and leaves the term marriage in the private sector. One reason being is that religions do recognize gay marriage and others don't.
Click to expand...

The problem though is that marriage is a legal institution and not just a social one. I want the government to recognize only monogamous hetero unions as marriage. Homosexual unions would not be recognized as marriage, but given some form of legal status.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

digsbe said:
The problem though is that marriage is a legal institution and not just a social one. I want the government to recognize only monogamous hetero unions as marriage. Homosexual unions would not be recognized as marriage, but given some form of legal status.
Click to expand...

Well cry me a river. It is a legal contract and any one of age should be able to enter into one equally.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

winston53660 said:
Well cry me a river. It is a legal contract and any one of age should be able to enter into one equally.
Click to expand...

I agree. However the legal contract of marriage is not extended to homosexual unions, because they are not marriage. They can file for civil unions, but not for marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom