• 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

digsbe said:
And no where does it say homosexuals have a right to marriage. It's a social issue, therefore society gets to speak and vote on it as the Constitution would suggest.
Click to expand...

For the government it is a legal issue.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

digsbe said:
I am not denying rights to others, because it's my belief that they don't have that right. I define marriage, and believe that homosexual unions can apply for civil unions if they want to. There is nothing that says homosexuals have the right to force upon everyone else that their relationship and union is marriage.

They didn't restrict anything, they simply didn't extend the definition of marriage to include homosexual unions. And those who had marriage licenses did not obtain them legally, therefore they should have them removed because their "marriage" does not fit the proper definition of the state. I won't deny that there are arrogant hateful anti-gm people, but not all of us are that way. I have several times exposed and expressed my anger at hypocrisy at the Christian right on this forum. However, there is also selfish, arrogant, and hateful people on the pro-gm side who are bigoted towards socially conservative Christians. The mayor of San Fransisco is a prime example of one when he exclaimed "You will have gay marriage weather you like it or not!" There is much hatred towards Christians from the pro-gm side, neither side is spotless.
Click to expand...

First, you are denying them rights over a word. A word that you do not own the definition of, especially not legally. Legally, marriage is a contract. There is no other way to say this. It is a contract that comes with benefits and responsibilities for the two parties allowed to enter into the contract. If you don't want the contract to be called marriage, fine. Petition for all civil marriages to be known legally as civil unions. But all civil marriage contracts need to be known as civil unions, not just those that you or your religion views as not really marriages. You lose the legal recognition of the word marriage too. Religion is free to use it all they want to, as is anyone who wants to call themselves "married".

Second, there are haters on both side, but only the anti-gm side is completely trying to deny rights to a group of people. Some pro-gm people may be advocating for off-the-wall extras, like trying to require anyone who performs a legal wedding ceremony to have to perform gay weddings as well or for requiring unnecessary anti-discrimination laws against private citizens/businesses. Most pro-gm people, including pretty much all of the ones on this site, are advocating for fair and equal marriage rights/benefits/responsibilities. Saying that it is coming, whether you like it or not, while not exactly appropriate in a public statement and certainly should have been said a better way, is still true. The current trends show that more and more people are accepting homosexuality and even willing to allow homosexuals to enter into the legal contract of marriage. And there are several lawsuits in courts right now across the country and in DC, that are challenging DOMA. And, there has been talk several times of bills in Congress that would offer federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Once DOMA is gone, same sex marriage will essentially be legal everywhere in the US, even if some states refuse to give a marriage license to same-sex couples.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

digsbe said:
And no where does it say homosexuals have a right to marriage. It's a social issue, therefore society gets to speak and vote on it as the Constitution would suggest.


Has Prop 8 been ruled unconstitutional? Vermont and Hawaii... I would expect nothing less from those states, of course they would substitute what is lawful for their liberal moral system. It was challenged here in TN too and many other states, and they found it to be constitutional in court.

The courts will have their final say, and those who declare its unconstitutional largely do it to force their morality upon others. I saw no problem before the California elections with any group saying it was unconstitutional to have on the ballot. You deal with things like that before the election, not afterwards when you don't get your way. They lost in the popular election, so now they are turning to plan B, legislating from the bench. Where was the homosexual rights outcry when they thought about putting Prop 8 on the ballot? Everyone thought it would pass in liberal California so there was no objection.

I find your description of religious individuals and anti-gay marriage supporters to be bigoted and offensive. All I am asking for is a rational debate free from insults and offensive language. I have great respect for you as an individual and poster, and I feel debates should be rational and insult free. Forgive me if I am whining or act "butthurt," I just want a logical and rational debate. There is another place for users to flame as they please, and it isn't here.

Christianity isn't a "dying cult." Western nations are becoming increasingly secular, but many other parts of the world are seeing a boom in Christianity (like in Africa).

Homosexuals don't have the right to exalt their relationship as equal to marriage when the populace has voted and decided that it isn't marriage. I believe they have a right to legal status. but not to call their relationship/union marriage, because it isn't marriage.
Click to expand...
No, I'm merely exposing the hypocrisy. The ones interjecting bigotry are those who want to blanket every anti-gm supporter as a bigot and close their eyes to their own bigotry through forcing their definition of marriage on others.[/QUOTE]

Your dishonesty is astounding. I don't understand how you can sit there and cry and moan that anything is being forced on you with a straight face. But leave it to the Christian to cry persecution rather than make a legitimate argument.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

jallman said:
Your dishonesty is astounding. I don't understand how you can sit there and cry and moan that anything is being forced on you with a straight face. But leave it to the Christian to cry persecution rather than make a legitimate argument.
Click to expand...

I'm done here.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

FilmFestGuy said:
Jerry and I have had this discussion and I'm okay with his views. He simply states that no benefits should be extended to any couples until they have children and the tax benefits should only be extended to couples upon having children.

And if I'm right, this includes same-sex couples, correct, Jerry?

I see no bigotry in his MO. Now, my only concern with this is up until that point to vote against gay marriage is a little discriminatory, in my book - because you're settling for inequality under the status quo before your equalizing solution occurs.

But your philosophy isn't bigoted at all.
Click to expand...

Absolutely this includes same-sex couples. The state's interest in marriage is the raising of children, not promoting or demoting sexual preference.

IMO there is no meaningful difference between a same-sex couple raising children and an opposite-sex couple raising children. Neither is there any meaningful difference between a gay couple who have decided never to have children and any childless hetero romantic relationship one can dream up. One matters to everyone, the other is your own private business which affects only those directly involved.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

disneydude said:
Actually, Jerry, you are consistent in your view and your view does not use race,ethnicity or sexual orientation to determine who you feel is entitled to the privilege to marry. While I disagree with your belief that marriage should only be extended to child-rearing couples, your argument at least has some basis in rationality unlike those who believe that marriage should be restrict to heterosexuals or Christian couples.
Click to expand...

If we were to pass a Constitutional amendment defining marriage and it's purpose, I would be willing to turn a blind eye to all those childless gay couples who wish to marry. They are at worst benign exceptions and pose no harm. My purpose is to focus the body politic on accomplishing something everyone benefits from, and I'm willing to give ground in compromise to accomplish that goal.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

jallman said:
I know one thing: none of that has happened with homosexuals but it already has happened with heterosexuals. :shrug:

I'm not making any arguments based on what we don't know. I am making arguments based on what we do know for sure.
Click to expand...

Do we even know Briteney Spear's political outlook?
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Jerry said:
Do we even know Briteney Spear's political outlook?
Click to expand...

Does it really matter? I didn't make any comment about conservative vs liberal here. I simply commented on how heterosexuals have defended the sanctity of marriage in the past and held that incident up as an example of how their concern is misplaced on homosexuals when the egregious offenders have, thus far, been heteros.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Jerry said:
Absolutely this includes same-sex couples. The state's interest in marriage is the raising of children, not promoting or demoting sexual preference.

IMO there is no meaningful difference between a same-sex couple raising children and an opposite-sex couple raising children. Neither is there any meaningful difference between a gay couple who have decided never to have children and any childless hetero romantic relationship one can dream up. One matters to everyone, the other is your own private business which affects only those directly involved.
Click to expand...

Do you think home owners who don't have kids should pay property taxes for the schools?
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

jallman said:
Does it really matter?
Click to expand...

It's critical.

Your typical opponent to gay marriage is the religious right, not heterosexuals.

Please validate your example of hypocrisy be showing that Britteny Spears even opposes gay marriage.


jallman said:
I didn't make any comment about conservative vs liberal here. I simply commented on how heterosexuals have defended the sanctity of marriage in the past and held that incident up as an example of how their concern is misplaced on homosexuals when the egregious offenders have, thus far, been heteros.
Click to expand...

The religious right, not heterosexuals, argue such points.

Even though your marriage has no measurable affect on me, I know that your marriage is a sacred bond and I value it as such. You are in the fold. Your union matters. Your marriage has objective value.

The 'sanctity' argument brought by the religious right is fundamentally virtuous and true even though it has been bent to serve a politically expedient end.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

independent_thinker2002 said:
Do you think home owners who don't have kids should pay property taxes for the schools?
Click to expand...

No.

Schools should be funded soley through a voucher program, not property tax. Proximity to a school would rightly increase the property value, but no special tax should be levied for the school.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Jerry said:
It's critical.

Your typical opponent to gay marriage is the religious right, not heterosexuals.

Please validate your example of hypocrisy be showing that Britteny Spears even opposes gay marriage.
Click to expand...

I don't need to since all I did was illustrate that heterosexuality does not make the marriage automatically sacred and that the sanctity of marriage people have misplaced their outrage since the only people currently undermining the sanctity of marriage are heteros.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

jallman said:
I don't need to since all I did was illustrate that heterosexuality does not make the marriage automatically sacred and that the sanctity of marriage people have misplaced their outrage since the only people currently undermining the sanctity of marriage are heteros.
Click to expand...

I'm getting the felling that I jumped in right at the end of someone else's religious argument.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Jerry said:
I'm getting the felling that I jumped in right at the end of someone else's religious argument.
Click to expand...

LOL, yeah pretty much. ;)
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Jerry said:
Absolutely this includes same-sex couples. The state's interest in marriage is the raising of children, not promoting or demoting sexual preference.

IMO there is no meaningful difference between a same-sex couple raising children and an opposite-sex couple raising children. Neither is there any meaningful difference between a gay couple who have decided never to have children and any childless hetero romantic relationship one can dream up. One matters to everyone, the other is your own private business which affects only those directly involved.
Click to expand...

I just have to say it does my heart good to be able to talk to someone with whom I have disagreements on other issues to say that a common ground is found. We can quibble about other things, but I respect your opinion and it just seems so rare on this board, that I feel the need to applaud the rarity of finding something resembling it.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Navy Pride said:
There is no right to marriage.........Its a privilege that every man and woman in this country have.......Gays want a special privilege........
Click to expand...

Wrong. The USSC disagrees. Regardless...even it it were a Privilege...the Government cannot discriminate in the application of that privilege without having a legitimate governmental interest for doing so. You anti-gay folk have never been able to pose a single legitimate government interest that doesn't rely on your religious beliefs...and religion cannot be the basis for government supported bigotry.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Navy Pride said:
There is no right to marriage.........Its a privilege that every man and woman in this country have.......Gays want a special privilege........
Click to expand...

Wrong, since marriage is a contract and the individual has right to contract, marriage is by default a right. And gays don't want special privilege, just equal recognition and exercise of rights.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Ikari said:
Wrong, since marriage is a contract and the individual has right to contract, marriage is by default a right. And gays don't want special privilege, just equal recognition and exercise of rights.
Click to expand...

The State is a signing party in said contract, it is not one among individuals. In fact the individuals all ready made their own private agreements and then decided to seek more by bringing their relationship to the public forum with a marriage.

Anyway, the contract regards couples raising children, and does not apply to couples not performing the contracts intended purpose any more than a general contractor's license applies to practicing law. The state does not stop any such strictly legal contract from being drawn and entered by strictly private persons. Gays are free to make them now as they always have been.
 
Last edited:
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Jerry said:
The State is a signing party in said contract, it is not one among individuals. In fact the individuals all ready made their own private agreements and then decided to seek more by bringing their relationship to the public forum with a marriage.

Anyway, the contract regards couples raising children, and does not apply to couples not performing the contracts intended purpose any more than a general contractor's license applies to practicing law.
Click to expand...

That is not true. Nowhere in any state's laws does it say that the state endorses marriages for raising children. It is your own contention that marriage is for raising children, not any state's contention. This is especially true in those five states that specifically state that certain couples cannot get married unless they can't have their own children.

The states' interest in marriage is more likely (from the evidence of who can get married and the lack of needing an explanation of why they are getting married) to protect the people involved in the marriage and to encourage marriage, regardless of whether or not the couple is planning on being parents or not.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Jerry said:
Anyway, the contract regards couples raising children
Click to expand...

What? It DOES? I don't remember anything about that when my wife and I got married 27 years ago and had already decided not to have children. You mean we have been violating the law all these years?!!! Damn, I'm glad the Bar Association didn't find out! They could remove my law license! I never knew that being married meant we HAD to have children!

Oh, wait -- I remember now! That argument is nothing but bull**** made up by religious bigots! Silly me. And I was getting all worked up over nothing.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Jerry said:
Reported :2wave:
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
If you have a problem with a post, just use the report post function, don't advertise it
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Jerry said:
Anyway, the contract regards couples raising children, and does not apply to couples not performing the contracts intended purpose any more than a general contractor's license applies to practicing law.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but nowhere on the marriage license or marriage certificate does it mention anything about having to raise children. It may be your opinion that the purpose of marriage is for raising children, but it definitely is not fact and it is not law.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

roguenuke said:
That is not true. Nowhere in any state's laws does it say that the state endorses marriages for raising children. It is your own contention that marriage is for raising children, not any state's contention. This is especially true in those five states that specifically state that certain couples cannot get married unless they can't have their own children.

The states' interest in marriage is more likely (from the evidence of who can get married and the lack of needing an explanation of why they are getting married) to protect the people involved in the marriage and to encourage marriage, regardless of whether or not the couple is planning on being parents or not.
Click to expand...

Oh that's right, I just made up what every culture has used marriage for. It was all me.

It's a little thing called "cultural universal". Everyone has language and uses it for the same thing. Everyone produces music on the same topics and for the same resons. Funerals are about marking the end of life. Everyone has some kind of philosophical outlook. Marriage is about the raising and socializing of children.

But yeah, sure, I just made this up. It couldn't possibly be that there's a lil piece of science out there which supports my view. It must be imaginary :roll:
 
Last edited:
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Jerry said:
Oh that's right, I just made up what every culture has used marriage for. It was all me.

It's a little thing called "cultural universal". Everyone has language and uses it for the same thing. Everyone produces music on the same topics and for the same resons. Funerals are about marking the end of life. Everyone has some kind of philosophical outlook. Marriage is about the raising and socializing of children.

But yeah, sure, I just made this up. It couldn't possibly be that there's a lil piece of science out there which supports my view. It must be imaginary :roll:
Click to expand...

Which peice of science is that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom