So gay!!!

[Deleted member 365]

I love it how so many people are complaining that the judge's homosexual lifestyle somehow tainted his judgment... Wouldn't a heterosexual judge be biased as well?

If mostly conservatives want to bring up the judge's homosexuality, then wouldn't they also have to be upset with a heterosexual judge as well?

If we're truly looking for an unbiased judge, wouldn't we then have to find a bisexual one?

What happens to other court cases? If a judge is black, white, red haired, wears glasses, is a female, is left handed, never played sports, loves country music, etc all then become factors in court cases?

Do we really want to open this can of worms?

And why does every judge seem to be an "activist" judge? If we didn't want to have somebody make a judgment which would ultimately result in some people being disappointed, then why even have judges? Why not eliminate the legal system altogether?

Is an "activist" judge somebody with an agenda who can care less about the evidence or the law? Or is an activist just a judge who rules against something you favor? I can't remember the last time a judge ruled on a somewhat controversial issue who hasn't been labeled an "activist." Maybe the judge was, you know, doing his job and making a judgment? Radical idea I know...

 

[Hopper]

Do we really want to open this can of worms?

I really don't care to open that can of worms, Thrilla, but mainly cause it aint necessary. He aint runnin the country, and the aint the sole arbiter of constitutional rights, outside of his own small-*** courtroom. He's just one low-level judge. Others, who are not openly gay, will get also give their authoritative input about the "constitutionality" of Prop 8.

 

[TheItinerantSon]

hopper smells like dog poo

 

[Darkwing Duck]

An interview with one of the lawyers who argued.

https://sdgln.com/news/2010/08/09/video-watch-prop-8-attorney-ted-olson-shred-chris-wallace-fox-news

 

[One Brow]

The implication I got from you was that you were claiming that there was substantial evidence which, if viewed objectively, would give person no "choice" but to conclude that homosexuality is largely biological (or some other conclusion DICTATED by the evidence). Did you have some other point in mind?

What is this even referring to?: "we have no mechanism for the behavior of homosexuality to cause the previously quoted biological discrepancies. "

We have had listed in this thread some 20 or so biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. We don't have any sort of mechanism for the behavior of homosexuality to cause these biological differences. Now, these specific differences individually or collectively may or may not be causal themselves, or the additional results of some other biological effects. However, we do have good evidence of biological influence.

If I say: "If you jump off a 10 story buildin, then, most likely, you will bust your head and die," then that statement is "hypothetical," not actual. It's still a "pragmatic" consideration to be assessed before jumpin, aint it?

If I'm jumping onto the roof of 9 story building, I most likely will survive without injury. Until you provide some actual evidence for the height of the fall, there is no pragmatic concern, just hysteria-mongering.

Or is an activist just a judge who rules against something you favor?

Bingo.

By any reasonable attempt to apply the common meaning of "activist", Brown vs. Board of Education would have been an activist ruling. It is never described as such.

 

[Hopper]

We have had listed in this thread some 20 or so biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. We don't have any sort of mechanism for the behavior of homosexuality to cause these biological differences. Now, these specific differences individually or collectively may or may not be causal themselves, or the additional results of some other biological effects. However, we do have good evidence of biological influence.

I guess I missed that. Was that in some link or actually spelled out in a post?

If I'm jumping onto the roof of 9 story building, I most likely will survive without injury. Until you provide some actual evidence for the height of the fall, there is no pragmatic concern, just hysteria-mongering.

Eric, this is a very typical response from you and I often wonder if you take such responses seriously, or are just sayin things to "debate." Suppose you were taken, blindfolded, to the edge of a 10-story building, and you had reason to believe that's exactly where you were. You were then ordered to jump. Would you really unhesitatingly jump, figuring there could be the roof of a 9 story building below you? Would you have no concerns whatsover that it might be a 10 story free-fall because any thought or suggestion of such a possibility was merely "hysteria-mongering?"

I seriously doubt it. But this is a very typical mode of argument for you. Any "possibility," no matter how implausible or remote, seems to be the "default truth" for you if that's the kind of case you prefer to believe in. I could easily respond to the specifics of your "no convincing proof, therefore not worth considering" line of reasoning in this case, but that's not even the point. This is a commonly recurring "form" of response in my discussions with you. You seem to think it's a valid form, and an adequate response to anything you hear. It aint. I'm wondering why you can't see that, or pretend not to?

 

[Hopper]

Change the hypothetical facts, if you want, Eric. You are told to jump, blindfolded, from an unknown spot. You ask (or don't ask, if you prefer) how far the drop is. If you ask, you are told: "That's not any concern of yours. Just jump. Could be 2 feet, could be 2,000 feet. Nuthin for you to worry about, just jump." Ya gunna jump?

No one has proven to you that it's 2000 feet, or 1999 feet, nine and 15/16 inches, or any other particular number, right? So, now, the number in question is not even a "pragmatic concern?" That your argument?

 

[One Brow]

I guess I missed that. Was that in some link or actually spelled out in a post?

They were spelled out in a post, by (IIRC) H. E. Pennypacker.

Would you really unhesitatingly jump, figuring there could be the roof of a 9 story building below you? Would you have no concerns whatsover that it might be a 10 story free-fall because any thought or suggestion of such a possibility was merely "hysteria-mongering?"

Depends on who's taking me to the roof of the building, I expect.

But this is a very typical mode of argument for you. Any "possibility," no matter how implausible or remote, seems to be the "default truth" for you if that's the kind of case you prefer to believe in.

The "default truth", in this instance, is that there needs to be a valid secular reason for not recognizing homosexual marriages. I don't see that as being implausible nor remote. If you do, then we will probably, simply disagree on how central the civil right to marriage is to American society. If you really want to bring an argument that this "default truth" is implausible or remote, bring it. If, in some future argument, you feel some other "default truth" is remote or implausible, I will certainly evaluate that claim as well.

I could easily respond to the specifics of your "no convincing proof, therefore not worth considering" line of reasoning in this case, but that's not even the point.

Then, what is your point? You don't know the height of the building, but what it it is ten stories? My answer: get out your tape measure!

 

[One Brow]

Ya gunna jump?

Who's asking, and what's the purpose of the jump? You saying I shouldn't jump to defend basic civil liberties?

 

[Hopper]

Who's asking, and what's the purpose of the jump? You saying I shouldn't jump to defend basic civil liberties?

Before I respond to this, I will wait for your response to my second post.

Edit: Or is that your response? I see I have used the short question in both posts.

2nd edit: Well, mebbe I didn't. Eric, how do you get from the question of what a "pragmatic concern" is to the question of the ultimate merits of a civil rights case? You seem to be talking like they are two identical questions, eh?

 

[One Brow]

Eric, how do you get from the question of what a "pragmatic concern" is to the question of the ultimate merits of a civil rights case? You seem to be talking like they are two identical questions, eh?

Maybe I misunderstood your metaphor.

To me, the "jump" is legalizing same-sex marriage. The "10 stories" are the possibility that the jump wil prove "fatal" (too expensive). So yes, even if the hieght is 10 stories, I still jump. More realistically, if it means my taxes go up becuase of this, than they do.

 

[Hopper]

Maybe I misunderstood your metaphor.

To me, the "jump" is legalizing same-sex marriage. The "10 stories" are the possibility that the jump wil prove "fatal" (too expensive). So yes, even if the hieght is 10 stories, I still jump. More realistically, if it means my taxes go up becuase of this, than they do.

Well, Eric, the whole "metaphor" arose out of a series of prior exchanges about what would constitute a "pragmatic concern" not the ultimate merits of the case for or against gay marriage. So, yes, you did misunderstand what I was asking.

I don't know if its possible for you to "go back," re-think the question in an alternate light, and then answer, or even if you want to. But at this point I would simply say you didn't respond to the question.