Federal judge: Arguments against gay marriage 'are not those of serious people'

[David Brider]

It was answered dozens of pages ago in this and other threads.

Are you sure? I've read this thread since the beginning, and I've yet to see you or anyone else answer poolerboy's question. If you have indeed answered it and I missed it, could you copy & paste it, or link to the post in which you answered it?

 

[Aldebaran]

Are you sure? I've read this thread since the beginning, and I've yet to see you or anyone else answer poolerboy's question. If you have indeed answered it and I missed it, could you copy & paste it, or link to the post in which you answered it?

His questions alter all the time. Hard to keep up

 

[David Brider]

His questions alter all the time. Hard to keep up

From what I can tell, his main one is the one recently restated in post 629:

For those who disagree with the judge's response to defendants, could you please explain how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses?

 

[Aldebaran]

From what I can tell, his main one is the one recently restated in post 629:

Ok, based on that question alone, my answer is "I don't know". As for the judge's decision to support gay marriage, I still don't agree with it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

A couple of questions of my own, if I may.

Ok, based on that question alone, my answer is "I don't know".

Neither does anyone else, it would seem. Could it be that the reason nobody knows is that the exclusion (or inclusion) of same-sex couples from marriage has no effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses?

As for the judge's decision to support gay marriage, I still don't agree with it.

And of course it is your absolute right to disagree. The judge, however, is bound by oath to use United States law and precedent as the basis for his decision. Using those criteria alone, what do you think of the judge's decision?

 

[Aldebaran]

And of course it is your absolute right to disagree. The judge, however, is bound by oath to use United States law and precedent as the basis for his decision. Using those criteria alone, what do you think of the judge's decision?

Not being as familiar with the case and the law as the judge, I would have to again say that I don't know. But I'm glad that my own opinion isn't bound by secular law like the judge's opinion had to be, although that's questionable as well. There are quite a few activist judges out there who vote their conscience. Some of them are on the Supreme Court.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Are you sure? I've read this thread since the beginning, and I've yet to see you or anyone else answer poolerboy's question. If you have indeed answered it and I missed it, could you copy & paste it, or link to the post in which you answered it?

That's actually NOT the reason. Allow me to state the basis for my opinion once again. Remember, this is a Christian website that you're on asking for these answers:

[FONT=&quot]Leviticus 18:22 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1 Corinthians 6:9-11[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Romans 1:26-28[/FONT][FONT=&quot]For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Leviticus 20:13[/FONT][FONT=&quot]If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1 Timothy 1:10[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Jude 1:7[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. [/FONT]

This is whole reason, but it has nothing to with the judges case.

 

[Aldebaran]

This is whole reason, but it has nothing to with the judges case.

That was actually the second time I posted those references. The first time was when I was answering someone else when they asked me for the basis of my opinion in not personally agreeing with the judge, allowing for the fact that the judge is bound by secular law, whereas my opinion is not.

 

[poolerboy0077]

When I sited those passages, it was to answer your question about the basis of my opinion on why I don't agree with gay marriage. Now you take my answer and apply it to a different question. You clearly don't understand what it means to have an honest discussion when you do that.

Your dishonesty just knows no bounds, does it. I asked you the basis for disagreeing WITH THE JUDGE'S SPECIFIC OPINION TO THE DEFENDANT'S SPECIFIC ARGUMENT. This is why you are either a dishonest person or completely and totally dense:

I'm still waiting to hear a proper, substantive critique by those who have an objection to the points made by the judge regarding the argument defendants advanced in this case.

I thought you guys were more interested in whether or not I supported SSM. Which one do you really care about knowing so much that you're willing to wait so long?

What I'm interested in is what you just quoted me on, which is the topic of this thread.

Oh, I see. Well, I guess my opinions about it aren't the same as the judges, that's all. He has a basis for his opinions, and I have a basis for mine. They aren't in agreement, which means I don't agree with his opinions.

What's the basis for yours?

This is the basis for mine:

[FONT=&quot]Leviticus 18:22 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. [/FONT]

[cut out other passages for space]

No, no, no. What's your basis for rejecting the judge's rationale of the specific argument in question. C'mon now. We've been over this several times. This thread has a specific topic, one which you've been conveniently avoiding.

I told you that my opinion was not in agreement with the judge's opinion. You asked me what the basis for my opinion was and now you change the question. And yeah, we've been over it several times. Aren't you tired of it yet?

Remember, I said,

And then you replied by asking, "What's the basis for yours?"

So you apparently can't stay with one train of thought. Stick with something, ok?

So you're against the judge's response not because you feel his response was illogical or not based on the law to which he is bound but simply because you dislike any legal result or response that does not conform to your religious sentiments? That's not responding to the question at all, then. All you're basically saying is "I'm going to disagree with anything that doesn't sound anti-gay even if the response is rational." That's asinine.

I'll ask one final time before I give up: provide specific reasons for why the claim that there is no relevant connection between stopping gays from marrying and the concern for procreation. Mindlessly citing anti-gay Bible passages does not answer my question at all. At all.

Sure it is! I stated my opinion, and you asked for the basis of my opinion. I can't help it if you don't like it, or if you disagree with it.

This is how you look like to other people:


[The following is a hypothetical]


Judge: Defendants in the present case argue that the state should outlaw religious worship on the belief that such a practice is false. Our federal and state constitutions provide protections for people to practice their religion freely irrespective of its truthfulness. Truth or falsehood is simply irrelevant to whether or not we should ban a practice that emanates from free expression and religious conscience.

Me: Any atheist here have any objections to this specific argument?

Atheist Bob: I do! I disagree with his reasoning.

Me: How so?

Atheist Bob: RELIGION IS FALSE AND EVIL! IT SHOULD BE ERADICATED!

Me: Well, that doesn't really answer my question. I asked what specifically about his response to the defendants of this case is irrational or lacking in evidence.

Atheist Bob: I answered your question!

Me: You didn't address it. I am an atheist too and agree generally with your sentiments. This has nothing to do with whether or not you want religion to go away. This is about whether his response was adequate given the law.

Atheist Bob: You just don't like my response.

Me: ...



I even made the atheist here look foolish so that you don't have a reflexive reaction against it. I'm not holding out much hope that this will "click" however.

You should change your name to Huuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

That was actually the second time I posted those references. The first time was when I was answering someone else when they asked me for the basis of my opinion in not personally agreeing with the judge, allowing for the fact that the judge is bound by secular law, whereas my opinion is not.

But his ruling had nothing to do with secular law. The defendant make a whole different argument.

 

[Aldebaran]

Your dishonesty just knows no bounds, does it. I asked you the basis for disagreeing WITH THE JUDGE'S SPECIFIC OPINION TO THE DEFENDANT'S SPECIFIC ARGUMENT. This is why you are either a dishonest person or completely and totally dense:

I have read your post and all the references, along with the obvious disrespect that is part of your character, and I find no problem with the answers I gave to your questions. If you don't like my answer to your question, then stop asking. The answer isn't going to change for you.

 

[Skaloop]

First, let me see if you're someone who knows the foundation of the Christian faith. Tell me first, what is the definition of sin (without looking it up on google)? I want to see what you know.

Also, how did sin enter the world? What was the purpose of Jesus dying on the cross?

I've already answered those questions. Search back through my posts to find my answers.

Were you able to find my responses to your questions?

 

[Aldebaran]

Were you able to find my responses to your questions?

So you don't know. Ok, I'll give you permission to use google this time.

 

[Skaloop]

So you don't know. Ok, I'll give you permission to use google this time.

I do know. I've answered those questions. You'll find them if you go through my post history.

 

[Aldebaran]

I do know. I've answered those questions. You'll find them if you go through my post history.

I'm actually not interested. But thanks for playing!

 

[Skaloop]

I'm actually not interested. But thanks for playing!

If you're not interested, why did you ask?

 

[Aldebaran]

If you're not interested, why did you ask?

That's a very good question! Now you can search the entire thread for the answer!

 

[Aldebaran]

Have you found it yet?

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Your dishonesty just knows no bounds, does it. I asked you the basis for disagreeing WITH THE JUDGE'S SPECIFIC OPINION TO THE DEFENDANT'S SPECIFIC ARGUMENT. This is why you are either a dishonest person or completely and totally dense:

I think he's just playing games, so we're wasting time with him.

 

[poolerboy0077]

I think he's just playing games, so we're wasting time with him.

That's often the problem with extreme fundamentalists online. Since we're only going by text alone, we can never truly distinguish between trolling behavior and real lunacy.