You have made the argument numerous times.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Why California’s Proposition 8 Would Make Jesus Weep (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Loves You
- Start date
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Why? I was being sincere. I think others around here mask their bigotry in arguments of dubious credibility. Mookie at least comes right out and tells you he hates the gays. I don't like it at all, but at least it's honest.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
Well, he did shake is head a lot. I guess that's a defense.I found it interesting that Perkins went for the "save the children angle" as if there is no data on this. Same-sex couples aren't new, chief.
Mookie Blaylock
Footballguy
For the record, I do not hate gay people. I just don't think there is any way to prove who is gay and who is not. As such, I don't believe it should be considered as a legitimate social 'category', if you will. I have to admit that many times this comes across in a way that could be taken as fishing.
You equate people against gay marriage as "hating the gays"?? Uh, Ok
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
Sure thing, golddigger MasterofOrion Konotay.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
Please respond to the question posed in Line 4. TIA
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
No, I equate the arguments you were making a couple pages ago in this thread, in which you made hilarious generalizations about how a gay judge would never be able to rule fairly on a matter related to marriage rights but did not thinik such concerns applied equally to other persons who could be seen as "interested" in the result, as bigoted. I made the case pretty clearly. You thought someone was capable of less than someone else solely by virtue of their sexuality. You didn't really bother to respond, except to contradict yourself.Mookie has posted in other threads that he disapproves of homosexuality in pretty clear terms. I imagine he'll tell you as much. if he doesn't, I suppose I can try to root around and find the threads where he's done so if I find the time at some point. I consider that bigotry.You equate people against gay marriage as "hating the gays"?? Uh, Ok
Last edited by a moderator:
So simply disapproving of something is bigotry?
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Yes, if it's a genetic trait.So simply disapproving of something is bigotry?
I made the point thats its a strong possibility. Lets say If a judge who was a current member of the KKK was ruling on a hate crime with white defendents how do you think he would rule? Do you see my point?
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
I think this case is an excellent example of a proceeding that should be televised. The court TV channels tend to gravitate toward high profile murders and celebrity cases, but this case directly involved the public's interest in a proposition they voted on and the people of California should have been able to see the proceedings live on television.I've never understood the SCOTUS argument on this or even their unspoken motivation (if there is one). I think it was David Souter who said cameras would roll at oral argument "over my dead body" or something similar.
here's a recent, very short piece on the topic from Reason:
It is interesting that those who purport to support the first amendment and a government by and for the people typically are the ones that favor these proceedings being televised for the general public to see. There is a fundamental FFA principle at work here - just as a judge is only "activist" when he rules against you, the desire to have a courtroom proceeding televised only shows a judicial "agenda" when he later rules for the other side.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Equating homosexuality with KKK membership is not helping your cause. Let's try some more reasonable hypos.If a judge who reads the newspaper daily was ruling on a free speech case with newspaper companies as defendants, how do you think he would rule? Do you assume he'd be biased? What about a judge who owns a gun in a Second Amendment case? Or a judge who is white in an affirmative action case? Or a judge who is rich and has rich friends in a tax case?If not, why do you assume (or, to use your now-backtracking words, that it's a "strong possibility") that a gay judge would be biased?
Many scientist consider alcoholism genetic. There is evidence to suggest there is genetic influence in sexual behavior, but calling it a genetic trait is more about politics than scientific. Personal choice and environmental factors all play a role. That is what the evidences shows, even the strongest evidence (twin studies) used to claim its genetics.
I wonder why you don't get banned. Your are abrasive, antagonistic, rely mostly on ad hominum attacks, you stalk people and pepper them with personal attacks that have nothing to do with the post for the sole purpose creating a strong personal response. You posts show that you don't just disagree but that there is a strong visceral hatred for those who disagree with you. I think you see your purpose is to hound those you disagree with off the board. You are everything a responsible board would eschew.
Last edited by a moderator:
dparker713
Footballguy
Thats different than being prohibited from marrying the person you want. One is general, the other is specific.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
The fact that I literally have no idea whether the bolded is referring to miscegenation laws or gay marriage laws should tell you something about whether they're as different as you claim.
This may be true but I can't think of activist decision made by a judge who was a strict constructionist. I don't really care about cameras in the court room. I do care about a judges motivation for having cameras.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
This is a ridiculous analogy. Let's say that being a judge only entailed presenting a verdict that either affirmed or denied the case presented by the plaintiffs.. basically a thumbs up or down.. and that was it. In that hypothetical situation, we would be more likely to speculate about the motivations of the judge and why they decided the way that they did. We'd have nothing to go on. This is often a common situation in a jury trial where deliberations are private. Your hypothetical case isn't even procedurally analogous to what happened in the Prop 8 ruling. But that aside...In this particular case, we have a 138 page opinion where the judge goes into explicit detail about the background surrounding this debate, copious description of fact-finding and evidence presented, and finally an argument that describes the judge's reasoning for rendering the verdict that he did. If there's obvious bias, there are two very good questions (and possibly more) than need to be asked: 1) why didn't anyone object to Walker being assigned to this trial before the verdict? 2) what evidence in the court opinion points to Walker being biased toward gays?If anyone had read this opinion stripped of the fact of who wrote it, I would challenge them to identify the judge as being gay himself.But, I'm willing to hear whatever argument you can stir up. This does require reading the opinion, though. Fair warning.
Similarly, I honestly have no idea which one is supposed to be general and which is supposed to be specific. They seem identical to me.
the moops
Footballguy
Are you gay?
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
I've relied only on debating the facts of the case. I haven't made a single "attack" on you in here. I only point out that you have a standard rotation of usernames, and have even denied to be the same person previously.You hate getting called out for being insincere in these discussions, linking to shoddy sources, and generally glossing over detail and not responding to genuine criticism. Your only recourse has been to change your online identity, or make scurrilous claims that people are attacking you. No one is attacking you personally. I would say the same things to anyone that made the kinds of shabby claims that you do. It's not personal in any way. You've even claimed that the uber-patient shining path was attacking you before. It's kind of a trend with you.
Maybe you should just avoid any controversial subject. You're obviously not used to being called out, and you definitely don't have thick enough skin to endure any kind of criticism. You're also not willing to respond directly to questions raised about your posts. It's an ineffective debate tactic.
If you think I'm personally attacking you or singling you out for reasons other than the content of your posts, report me. Show me evidence of "hounding" someone on this board. Take it up with Joe or anyone else that will listen to you. Meanwhile, I will rebut your illogical posts and expose them for what they are.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
I think we're going to need heterosexual ID cards soon.
dparker713
Footballguy
Saying you cant marry the person you want is specific. Saying you cant marry a member of the same gender is general.The specific attempt to marry the person you want would require a mutual exercise of rights. A general prohibition limits the options available to an individual.
scoobygang
Footballguy
We'll just track the sales of Cher albums.BTW, that argument is the funniest whopper in a thread that's filled with them. Don't ever change, Mookie.
dparker713
Footballguy
Well, you did attack me. But I generally see that as a sign that I won.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
I think the martyr room at the Hyatt is serving doughnuts till five.
"You can't marry Brad Pitt because he is male" is functionally equivalent to "You can't marry anybody who is male." I don't think it makes sense to call one specific and one general, or to say that one is mutual and the other is individual. They're the same thing, aren't they? (Or is that not the distinction you're trying to draw?)
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
If me and my lover (let's call him Robert Redford, because I'd hop into bed with him in a second, and i wouldn't just lie there, Michael Bluth, if that's what you're thinking!) want to marry, and Prop 8 won't let us, isn't that specifically saying that I can't marry the person that I want? How is that different than if I'm Oprah Winfrey and I want to marry Robert Redford?I'm really not following your logic here at all.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
Whoa, let's ease up on the attacks.
Mookie Blaylock
Footballguy
So where's your proof, Scoobs? And I mean other than roller-blades.
scoobygang
Footballguy
In the context of gay marriage? I'd say that two dudes applying for a marriage license is all the proof you'd need.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
I think the concept of a "strict constructionist" is a similarly vague and loaded term as is "activist". I think if you take a sincere look at decisions from judges you consider to be "strict constructionists" (does Scalia qualify? Thomas?), I think you'll find they are just as result-orientated as any other judge. Of course, I am assuming that "result-orientated" describes what most people consider to be "activist", but I'm not really sure of that. I guess my most accurate definition of the term "activist judge" would be: "a judge who makes rulings and issues opinions with which I personally disagree."
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
dparker, you want your red herring? Here's one on special.
Statorama
Footballguy
Just asking a question
Mookie Blaylock
Footballguy
In any context.
Mookie Blaylock
Footballguy
Don't see why it wouldn't. Don't forget the sheep.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
The answer is: only if there's no legitimate state interest in barring polygamy. And frankly, if there isn't, then polygamy shouldn't be barred.Just asking a question
jonessed
Footballguy
The decision against Walker was 8:1. Apparently the problems with televising the trial were pretty clear. It probably helped that televising federal trials in CA is banned to begin with.
Last edited by a moderator:
Statorama
Footballguy
ThanksThe answer is: only if there's no legitimate state interest in barring polygamy. And frankly, if there isn't, then polygamy shouldn't be barred.Just asking a question
ScottyFargo
Footballguy
Without reading the whole thing, I doubt it because the argument against polygamy is that it is harmful to women by subjugating them. In a union between two people you have a setup based upon equality, while polygamy has the chance of being exploitative of one sex or the other. Most likely the women. The finding here was that the proponents of prop 8 didn't show that homosexual marriage would harm heterosexual marriage.
ScottyFargo
Footballguy
You don't see because you aren't looking. Which is what people do when they're positive they're right and don't care what the evidence has to say to the contrary.
scoobygang
Footballguy
I don't see any context where proving whether an actual litigant is gay, or a woman, or black is a problem in equal protection or substantive due process analysis. You're going to have a statute or a policy. That statute or policy is either going to treat different classes differently or it's not going to treat them differently.Take the lesbian prom case. It doesn't matter whether you think Constance McMillen is gay or you have some bizarre conspiracy theory where she's secretly straight. Her motivations are irrelevant. The effect of the policy is what's at issue.
timschochet
Footballguy
How can anyone forget them, when you represent them so well?
Mookie Blaylock
Footballguy
No those are sheeple. At least I think that's what you are referring to. Blind followers. The sheep I was referring to would be those that are to be taken as life partners. It's the (un)natural order. Baaa-aaaaa...
Mookie Blaylock
Footballguy
One of these is not like the others.
Similar threads
- Poll
