Prop 8 as discussed in BYU's "Daily Universe"

[Spurven Ten Sing]

Withdrawn...

[Spurven Ten Sing]

After rereading the stats on the site I had just given, I find I was wrong. Unmarried coupling, both with and without children, split up at higher rates than married couples. I apologize to you, Mordecai for letting my mouth run faster than my memory.

[LeSellers]

Unmarried coupling, both with and without children, ... married couples.

If you're trying to say "unmarried couples", please just use the phrase. "Unmarried coupling", in English, means "extra-marital sexual intercourse" (either fornication or adultery). An "unmarried coupling" with children implies the conception of twins (or better) to a woman not married to the, as yet unborn, children's father.

Lehi

[elguanteloko]

For anyone who is sincerely interested in having an honest and informed view on the legality of Prop 8 I suggest you to read the judge's ruling and summary of the proceedings here: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i//MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_U.S.%20news/Life/gaymarriage.pdf

Some interesting excerpts:

Psychologist Michael Lamb testified that all available

evidence shows that children raised by gay or lesbian parents are

just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by

heterosexual parents and that the gender of a parent is immaterial

to whether an adult is a good parent. When proponents challenged

Lamb with studies purporting to show that married parents provide

the ideal child-rearing environment, Lamb countered that studies on

child-rearing typically compare married opposite-sex parents to

single parents or step-families and have no bearing on families

headed by same-sex couples. Lamb testified that the relevant

comparison is between families headed by same-sex couples and

families headed by opposite-sex couples and that studies comparing

these two family types show conclusively that having parents of

different genders is irrelevant to child outcomes.

Lamb and Blankenhorn disagreed on the importance of a

biological link between parents and children. Blankenhorn

emphasized the importance of biological parents, relying on studies

comparing children raised by married, biological parents with

children raised by single parents, unmarried mothers, step families

and cohabiting parents. Tr 2769:14-24 (referring to DIX0026

Kristin Anderson Moore, Susan M Jekielek, and Carol Emig, Marriage

from a Child

[elguanteloko]

Another interesting excerpt:

For the reasons stated in the sections that follow, the

evidence presented at trial fatally undermines the premises

underlying proponents

[elguanteloko]

Let's see what you posted and see if you responded to any of my CFRs:

OK, so people think the differences are irrelevant.

Wait, you just said that people would think the differences are irrelevant. By your previous statement, that "a gay marriage doesn't represent both biological parents raising their own children" IS irrelevant. Thanks for proving me right. Also, do you realize homosexuals can adopt kids in Scandinavia, too? So, if they can marry and have children... how come that still affects heterosexual marriage in your view?

My 4 CFRs are still unanswered and you have shown no causal relation whatsoever.

Try again.

So, Mordecai, you have not answered to any of my 4 CFRs and you are unable to come up with a source that identifies a CAUSAL relation. Needless to say, you are not making much sense on your own. To be honest, though, I was not expecting much new information to come from you since not even the Prop 8 proponents were able to make a rational case out of this.

Have a good one!

[Mordecai]

After rereading the stats on the site I had just given, I find I was wrong. Unmarried coupling, both with and without children, split up at higher rates than married couples. I apologize to you, Mordecai for letting my mouth run faster than my memory.

I appreciate that. Thanks.

[Mordecai]

So, Mordecai, you have not answered to any of my 4 CFRs and you are unable to come up with a source that identifies a CAUSAL relation. Needless to say, you are not making much sense on your own. To be honest, though, I was not expecting much new information to come from you since not even the Prop 8 proponents were able to make a rational case out of this.

Have a good one!

Yes, I did show a causal relationship via the field of behavioral science and educating you on semantics. Sorry you couldn't put those pieces together, but it's obvious to me.

Here's a response to the corrupt Judge Walker's incredibly biased opinion:

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/243083/judge-walker-and-supposed-lack-evidence-marriage-s-procreative-purpose-ed-whelan

It's pretty obvious that in the case, the evidence was overwhelmingly on the side of marriage's true benefit to the state, which is exactly what I've been arguing this whole time. The judge ignored evidence and in his decision, decided to bash Christianity in the process. He's also gay.

[elguanteloko]

Yes, I did show a causal relationship via the field of behavioral science and educating you on semantics. Sorry you couldn't put those pieces together, but it's obvious to me.

No studies, no evidence, not even a consistent argument,...

It's pretty obvious that in the case, the evidence was overwhelmingly on the side of marriage's true benefit to the state, which is exactly what I've been arguing this whole time.

It's so obvious no one presented it or made any sense.

The judge ignored evidence and in his decision, decided to bash Christianity in the process. He's also gay.

LOL! If a straigh judge rules against SSM, would saying he is heterosexual discredit anything?

Come on, man.

[Aka_me]

For anyone who is sincerely interested in having an honest and informed view on the legality of Prop 8 I suggest you to read the judge's ruling and summary of the proceedings here: http://msnbcmedia.ms...gaymarriage.pdf

Some interesting excerpts:

legality is one topic, but my interest is in the complete absence of revelation guiding the church.

how difficult is it for God to tell church leaders "either get involved officially 100% putting the church's resources to work"

or "get out of the lobbying business altogether".

there's no leadership AT ALL by God in voicing His opinion about what He wants done on the topic... NONE what so ever.

it goes back to the days of the church influencing the state of Utah to outlaw interracial marriage.

after society got smarter, and understood the ignorance of outlawing interracial marriage, then the church dropped the issue. unfortunately that was no thanks to God saying or doing anything about the ignorance of racism.

it's sad to think that God's uncaring attitude toward the growth, healing, and development of church members during the outlawing of interracial marriage is "deemed worthy of worship".

[elguanteloko]

legality is one topic, but my interest is in the complete absence of revelation guiding the church.

how difficult is it for God to tell church leaders "either get involved officially 100% putting the church's resources to work"

or "get out of the lobbying business altogether".

there's no leadership AT ALL by God in voicing His opinion about what He wants done on the topic... NONE what so ever.

it goes back to the days of the church influencing the state of Utah to outlaw interracial marriage.

after society got smarter, and understood the ignorance of outlawing interracial marriage, then the church dropped the issue. unfortunately that was no thanks to God saying or doing anything about the ignorance of racism.

it's sad to think that God's uncaring attitude toward the growth, healing, and development of church members during the outlawing of interracial marriage is "deemed worthy of worship".

Dang, you sound bitter!

[Mordecai]

No studies, no evidence, not even a consistent argument,...

No studies and no evidence? Behavioral science has been around for a long time and last time I checked, you can't prove it's wrong. It's based on numerous studies and observations. Furthermore, the evidence is in the obvious logical implications of "gay marriage." It's self-evident that if you treat two things the same and call them by the same name, you imply the differences are irrelevant. Between the two, it's really obvious.

From the National Review article:

At the closing argument in June, Cooper began by stating that

[california boy]

No studies and no evidence? Behavioral science has been around for a long time and last time I checked, you can't prove it's wrong. It's based on numerous studies and observations. Furthermore, the evidence is in the obvious logical implications of "gay marriage." It's self-evident that if you treat two things the same and call them by the same name, you imply the differences are irrelevant. Between the two, it's really obvious.

From the National Review article:

(emphasis added).

It's clear the judge was corrupt

What can you say about this idiotic judge? He's completely biased and irrational as all heck.

Or, you just have poor reading comprehension.

No, I would say that a gay judge feels like a freak and would have very strong feelings about not feeling like a freak anymore. His anti-religious statements illustrate that. In other words, he's too close to the situation to rule without extreme bias.

You, come on. How about you get better reading comprehension.

This all coming from a guy that has stated he hasn't bothered to read the ruling or even a summary of the ruling. It obviously also comes from a guy that has not bothered to become familiar with this judges long record of being a conservative appointed by Ronald Reagan and affirmed by George Bush.

Instead of ranting about your own theories of what you think should be valid reasons against gay marriage, why don't you read the ruling and tell us what points you can legally argue that the defense team was unable to. Then maybe you should try and be assigned to the legal team. I am sure they could use your "expertise" when they argue their case in the appeal process.

The ruling against prop 8 was because there was no apparent non religious argument against gay marriage. Unfortunately, religious beliefs are not really a valid legal argument unless they can be supported by FACTS.

[Mordecai]

This all coming from a guy that has stated he hasn't bothered to read the ruling or even a summary of the ruling. It obviously also comes from a guy that has not bothered to become familiar with this judges long record of being a conservative appointed by Ronald Reagan and affirmed by George Bush.

I don't recall stating that I hadn't read the ruling; the fact is, I've read portions of it and get the gist of it.

As far as your claim that the judge is conservative, he may be on some issues but on homosexual issues, the guy is liberalism incarnate.

Instead of ranting about your own theories of what you think should be valid reasons against gay marriage, why don't you read the ruling and tell us what points you can legally argue that the defense team was unable to. Then maybe you should try and be assigned to the legal team.

While you complain that I haven't read the judge's ruling, I have been more interested in what actually occurred in the trial. As it turns out, the judge is not entirely honest and perhaps a little biased. Did you bother to read the link to the National Review critique of the judge's ruling? Here are more, just for fun.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243628/world-according-judge-walker-rich-lowry

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/243693/most-egregious-performance-ever-federal-district-judge-ed-whelan

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243620/judge-walkers-phony-facts-editors

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/242568/walker-s-conclusions-law-some-commentary-ed-whelan

The ruling against prop 8 was because there was no apparent non religious argument against gay marriage. Unfortunately, religious beliefs are not really a valid legal argument unless they can be supported by FACTS.

According to judge Walker, yes, but not in real life. Again: http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/243083/judge-walker-and-supposed-lack-evidence-marriage-s-procreative-purpose-ed-whelan

[semlogo]

Refer to my diagram and my explanation. The diagram isn't made up; it's taken from behavioral science, which is well established. This answers your CFR, but you're not comprehending it. We've had this problem with you before; you don't get something and stubbornly insist that you do. Collectively, there is good evidence that the cause is, in part, the government adopting your mindless political dogma.

Do you really think that people's thoughts don't effect feelings and actions? Or perhaps you don't think a person's environment effects their thoughts?

Do you not understand my discussion on semantics? (I did major in English with an option in language and discourse; I'm sure that means nothing to you, based on your previous attitude toward people more educated than you. Regardless, I say your CFR is answered).

The problem here is that you have very poor reasoning skills, don't understand that correlation is not the same as causation, and don't understand that an op ed on marriage isn't the same as evidence.

[semlogo]

Well, let's give some real life examples that anyone can relate to, since you guys don't like behavioral science and reject the correlation we see in Scandinavia.

We'll use a more concrete example of value first, and then we'll apply this to marriage.

A man goes to a fast-food restaurant and asks for bottled water. What he gets, however, is tap water in a bottle. What he learns from this is that bottled water has no intrinsic value. He goes home to his girlfriend and finds she did him a favor and bought him some bottled water. She points this out. He thinks, "Well, is that really a favor to get me bottled water, when from my experience, bottled water is just tap water? Is this to trick me that she did me a favor or did she really do something nice for me?" Of course, as this use of the term "bottled water" increases, people stop paying for it at fast food restaurants.

His girlfriend, at work, is told by her gay friend Bob, "I'm getting married!"

She's a little surprised and is like, "I thought you were gay!"

"I am gay! But now that the government has changed what marriage is, I am no longer a 2nd class citizen and get government perks and everything!"

What she learns from this is that, for her, marriage has no intrinsic value.

A few months later, she is pregnant, so her boyfriend asks her to marry him. She thinks, "Well, I was never a 2nd class citizen in the first place, and I don't need government perks. I make more money than he does." So they don't get married. (Granted, this is oversimplified, but people's feelings on this will reflect the idea that the point of marriage is to not be a 2nd class citizen and to get government perks).

Based on these hypothetical examples, we see a change in behavior based on the change in language. People stop buying bottled water from fast food restaurants and women stop wanting to get married, particularly when they already have enough money. Based on this common sense, I would predict that Scandinavia would continue to have an increase in the rate of out-of-wedlock childbirth. In fact, that is what we see.

Possibly the worst argument I've ever read. Incredible.

[Chronos]

Aka_me has been suspended for 3 days.

~Chronos

[Mordecai]

Possibly the worst argument I've ever read. Incredible.

This coming from you...

[california boy]

I don't recall stating that I hadn't read the ruling; the fact is, I've read portions of it and get the gist of it.

As far as your claim that the judge is conservative, he may be on some issues but on homosexual issues, the guy is liberalism incarnate.

While you complain that I haven't read the judge's ruling, I have been more interested in what actually occurred in the trial. As it turns out, the judge is not entirely honest and perhaps a little biased. Did you bother to read the link to the National Review critique of the judge's ruling? Here are more, just for fun.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243628/world-according-judge-walker-rich-lowry

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/243693/most-egregious-performance-ever-federal-district-judge-ed-whelan

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243620/judge-walkers-phony-facts-editors

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/242568/walker-s-conclusions-law-some-commentary-ed-whelan

According to judge Walker, yes, but not in real life. Again: http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/243083/judge-walker-and-supposed-lack-evidence-marriage-s-procreative-purpose-ed-whelan

Thanks for the links. I read all of them that you posted. Frankly I have been very interested in seeing what legal holes the right wing could find in Judge Walkers rulings. Unfortunately is all I found in these links is unsubstantiated pot shots at what the commentators did not like. There was no legal sightings or reasonings to his comments. These links just reinforce Cary Crall letter to the editor which addresses these doubtful objections to prop 8.

If these links are the best counter arguments that the right wing can come up with, it gives me great hope that this will go to the Supreme Court and they will rule in favor of gay marriage despite the fact that at least 3 of the US Supreme Court members are Catholic and this goes against their religious beliefs. If you ever can come up with any legal reasons for objecting to Judge Walkers ruling, I would love to see it. Drive by commentators don't really count as a legal objection to what he wrote. You need something that will stand up in court if you are going to win this battle. The plaintiffs found that out in trial as well. It is why they, in court, responded that they had no rational reason that gay marriage would harm heterosexual marriages. That is pretty hard to overcome.

[semlogo]

This coming from you...

Even this retort appears intelligent by comparison.

[Mordecai]

Thanks for the links. I read all of them that you posted. Frankly I have been very interested in seeing what legal holes the right wing could find in Judge Walkers rulings. Unfortunately is all I found in these links is unsubstantiated pot shots at what the commentators did not like. There was no legal sightings or reasonings to his comments. These links just reinforce Cary Crall letter to the editor which addresses these doubtful objections to prop 8.

Those National Review articles make me think Walker should have recused himself. Link to Cary Crall letter? Not that it'll make any difference. I can judge those articles for myself, and they're pretty damning.

[Daniel2]

Disappointing that the Daily Universe pulled the article--and, in the long run, something that merely will perpetuate negative perceptions of the church...

Darin

[california boy]

Those National Review articles make me think Walker should have recused himself. Link to Cary Crall letter? Not that it'll make any difference. I can judge those articles for myself, and they're pretty damning.

I have no idea why you would come to that conclusion. If the links had presented legitimate legal arguments against his ruling, I could understand that conclusion. But they didn't. If you see any kind of legal argument against his ruling from those links, please point them out. Is all I read is drive by right wing rhetoric. If you think he should have recluse himself, do you think that the Catholic judges on the Supreme Court or the LDS 9th circuit judge should recluse themselves also?

[Zeta-Flux]

california boy,

Did you read the same articles? Judge Walker, by his ruling, could be directly financially benefited by the change. That is more than sufficient reason to recuse oneself.

[Jaybear]

california boy,

Did you read the same articles? Judge Walker, by his ruling, could be directly financially benefited by the change. That is more than sufficient reason to recuse oneself.

Please be specific. I didn't see anything in the articles which proved this point. But I have to admit I didn't read them that thoroughly as reading Rich Lowery is a nauseating

experience. I can't tell whether he is an incredible idiot, or that just panders to idiots.

So how did Walker directly financially benefit by the ruling?