Comments on: Day 3 Live-Blogging Wrap-Up

By: James Long

James Long — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 19:18:10 +0000

Free Movies…

[...]while the sites we link to below are completely unrelated to ours, we think they are worth a read, so have a look[...]…

By: Tegaderm

Tegaderm — Thu, 12 May 2011 00:18:38 +0000

tegaderm corporantion…

[...]Honestly this is a great site worth poining a link at [...]…

By: tires rack

tires rack — Wed, 11 May 2011 22:55:17 +0000

Blog Browser…

[...]while the sites we link to below are completely unrelated to ours, we think they are worth a read, so have a look[...]…

By: This Afternoon Testimony: Homophobia on Trial « Prop 8 Trial Tracker

This Afternoon Testimony: Homophobia on Trial « Prop 8 Trial Tracker — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 02:54:12 +0000

[...] cross-examination didn’t really push legal theories like they did yesterday — e.g., asking Dr. Peplau if gay people don’t “accidentally have kids.” What they sought to do today with Dr. Meyer was to impeach his credibility by questioning the [...]

By: David Kimble

David Kimble — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:55:17 +0000

Thanks Dan, for a very positive addition to this! Kudos!

By: David Kimble

David Kimble — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:47:09 +0000

Yeah, that is synonymous with the best way to grow mushrooms – keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em BS

By: MikeB

MikeB — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:44:09 +0000

Hey –

Hope you don't mind some counter argument here:

1. My guess is that the Protect Marriage blog turned off comments because people here were relentless in commenting there. Generally, conservative blogs have fewer commenter than liberal blogs (e.g., DKos vs. RedState or FreeRepublic)

2. The "accidental pregnancy" argument -silly as it might seem- is necessary to establish why heteros who do not intend to have children (or who have been considered sterile) are still eligible to get married under a marriage=procreation standard.

You'll likely hear that post-menopausal women can accidentally get pregnant. And, to counter the elderly couple counterarguments to the procreation standard, that non-breeding heteros serve as a public example (in what has already been testified to by plaintiffs as a public institution) of the only coupling that leads to the ideal biological family unit.

If it makes you feel better to post over and over again about the seemingly silliness of the accidental pregnancy argument, go for it. Frankly, repetitious posts make for very boring reading.

By: Miss V

Miss V — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:43:53 +0000

Excellent points, Amanda, and it goes back to the point that Hogarth was making about the defense's argument being circular. Basically what the argument comes down to is this: We need marriage as an option for heterosexuals, because they might accidentally have a kid and they should be able to have that kid in wedlock. Gays can't "accidentally" have kids, so we don't feel we need to extend marriage rights for the same reason. So no gay marriage. But gays do have children — it's a fact. Therefore, since there is no gay marriage, any children gays do decide to have will, by necessity, be raised out of wedlock, thus completely undermining the point that's the basis for their entire argument — that it's desirable from the state's perspective to see all children born and raised in wedlock. It's kind of circular, except that when you complete the circle, the argument actually nullifies itself.

The only other option we can assume the defense meant to give to homosexuals under this is not to have children at all. And that's definitely not on trial here. And it sounds dangerously close to animus to me.

By: Scott Terry

Scott Terry — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:56:22 +0000

Their arguments will never line up. That's a funny little detail to religious mentality…..things don't actually have to make sense. The real battle here is not between bigots and gays. It's between religious bigots and people of free mind.

By: Olivier

Olivier — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:46:22 +0000

I'm having a hard time getting their arguments to line up. They say Gay marriage shouldn't be allowed bc they don't want to be forced to teach their kids about gay marriage before sex ed comes around. That in itself doesn't make any sense to me. Secondly, they are now saying that states have an interest in heterosexuals getting married because they might accidentally reproduce, aren't we now talking about a need to discuss sex ed, but this time bc of irresponsible straight people? Thoughts?