Laymen's Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage

[Silhouette]

Well, I said I would come back now and again. So I might as well hang in until June sporadically. Let's see how vigorously the *usual crowd* will spam good points into oblivion, trying to silence the conversation..

We have a couple of questions. 1. The "should the fed mandate gay marriage and silence any opposition" question and 2. The "should the fed allow some people/businesses to refuse to participate in "gay marriages" question. I sort of walk back and forth between the two questions and have a bit more of a discussion about the invisible demographic in all these conversations: children and their spongy, socially-learning minds. It weighs heavily on the future of society as we sit poised, deliberating at such a divergent fork in the social fabric...

What if a community in Iowa where pigs are raised a great deal, decided to pass a local law that said all citizens who aren't allergic to pork, must eat pork at least once a week to show their civic devotion to their mainstay and town's name? Just for instance, hypothetically.
A jew who refused to abide by that law would be in his rights. Would he not?

Denying participation in gay marriage isn't a statement about a race. It's a statement about BEHAVIORS. "I don't want to eat pork" ...where "to eat" is a verb, not a noun. "I don't want to support people who identify with a lifestyle where they have sex with the same gender".....where "they have sex with the same gender" is an action, a verb, not a noun. In contrast African Americans or First Nation People etc. are not verbs. They are nouns. Please learn the legal difference.

The equivalent is if bulimics got together and organized to force restaurant owners to place vomit urns on every table, because to not do so was "hurtful and discriminatory to bulimic Americans!". Bulimia, like homosexuality, is a stubborn habitual behavior that once learned is very difficult to change. And youngsters often pass on the bad habit socially by teaching/learning/observation of peer behaviors.

Gays claim homosexuality is innate, intrinsic. They have not demonstrated this. And in fact a vast source of knowledge from some of the most credible institutions suggests that homosexuality is learned. And worse, considering this particular question of law on marriage (the hub of modeled behavior in any society), may actually be passed on socially:

The little ole' Mayo Clinic, 2007 < (what a bunch of inbred hillbillys! )

One of the most obvious examples of an environmental factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child. This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”or “abused-abusers phenomena.”5,23,24,46......
why the “abused abusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor, in which the abused child is trying to gain a new identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

And...the shabby source called "The CDC".. < (THAT bunch of college dropouts!? )

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta... Drug Use among Gay Men Pervasive by Worcester Sharon - Clinical Psychiatry News Vol. 33 Issue 2 February 2005 Online Research Library Questia

LGBT professional bloggers/spammers would say instead we must listen to the latest lavendar "CQR" "excellence" being pumped out of the rainbow-propaganda machine, erstwhile known as "The American Psychological Association", right?

Legal discussion: (the underlined and (parentheses) parts are part of the argument)

Since objecting to participate in supporting so-called "gay marriage" isn't an affront to life or limb of the the "victims" of such a "crime", then there's the gold standard of law when it comes to rightful and lawful discrimination against BEHAVIORS (verb) but not race (noun). Hurting people's feelings by practicing free speech and freedom of religion rejecting what they do (not what they are: people of all races and walks, of both genders) is not against the law. It may hurt homosexuals' feelings to be reminded that their behaviors aren't universally and blindly accepted/acceptable and promoted, but that isn't a crime.

I'll just end this here by saying that children are watching what we approve of and what we don't, and making decisions in their own learning/habituating experiences based on what is modeled before them.

Enjoy the thread.

 

[George Costanza]

Well, I said I would come back now and again. So I might as well hang in until June sporadically. Let's see how vigorously the *usual crowd* will spam good points into oblivion, trying to silence the conversation..

We have a couple of questions. 1. The "should the fed mandate gay marriage and silence any opposition" question and 2. The "should the fed allow some people/businesses to refuse to participate in "gay marriages" question. I sort of walk back and forth between the two questions and have a bit more of a discussion about the invisible demographic in all these conversations: children and their spongy, socially-learning minds. It weighs heavily on the future of society as we sit poised, deliberating at such a divergent fork in the social fabric...

What if a community in Iowa where pigs are raised a great deal, decided to pass a local law that said all citizens who aren't allergic to pork, must eat pork at least once a week to show their civic devotion to their mainstay and town's name? Just for instance, hypothetically.
A jew who refused to abide by that law would be in his rights. Would he not?

Denying participation in gay marriage isn't a statement about a race. It's a statement about BEHAVIORS. "I don't want to eat pork" ...where "to eat" is a verb, not a noun. "I don't want to support people who identify with a lifestyle where they have sex with the same gender".....where "they have sex with the same gender" is an action, a verb, not a noun. In contrast African Americans or First Nation People are not verbs. They are nouns. Please learn the legal difference.

The equivalent is if bulimics got together and organized to force restaurant owners to place vomit urns on every table, because to not do so was "hurtful and discriminatory to bulimic Americans!". Bulimia, like homosexuality, is a stubborn habitual behavior that once learned is very difficult to change. And youngsters often pass on the bad habit socially by teaching/learning/observation of peer behaviors.

Gays claim homosexuality is innate, intrinsic. They have not demonstrated this. And in fact a vast source of knowledge from some of the most credible institutions suggests that homosexuality is learned, and worse considering this particular question of law, may actually be passed on socially:

The little ole' Mayo Clinic, 2007:

One of the most obvious examples of an environmental factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child. This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”or “abused-abusers phenomena.”5,23,24,46......
why the “abused abusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor, in which the abused child is trying to gain a new identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

And...the shabby source called "The CDC"..

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta... Drug Use among Gay Men Pervasive by Worcester Sharon - Clinical Psychiatry News Vol. 33 Issue 2 February 2005 Online Research Library Questia

LGBT professional bloggers/spammers would say instead we must listen to the latest lavendar "CQR" "excellence" being pumped out of the rainbow-propaganda machine, erstwhile known as "The American Psychological Association", right?

Legal discussion:

Since objecting to participate in supporting so-called "gay marriage" isn't an affront to life or limb of the the "victims" of such a "crime", then there's the gold standard of law when it comes to rightful and lawful discrimination against BEHAVIORS (verb) but not race (noun). Hurting people's feelings by practicing free speech and freedom of religion is not against the law. It may hurt homosexuals' feelings to be reminded that their behaviors aren't universally and blindly accepted/acceptable and promoted, but that isn't a crime.

I'll just end this here by saying that children are watching what we approve of and what we don't, and making decisions in their own learning/habituating experiences based on what is modeled before them.

Bigotry in the name of religion.

 

[SwimExpert]

Well, I said I would come back now and again. So I might as well hang in until June sporadically.

Of course, every time you need to get your "I hate gays" fix is not sporadic.

Let's see how vigorously the *usual crowd* will spam good points into oblivion, trying to silence the conversation.

There is no conversation. You hate gays. That's all. Nothing more to it than that.

 

[Silhouette]

Of course, every time you need to get your "I hate gays" fix is not sporadic.

So...any objection whatsoever to gay marriage and forcing people to participate in it automatically means that person "hates gays"..

...that actually sounds prejudiced. Has that ever occured to you? And I'm the bigot?

 

[Moonglow]

What learned behavior did Christ show towards women? I do believe the whey the scripture is written he was showing his ghey side, since traditionally a rabbi would need to be married...

 

[TheOldSchool]

Well, I said I would come back now and again. So I might as well hang in until June sporadically. Let's see how vigorously the *usual crowd* will spam good points into oblivion, trying to silence the conversation..

We have a couple of questions. 1. The "should the fed mandate gay marriage and silence any opposition" question and 2. The "should the fed allow some people/businesses to refuse to participate in "gay marriages" question. I sort of walk back and forth between the two questions and have a bit more of a discussion about the invisible demographic in all these conversations: children and their spongy, socially-learning minds. It weighs heavily on the future of society as we sit poised, deliberating at such a divergent fork in the social fabric...

What if a community in Iowa where pigs are raised a great deal, decided to pass a local law that said all citizens who aren't allergic to pork, must eat pork at least once a week to show their civic devotion to their mainstay and town's name? Just for instance, hypothetically.
A jew who refused to abide by that law would be in his rights. Would he not?

Denying participation in gay marriage isn't a statement about a race. It's a statement about BEHAVIORS. "I don't want to eat pork" ...where "to eat" is a verb, not a noun. "I don't want to support people who identify with a lifestyle where they have sex with the same gender".....where "they have sex with the same gender" is an action, a verb, not a noun. In contrast African Americans or First Nation People etc. are not verbs. They are nouns. Please learn the legal difference.

The equivalent is if bulimics got together and organized to force restaurant owners to place vomit urns on every table, because to not do so was "hurtful and discriminatory to bulimic Americans!". Bulimia, like homosexuality, is a stubborn habitual behavior that once learned is very difficult to change. And youngsters often pass on the bad habit socially by teaching/learning/observation of peer behaviors.

Gays claim homosexuality is innate, intrinsic. They have not demonstrated this. And in fact a vast source of knowledge from some of the most credible institutions suggests that homosexuality is learned. And worse, considering this particular question of law on marriage (the hub of modeled behavior in any society), may actually be passed on socially:

The little ole' Mayo Clinic, 2007 > (what a bunch of inbred hillbillys! )

One of the most obvious examples of an environmental factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child. This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”or “abused-abusers phenomena.”5,23,24,46......
why the “abused abusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor, in which the abused child is trying to gain a new identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

And...the shabby source called "The CDC".. < (THAT bunch of college dropouts!? )

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta... Drug Use among Gay Men Pervasive by Worcester Sharon - Clinical Psychiatry News Vol. 33 Issue 2 February 2005 Online Research Library Questia

LGBT professional bloggers/spammers would say instead we must listen to the latest lavendar "CQR" "excellence" being pumped out of the rainbow-propaganda machine, erstwhile known as "The American Psychological Association", right?

Legal discussion: (the underlined and (parentheses) parts are part of the argument)

Since objecting to participate in supporting so-called "gay marriage" isn't an affront to life or limb of the the "victims" of such a "crime", then there's the gold standard of law when it comes to rightful and lawful discrimination against BEHAVIORS (verb) but not race (noun). Hurting people's feelings by practicing free speech and freedom of religion rejecting what they do (not what they are: people of all races and walks, of both genders) is not against the law. It may hurt homosexuals' feelings to be reminded that their behaviors aren't universally and blindly accepted/acceptable and promoted, but that isn't a crime.

I'll just end this here by saying that children are watching what we approve of and what we don't, and making decisions in their own learning/habituating experiences based on what is modeled before them.

Enjoy the thread.

I thought you were leaving.

 

[SwimExpert]

So...any objection whatsoever to gay marriage and forcing people to participate in it automatically means that person "hates gays"..

No, just you. Your seething hatred for all things ghey is well documented on this board. Of course, you already knew that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, if anyone is going to force you to marry Pat, I will fly to your rescue.

No one is going to force you to marry anyone.

Now grow up and let it go.

 

[jwoodie]

Bigotry in the name of religion.

Ignorance in the name of debate.

 

[Silhouette]

Bigotry in the name of religion.

Ignorance in the name of debate.

Yes, it isn't hard to see which side of the debate it is that has a penchant for spewing actual hate, intolerance and vitrole. Not hard at all..

 

[Skylar]

Well, I said I would come back now and again. So I might as well hang in until June sporadically. Let's see how vigorously the *usual crowd* will spam good points into oblivion, trying to silence the conversation..

We have a couple of questions. 1. The "should the fed mandate gay marriage and silence any opposition" question and 2. The "should the fed allow some people/businesses to refuse to participate in "gay marriages" question.

That's a 'when did you stop beating your wife' fallacy.

Twice.

As there's no 'silencing of opposition'. And baking a cake isn't 'participating' in any wedding. Its merely baking a cake. Try again, this time without the fallacious assumptions.

I sort of walk back and forth between the two questions and have a bit more of a discussion about the invisible demographic in all these conversations: children and their spongy, socially-learning minds. It weighs heavily on the future of society as we sit poised, deliberating at such a divergent fork in the social fabric...

And how would denying a lesbian couple marriage help their children? Justice Kennedy has gone into elaborate detail all the way it would hurt these children. But you've never managed to explain how it would benefit them.

There is no benefit to children in denying gay marriage. It only hurts kids. And you know it. Its just another reason why gay marriage bans are worse than useless.

What if a community in Iowa where pigs are raised a great deal, decided to pass a local law that said all citizens who aren't allergic to pork, must eat pork at least once a week to show their civic devotion to their mainstay and town's name? Just for instance, hypothetically.
A jew who refused to abide by that law would be in his rights. Would he not?

Hypothetically speaking it would be struck down on the grounds that the state legislatures lack the authority to mandate people eat certain foods. Long, long before any religious objections came up.

What you're arguing for is religious 'Sovereign Citizen' arguments. Where a Christian can ignore any law they don't like if they have a religious objection to it. There doesn't even need to be mention of it in the BIble. They can individually decide which laws don't apply to them.

That's not our system of law, nor ever has been. Not in the era of the founders, not now.

Denying participation in gay marriage isn't a statement about a race. It's a statement about BEHAVIORS.

Religion is a behavior. By that logic, anyone could deny any service they wanted to any Christian, fire them for no reason, evict them from any partment....for nothing other than being a Christian.

Yet if that were allowed, you'd shit yourself. Despite it matching the criteria of your argument exactly. Demonstrating elegantly that even you don't buy your bullshit.

The little ole' Mayo Clinic, 2007 < (what a bunch of inbred hillbillys! )

One of the most obvious examples of an environmental factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child. This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”or “abused-abusers phenomena.”5,23,24,46......
why the “abused abusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor, in which the abused child is trying to gain a new identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

Um, that's an article on pedophiles. Not homosexuals. And you know that. That article explicitly states that it doesn't even imply that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles. And you know that too.

Making your citation *spectacularly* dishonest. As you know it has nothing to do with the argument you're making .

As an aside, you do realize that such blatant lies and misrepresentations on your part don't make your case stronger. But weaker. As the people you need to convince aren't those that already agree with you. But those that don't. By knowingly lying about your sources all you demonstrate is that you aren't credible. And that your perspective is based on provable lies.

Which convinces no one of anything.

Since objecting to participate in supporting so-called "gay marriage" isn't an affront to life or limb of the the "victims" of such a "crime", then there's the gold standard of law when it comes to rightful and lawful discrimination against BEHAVIORS (verb) but not race (noun). Hurting people's feelings by practicing free speech and freedom of religion rejecting what they do (not what they are: people of all races and walks, of both genders) is not against the law. It may hurt homosexuals' feelings to be reminded that their behaviors aren't universally and blindly accepted/acceptable and promoted, but that isn't a crime.

Speech is a behavior. Religion is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. Seeking Redress from the government is a behavior. Bearing arms is a behavior.

And all those are rights. Rendering your 'behavior' babble gloriously pointless.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Of course, every time you need to get your "I hate gays" fix is not sporadic.

So...any objection whatsoever to gay marriage and forcing people to participate in it automatically means that person "hates gays"..

...that actually sounds prejudiced. Has that ever occured to you? And I'm the bigot?

No, it's that measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law are devoid of a rational basis, devoid of objective, documented evidence in support, and devoid of a proper legislative end – such measures seek only to disadvantage gay Americans, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Silhouette]

Instead of you LGBT militant *regulars* usual smoke and mirrors gang-rape angle where you attack anyone who has an opposing viewpoint, why not just post as if you were making closing arguments to the SCOTUS, you know, like the title says to do here? I highly doubt the way Skylar posts that they would even listen to him at all, much less consider his points....

....I appreciate C Clayton's demeanor and attention to the title. I would rebut him by saying that there is a rational basis for states to define marriage (not ban gays, polygamists etc.) where it is one man and one woman. And that rational basis is the most important demographic in the marriage debate: children. A state's interest in marriage is purely children and their best shot at life. There is no dispute legally or psychologically that statistically, children fare the best with a mother and father figure present. The state does not demand children, it assumes them in marriage. And this assumption is from thousands of years of consistency in presentation. Whether the couple is sterile, old, what have you, children always seem to arrive in the form of fostering, adopting, grandparenting etc.

The state reluctantly grants divorce only when it sees it would benefit the children involved: the lesser of two evils for them. But, the state also anticipates that the estranged mother and father will find new replacements so the children will flourish in the best way again. The state also bends over backwards to see that the original mother & father figure have a regular presence in the child's life.

From a state's point of view, they do not want to be forced by 5 people in DC to institutionalize fatherless or motherless "marriages" to the detriment of the most important people in marriage as far as they are concerned. It is for this reason that states must decide, because they will bear the outfall socially of any mistaken arrangement using kids as lab rats in a new experiment. States already know mother/father is best. Asking them to assign a lesser psychological environment for kids "as law" is asking them to take a hit when those kids grow up to become maladjusted adults. A boy raised in a lesbian home sees a daily message that categorically, males (himself) aren't necessary to an adult functioning world. A girl growing up in a gay male home sees a daily message that categorically, females (herself) aren't necessary to an adult functioning world.

And I would end that argument by saying that most avid gay-marriage proponents had the benefit of both a mother and father figure as they were growing up. Yet they would demand that others do not have that right and necessity.

For more information on what it does to a child's developing mind to grow up without their gender represented in the home, read here: A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Silhouette]

Of course, every time you need to get your "I hate gays" fix is not sporadic.
There is no conversation. You hate gays. That's all. Nothing more to it than that.

This is a perfect example of how not to frame a closing argument: "Your honor, the opposition just hates me. They HATE me! There's no conversation. They just hate me. I rest my case."

Now I know you guys can do better than that.

 

[Skylar]

Instead of you LGBT militant *regulars* usual smoke and mirrors gang-rape angle where you attack anyone who has an opposing viewpoint, why not just post as if you were making closing arguments to the SCOTUS, you know, like the title says to do here? I highly doubt the way Skylar posts that they would even listen to him at all, much less consider his points....

Given that many of the points I've raised were raised by Justice Kennedy himself, chances of him ignoring those points are rather slim:

And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.

DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

Justice Kennedy in Windsor v. US

Now what are the odds that Kennedy is going to ignore himself?

. I would rebut him by saying that there is a rational basis for states to define marriage (not ban gays, polygamists etc.) where it is one man and one woman. And that rational basis is the most important demographic in the marriage debate: children.

No one is required to have children or be able to have them in order to get married. Not in any State. Why then would we exclude gays from marriage because they fail to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

There is no reason. Your 'rational basis' is wildly irrational.

Worse, how does denying marriage to a lesbian couple help their children? Kennedy already waxed eloquent on all the harms and humiliations it causes children. And you've already admitted there is no accompanying benefit.

So much for your claims about 'children'. Your proposal doesn't help them but hurts them severely. No thank you.

For more information on what it does to a child's developing mind to grow up without their gender represented in the home, read here: A Child Can t Call 2 Women or 2 Men Mom Dad US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You do realize that the Prince Trust Study you claim backs your argument doesn't even mention gays. Nor gay parenting. Nor measure the effects of any kind of parenting.

Killing your argument yet again.

 

[Silhouette]

No one is required to have children or be able to have them in order to get married. Not in any State. Why then would we exclude gays from marriage because they fail to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one? There is no reason. Your 'rational basis' is wildly irrational.

Skylar, you missed this. 2nd paragraph in post #13

A state's interest in marriage is purely children and their best shot at life. There is no dispute legally or psychologically that statistically, children fare the best with a mother and father figure present. The state does not demand children, it assumes them in marriage. And this assumption is from thousands of years of consistency in presentation. Whether the couple is sterile, old, what have you, children always seem to arrive in the form of fostering, adopting, grandparenting etc.

Advocating for the best formative environment for the most important people in marriage is not "wildly irrational". Please put a running martingale on your galloping-hyperbole for the sake of closing arguments, OK?

Skylar, you had the benefit of contact with a father and mother growing up, yes? If not, perhaps it explains your ...um...heady approach to lucid debate.

 

[Skylar]

The state's interest in marriage is purely children and their best shot at life. There is no dispute legally or psychologically that statistically, children fare the best with a mother and father figure present. The state does not demand children, it assumes them in marriage. And this assumption is from thousands of years of consistency in presentation. Whether the couple is sterile, old, what have you, children always seem to arrive in the form of fostering, adopting, grandparenting etc.

The state doesn't exclude anyone if they can't have kids. Nor does it invalidate any marriage that doesn't produce them or can no longer produce them.

Your basis of exclusion doesn't exist. Not in any state. Rendering it moot.

If you exclude gays because they can't have kids within their union, then you must apply the same standards to straights. No state does. So you have an instant 14th amendment violation, as there is no equal protection in the law.

Your standard fails twice.

 

[jwoodie]

This debate is missing the forest for the trees. The most important social problem facing our country is the decline of marriage in favor of having children out of wedlock. The question is whether gay marriage will serve to reverse or add to this decline. For the small minority of gay couples, the answer is obvious. But for the large majority of the population, corrupting the traditional definition of marriage will further undermine its status as a respected institution.

 

[Skylar]

This debate is missing the forest for the trees. The most important social problem facing our country is the decline of marriage in favor of having children out of wedlock. The question is whether gay marriage will serve to reverse or add to this decline. For the small minority of gay couples, the answer is obvious. But for the large majority of the population, corrupting the traditional definition of marriage will further undermine its status as a respected institution.

If anything the gay marriage debate has been a celebration of traditional values, of monogamy, of family and commitment. When a group has to fight as long and hard as they have for the right to marry they only demonstrate how valuable an institution it actually is.

 

[SwimExpert]

Of course, every time you need to get your "I hate gays" fix is not sporadic.
There is no conversation. You hate gays. That's all. Nothing more to it than that.

This is a perfect example of how not to frame a closing argument: "Your honor, the opposition just hates me. They HATE me! There's no conversation. They just hate me. I rest my case."

Now I know you guys can do better than that.

Seeing as I'm not arguing a case before a court, your post is nothing but an irrelevancy.