This was your claim: "False information is a lie, whether it's intentional or not." My counter example undercuts your assertion. Now, if you wish to argue that the ad in the campaign were lies under the normal definition, make your case. You need to demonstrate the untruth and the intent to cover up the truth.
Well, if you really want to play it that way, then, yes, your example was a lie, too.
Now, let's just give you the benefit of the doubt for a minute. Let's assume the proponents of the Yes on 8 campaign gave out false information without knowing that it was false. In that case, they were callous in their pursuit of their goal. Either they gave out false info knowing it was false, which I believe that even you would agree is wrong, or they gave it out not knowing it was false, which is still wrong but this time because they should research more before spreading false info like that. Either way, they're wrong, even if I grant you they weren't lies.
OK, I'll await your examples.
I'll have to just go with this one for now:
It protects our children from being taught in public schools that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs.
For one, you're forced to be tolerant of "gay lifestyles" now. That would not change. For another, allowing same-sex marriage would not necessarily mean that children are taught anything about it in schools. That has to do with a whole other issue, as Penguin already pointed out. And yet another, "face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs"? As in what? they have to perform or attend gay marriages? Compliance with what? No one has to comply with anything other than not going over the line in direspecting others, just as it is now.
I'm sure there are many other examples, and I've seen several on here, actually, from the Mormon church. I'll dig up more when I can, although I think it's pointless as I'm sure you've already seen all of it and just refuse to see that it's false.
Creating a right by fiat and imposing it on a populace by force is not an example of diversity and love of freedom. It is something quite different.
That may be true. I'm glad you finally realize it and can admit it. Unfortunately, I get the feeling you think this statement supports your argument rather than mine. Willful ignorance is one of the saddest things I can imagine, and you should try to move away from it.
I gave no argument. I made a statement: "There is no basic human right to gaydom.". Your response was simple invective. I pointed that ou,t and then asked if you wished to make an argument for the existence of a right to gay marriage, to then make it. You have not done so.
This part was not even in response to that particular comment of yours. Twisting the debate around isn't going to work. If there is a right to heterosexual marriage, then there is a right to gay marriage. If there is no right to heterosexual marriage but it is performed and recognized anyway, then gay marriages can be performed and recognized, too. It's pretty simple. Since you refuse to see any of my other arguments, there's one in plain English directly in response to your request.
In California gay marriage was explicitly removed as an option in 2000 through the democratic process. There was then a judicial attempted coup against the will of the people this year. The will of the people has now been reaffirmed. So no, your claim is not correct, neither as a categorical or regarding same sex marriage.
It saddens me that there are lawyers like you out there who don't even understand the basics of law. I should just stop now. If the years of school didn't teach you that our legal system isn't just based on a majority vote, I guess I have no hope of getting that through to you. :sad:
There may or may not be good reasons to disallow incestuous, pedarastial or inter-species marriages. The same could be said of same sex marriages. Regardless, the bounds of law on marriage should be determined by the people, not elites or other authoritarians and their allies.
Again, this shows a fundamental ignorance of law that should be beneath a lawyer. Sometimes, I find it extremely difficult to believe that you actually are one. The bounds of law on marriage are more than welcome to be determined by the people, as long as the people abide by the Constitution and don't contradict other laws already in place. That's why the Supreme Court began allowing gay marriage. Really, I expect this kind of thing from someone who has no in-depth knowledge of the legal system and is biased, but even a bigotted lawyer like you should be able to understand the basic workings of our legal systems.
For one, the same cannot be said of same-sex marriages. You can provide me with what you think qualify as good reasons, and I will show you why they fail. That is, if you're up to it.
tri/ [big-uh-tree] noun, plural -ries. 1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. 2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\ Function: noun Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot Date: 1660 : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
