My arguement was that "the law" in this case was unjust and I gave my reason why I thought it was unjust.
A judge can consult whatever he wants, Bible, dictionary, whatever. A jury is simply not allowed to. You cannot, even as a juror, tell of your own personal knowledge about a subject. It is highly restrictive. I understand why these restrictions are in place. Hmmm, not sure how much I agree with them, but they are probably a good idea.