Circa 1967: "If a black and a white want to cohabitate and be recognized as partners or husband+wife, ok, fine, I'll go with that, I'm all for civil rights. But to call it marriage, which in the state of Virginia has always been between a man and a woman of the same race, is a false argument."

Circa 1840: "If a woman wants to walking into a voting booth and write something on a piece of paper, I'll go with that, I'm all for female freedom of speech. But to call it voting, which in the United States has always been between a man and a ballot box, is a false argument."

Circa 1789: "If people want to set up a new system for enacting and enforcing laws and base it on popular representative, fine, I'm all for novel experiments. But to call it government, which in Western civilization has always been between a monarch and his people, is a false argument."

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

It's icky.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Not God's Law nor Will. They know they are wrong and that's why there is a cover-up by that church.

It's not marriage and there's no equality of marriage here. Otherwise, we would just call any union marriage. We don't! So calling marriage "equality" = to God's plan for marriage doesn't make it so. It would still be sodomy either way. Pronouncing some union on gays doesn't change the reality thereof.

Thanks for the ad hom attack! Fallacious on its face, which means you have a weak case. I thought better of you Eppur.

 

>It's icky.

Same argument as #1! Google-fu will quickly inform you on some of the stupendous things heterocouples do to each other, and even those things that are actually *illegal* have never been used by government to deny marriage. I'm pretty sure a felon child rapist in prison is allowed to be legally married to a hetero pen-pal.

No it's not and you still haven't answered last week's question I put to you. You slunk away, unable to bring anything to the table.

Guru, seriously, you are going downhill. It shows not only in your hysterical arguments, but even in your deteriorating writing style.

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

I was being facetious.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

You missed it. You were discussing with Eppur opinion vs. fact with regard to morality and I interjected how an objective standard was needed as tie-breaker here. Otherwise, the opinion vs. fact with regard to morality boils down to majority opinion, bullying, whim, etc. This is the crux of the issue. Please keep up!

Right, I'm just crazy or hysterical. If you can't counteract someone's argument, just call them names. Very nice.

He didn't say that you were hysterical; he said that your argument was hysterical.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

The 1789 and 1840 examples are not congruent to the gay marriage debate as they were questions of democratic process, not judicial review, which is what's going on today at SCOTUS. The 1967 example was a direct violation of the equal protection clause and was a no-brainer, IMO. The EP clause, a result of democratic process, was to prevent discrimination against blacks. The law at question in Loving v Virginia was a direct violation of the EP clause.

Here, democratic process is being potentially usurped. Nationally, the people have not spoken yet as to equal protection for gays in the context of marriage, not through legislation or Constitutional Amendment. That being said, SCOTUS may twist the EP clause to mean that it protects gy marriage. That was not the intent of the EP clause, but SCOTUS has often interpreted the Constitution to suit their desired ends.

---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Speed Concept 9 (race)
Madone 5 (training)
Trek 1000 (rain/snow/sleet/monsoon)

While I can't speak for Slowguy. I can say that I'm a Christian and there are quite a few that I know that don't totally agree with Guru's opinion. I will admit that my support of SSM puts my in the minority in the Church I attend. While I can understand their reasoning, from the scriptures that point out that the act of same sex sexual relationships is a sin, but we allow all other sinners to marry. Why are we saying that this type of Sin is considered greater than all others. Which goes against scripture that reads all sin is equal.

The issue is each side is applying their position to different standards so they will never agree.

Rational basis does not come into play with fundamental rigts. If the Court considers Equal Protection, then it will look at these considerations. But, I genuinely do not know how rational basis applies tp Prop 8 aince it is not legislation...I sont know the legal classification of aProp 8.

---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Speed Concept 9 (race)
Madone 5 (training)
Trek 1000 (rain/snow/sleet/monsoon)

All three examples were directly relevant to the argument you presented, because they all (like your argument) are based on the same epistemological fallacy: assuming that concepts (in this case, the concepts of "marriage," "voting," and "government") are fixed in such a way that they can never subsume instances that differ in any respect from the instances one has encountered in the past.

Although the instances of a valid concept need to be distinguished from whatever is outside the concept by some difference in kind, it does not follow that there can be no differences in kind among the concept's instances. In particular, it does not follow that one cannot encounter new instances for a concept that differ in some way from those in one's past experience. If you've only seen white swans in the past, that doesn't preclude you from understanding that the black bird you just spotted is a swan.

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

"You missed it"

No I didn't.

"You were discussing with Eppur opinion vs. fact with regard to morality "

I was actually discussing the difference between math and social policy as they relate to tolerance of diversity in opinion.

Your babbling was a non sequitor. It was unrelated to the discussion taking place. And it was poorly reasoned, which makes it even worse.

"Please keep up! "

I have little desire to keep pace with your discussions.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Of course, relevant, but still not congruent from my perspective. My argument was based on the law (specifically Roe v Wade's definiion of fundamental rights). Outside of the legal context, yes, my argument is indefensible. Of course there could be a black swan. But, in the law, we work on precedent set by the courts and we cite it in argument to support our clients' end games. Welcome to the boring life of an attorney.

I think it was Jack Niklaus who said, practice makes permanent, not perfect.

---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Speed Concept 9 (race)
Madone 5 (training)
Trek 1000 (rain/snow/sleet/monsoon)

Are you or are you not for laws against sodomy. The bible your source of all laws is pretty clear on this. How far are you willing to follow it? If we're not going to run about stoning people for various infractions, why should we use it to guide mortal law at all? What's your criteria for something that ought to be legislated based on the bible vs not? I would love to hear your reasoning for why somethings should be followed and others not.

This isn't a special interest group wanting it's way. This is the majority speaking out that it's time to stop discriminating against a minority special interest group. As a nation, we're taking an objective look at a situation that is fundamentaly against the values of the country. We have a history of realizing that certain laws or systems discriminate unfairly against specific groups and then fixing it. We have a defined process for fixing problems that were not addressed 230 years ago, and when we fix those problems, the only thing being "abandoned" are our own internal problems.

You want an objective basis to fight against special interest groups wanting their way, then you propose that the belief system of your special interest group be used as that basis. I propose instead to use rational discussion, objective morals and common sense. Those seem to be in short supply sometimes, but I'll take them anyway.

---

-Andrew

Okay, I didn't recognize that you intended that as a legal argument. It sounded too much like what you read read on bumper stickers about the topic (you know, like "marriage = 1 man + 1 woman").

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

Who is talking about stoning people?!? We don't live in Israel before the Messiah. When you said, "guide mortal law" did you mean "guide moral law"? All laws derive from our morality, of course. As for what do we follow, I think the commandment against adultery is pretty clear and the prophets, Jesus, Paul, Timothy, John, and Peter all uphold the law against it.

The problem here is any special interest group can hijack the media and political system to get laws to fit their needs no matter how immoral their position. What if a group decides on a whim to make it lawful to have sex with or marry children? What is to stop them? What makes them right and the rest of us wrong? They can take over the media, normalize the acts, and then bend Congress and Legisl. arm to get it approved. We're just opening the door here by altering the definition of marriage. You may not see this on the horizon now but what happens in 50 or a 100 years? It's morality by whim, majority opinion, and bullying.

What gives anyone the right to change fundamental definitions? That's not discrimination. That's upholding what is normal and right. We all know that a household with a strong male/female, long-term marriage is by far the best for children.

My diction was deliberate. I used mortal law referring to laws of men as opposed to laws of god. What does adultery have to do with anything? I'm certain you don't follow every rule in the bible. I'm also sure that you choose not to follow some of them. So tell me why this one should be? What is your criteria for choosing which parts of the bible you should follow and which can be ignored?
Let's go even further. Explain to me why we shouldn't follow sharia law? It purports to be gods law. Why not allow Judaism to inform our laws? Is the old testament not to your liking?