Re: False Issue

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

> mark goldberg wrote:
>
> > Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> >
> >
> > > There is no possibility for procreation whatsoever for many couples 
> > > where one or both are infertile.  The state (not one of them) has 
> > > attempted to ban those marriages.  It is not sound legal reasoning to 
> > > apply the procreation-possibility test to same-sex couples while not 
> > > also applying to infertile opposite-sex couples.
> >
> >
> > Now your quibbling, and not understanding what the 'marriage' vow 
> > signifies.
>
>
> I'm not quibbling.  If the marriage vow is really about procreation, 
> then the states would not allow marriages to the infertile.  Since they 
> don't, the states are saying that marriage is not (just) about procreation.

that is exactly what quibbling is...your a simple sophist.

> Let's take a look at the professor's reasoning as to why banning 
> same-sex marriage is rational:
>
> 1)  The historical understanding that marriage is "the covenantal 
> commitment of a man and a woman".  In short, marriage is opposite-sex 
> only because marriage is opposite-sex only.  That is tautological, and 
> therefore not rational.


Are you simply a pedant?
 tautology means excessive wordiness that obscures or unduly 
complicates expression.  The historical meaning is concise, not obscure- 
it is repleat with 4000 yrs of history. It is neither tautologic nor 
pedantic.
And frankly - You are are not all that _rational_  by positing your
inability to understand what marriage meant, or means, historically- you 
deny the reality- so you say it's irrational.



> 2)  Marriage is the union of sexually complementary spouses.  That by 
> itself is jibberish and not rational.  

No... gerbils bantering is gibberish, you bantering is somewhat of a 
pedantry.   What is jibberish is to insist that no discrimination is of 
any rationality or any use.  It flies in the face of common sense.
You are playing at defining 'rationality'
on the face of this utter lack of common sense reality.




But, he adds to that by saying
> children need to be reared by a biological mother and father.  OK, that 
> is rational.  But, then we are back to the marriage as procreation 
> argument, and once again, the states have shown marriage is about more 
> than procreation through their refusal to ban infertile marriages. 

No... it' about a hope- that crosses eons of time.  And you are a crusty
pedant with your nitty pickings off the floor.

> Lacking a ban on infertile marriages, there is no longer a rational 
> basis for banning same-sex marriage as being unprocreative.

I would say, this repetitive self aggrandisement on your part- is 
perhaps a look into your own difficulties with 'rationality'
> 3)  Marriage is bound by moral obligations of fideility and exclusivity. 
>    Firstly, the states have already demonstrated that marriage is not 
> about those things (they don't require them). 

No... it is a privilege.
The common culture over time sets the code of conduct.

 Secondly, it is not a
> rational basis for an outright ban on same-sex marriages because the 
> state can always require all married couples (of any gender combination) 
> to be faithful.

You are hardly to be complemented for your overweaning attempt to decide 
what is 'rational'. You are not evidencing that much here.

You say something is not rational.
I say your gay.
That doesn't make you irrational.
Nor does it make me correct.
Nor does it show you have much discrimination-
but neither does playdo



Mark