Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause

[Oresteian]

Please forgive my errors in my previous posts. I was quite tired and as a result my attentiveness in proofreading was severely inhibited.

 

[Betterave]

Nowhere in the laws does it say anything about the intention of procreation being a requisite or justification for marriage. If that were the case then we would be equally justified in prohibiting geriatrics, the sterile, and the barren from getting married along with people who do not intend to have children. What reasons do we have for allowing these marriages, if as you assert, the justifying reason is for procreation?

You have it all backwards. It does not follow that homosexual marriage need any further justifications that heterosexual couples do not need just on the basis of their homosexuality. All that is required are that the parties involved want to enter into contract to create or strengthen ties of kinship for romantic, economic, or political reasons. As far as the government is and the secular recognition of this contract, both exist to serve the needs of the people not the other way around. We do not in a fascist state (theoretically)

I gave specific examples of Biblical patriarchs who were in fact polygamists. The biblical basis that “one man, one woman” is the only legitimate can be discarded as a result. The only mention of limits that I am aware of to the number of spouses in the Bible are in the case of a bishop or deacon in 1 Timothy 3:2 where Paul is giving his opinion on qualities men in that office should have.

My comment about your position being based on dogma is not baseless at all. It simply comes from the observation that the basis upon which you support your conclusion is almost entirely rooted in Christian teaching which prior to Christianity was unheard of.

The notion that I am bigoted against your religion is laughable. Nothing that I have said can actually be construed to be a remark against your religion or any one else’s.In fact I have purposefully made an effort to keep the conversation out of the religious realm despite the obvious fact that people’s religious beliefs inform their opinions on social and moral issues (which I am quite fine with). Pointing out that a political position is based solely on religious upbringing and ahistorical is only pointing out the obvious.

Lastly, I think you are just projecting. As a progressive I simply do not think that way regarding religion. I say live and let live.

We are clearly stating that Prop 8 is discriminatory, that was never the issue. What we are trying to discover is the rational basis for doing so. Allowing homosexuals to marriage will have ZERO impact on the straight marriage population. The people who desire and are able to have children will indeed have kids whether they are married or not. Indeed, uncountable unplanned pregnancies will occur for a variety of reasons. No one is forcing a religious group to perform such marriages (although in secular matters everyone must recognize such marriages as evidenced by their marriage certificate) So why should we bar them from partaking in a secular institution?

I think I will hold off on answering #250. It’s an utterly ridiculous poorly formed, and misapplied analogy and a wholly disingenuous view of the intended function of Prop 8.

See 1st and second paragraphs above.

Wow, Oresteian! I’m wondering if I should let you take another shot at this, maybe it was the fatigue talking, not your best noncognitivist you. Would you like a redo on this one, or do you stand by these comments as being the most reasonable you could come up with?

 

[Oresteian]

Wow, Oresteian! I’m wondering if I should let you take another shot at this, maybe it was the fatigue talking, not your best noncognitivist you. Would you like a redo on this one, or do you stand by these comments as being the most reasonable you could come up with?

I take this to mean that even in my weakened state I was still able to come up with a devastating reply that you have no retort to as this is the best YOU could possibly do. Frankly I am disappointed.

 

[Betterave]

I’ll bite:

In this example the store owner is discriminating against Spanish speaking people because of the deleterious effects it will have on atmosphere of his business because of his daughter’s psychological condition. [ACTUALLY I was thinking it would be more because he/she cared about his/her daughter’s welfare.] If a person speaks Spanish, then that would limit their forms of communication to languages other than Spanish. For someone whose only language is Spanish, communication would be…difficult to say the least.

Setting the side the wisdom in banning persons who speak Spanish (Puerto Ricans Dominicans, Peruvians, and MEXICANS ) the owner of said store does have a reason to ban those groups (one of which is Mexicans) that is purely incidental and not based on that groups “Mexican-ness”.

That’s correct!!! Now wasn’t that obvious? WASN’T IT?

Non-sequitur. some hidden premises, and definitely some undistributed middles there.

The rest of your comments I will dismissed based on their degree of asininity. If there is something worthwhile perhaps I may respond again.

I will charitably attribute the rest of this groundless, unexplained nonsense to your fatigue. Take care, get some rest.

 

[Betterave]

I take this to mean that even in my weakened state I was still able to come up with a devastating reply that you have no retort to as this is the best YOU could possibly do. Frankly I am disappointed.

I will assume that you do not want a redo.

 

[Oresteian]

That’s correct!!! Now wasn’t that obvious? WASN’T IT?

I will charitably attribute the rest of this groundless, unexplained nonsense to your fatigue. Take care, get some rest.

It is not groundless or unexplained.

This is exactly what you said:

Since procreation naturally requires a male and a female partner, it follows that marriages must include both a male and a female partner.

How does this follow in the least? Did you take Logic or read a book on it EVER?

1. Procreation requires a male and a female
   2.Therefore, marriage must include a male and female

There are a whole lot of premises in between that you need to explicate.

I stand by my assessment of your statement until you can flesh this out properly.

(btw, when you start using ad hominems that is a very good indication that you are at the limits of argumentative and rhetorical skills.

 

[Betterave]

I do not recall ever seeing this from you or anyone else. Which thread was that in? Do you care to repeat it here?

This point has been a consistent and central feature of my argument throughout. If you missed that you probably missed other elements too, so I suggest you read through my posts again for yourself.

Excellent. Then you should remove it from your argument against gay marriage.

Again, I’ve already repeatedly made the distinction between particular marriages and the institution of marriage and explained why the claim you mention never was part of my argument against gay marriage. I’m sorry, but you really need to learn to read more carefully.

 

[Oresteian]

I will assume that you do not want a redo.

Well, if you think you can take it down, have at it hoss!

 

[Oresteian]

That’s correct!!! Now wasn’t that obvious? WASN’T IT?

Sure, but that is why I thought this analogy was flawed. It is not the case that Prop 8 bans same sex marriage in a “statistical and incidental” sense. The proponents of the law clearly stated that the intended purpose of the law was to ban same sex marriage. To claim anything else is to be, shall I say, cavalier with the facts? (this is the charitable interpretation)

 

[Betterave]

It is not groundless or unexplained.

This is exactly what you said:

How does this follow in the least? Did you take Logic or read a book on it EVER?

1. Procreation requires a male and a female
   2.Therefore, marriage must include a male and female

There are a whole lot of premises in between that you need to explicate.

I stand by my assessment of your statement until you can flesh this out properly.

(btw, when you start using ad hominems that is a very good indication that you are at the limits of argumentative and rhetorical skills.

Actually I have taken a few logic courses and read a few books on it and marked hundreds of logic exams and tutored many university students on the subject - so yeah, I’m not completely ignorant about it. What’s the status of your training in the subject?

Of course, you are right that there are unexpressed premises in this condensed formulation of my argument. But before I go on - are you familiar with the term enthymeme?

(btw, many students mistakenly think that all ad hominem statements are fallacious - I hope you aren’t suffering under this misapprehension)

 

[Betterave]

Nowhere in the laws does it say anything about the intention of procreation being a requisite or justification for marriage.

I never said it did.

If that were the case then we would be equally justified in prohibiting geriatrics, the sterile, and the barren from getting married along with people who do not intend to have children. What reasons do we have for allowing these marriages, if as you assert, the justifying reason is for procreation?

Again? Have you not read what I’ve already written? It’s because they positively image the procreative ideal; they are not fundamentally alien to it as same-sex unions are.

You have it all backwards. It does not follow that homosexual marriage need any further justifications that heterosexual couples do not need just on the basis of their homosexuality. All that is required are that the parties involved want to enter into contract to create or strengthen ties of kinship for romantic, economic, or political reasons. As far as the government is and the secular recognition of this contract, both exist to serve the needs of the people not the other way around. We do not in a fascist state (theoretically)

None of this makes sense, not even grammatically - you should have accepted that offer of a redo.

I gave specific examples of Biblical patriarchs who were in fact polygamists. The biblical basis that “one man, one woman” is the only legitimate can be discarded as a result. The only mention of limits that I am aware of to the number of spouses in the Bible are in the case of a bishop or deacon in 1 Timothy 3:2 where Paul is giving his opinion on qualities men in that office should have.

Yes, you gave specific examples, just like some guy gave specific examples of same-sex couples where one was the “male” and the other was the “female” partner. But that’s a dumb argument. Your claim is still false and irrelevant. If you disagree, please explain. I notice you chose not to explain the relevance of the Ancient Roman practise of same-sex marriage. Did that slip your mind?

My comment about your position being based on dogma is not baseless at all. It simply comes from the observation that the basis upon which you support your conclusion is almost entirely rooted in Christian teaching which prior to Christianity was unheard of.

“…rooted in…”? Please explain what you mean, with reference to the argument that I have actually offered here.

The notion that I am bigoted against your religion is laughable. Nothing that I have said can actually be construed to be a remark against your religion or any one else’s.In fact I have purposefully made an effort to keep the conversation out of the religious realm despite the obvious fact that people’s religious beliefs inform their opinions on social and moral issues (which I am quite fine with). Pointing out that a political position is based solely on religious upbringing and ahistorical is only pointing out the obvious.

Au contraire, by my observation the notion that you are not bigoted against my religion is laughable. I won’t laugh about it though, because you obviously are unaware of your own bigotry. The problem with bigotry is that the bigot often doesn’t see it, precisely because he’s a bigot. It’s a bit of a catch-22.

Lastly, I think you are just projecting. As a progressive I simply do not think that way regarding religion. I say live and let live.

You obviously do not think WHAT way about religion?

We are clearly stating that Prop 8 is discriminatory, that was never the issue.

LOL! OH NOOO! That was NEVER THE ISSUE? Three words bud: begging the question.

 

[Oresteian]

Actually I have taken a few logic courses and read a few books on it and marked hundreds of logic exams and tutored many university students on the subject - so yeah, I’m not completely ignorant about it. What’s the status of your training in the subject?

Of course, you are right that there are unexpressed premises in this condensed formulation of my argument. But before I go on - are you familiar with the term enthymeme?

(btw, many students mistakenly think that all ad hominem statements are fallacious - I hope you aren’t suffering under this misapprehension)

If that were true you should not be making the elementary logical errors that you have continued to make throughout this thread. You have also been in constant denial of the obvious and even when confronted with what you know to be true you simply chalk it up to “statistical aberration”. Disingenuous indeed!

I have had enough formal training in logic and philosophy to know that your conclusions are unsound and have very weak theoretical grounds.However, since you care to know, my background is in science.

I do not think your statement qualifies as an enthymeme…there are way too many assumptions between that premise and the conclusion for there to be a clear logical connection.

Your ad hominem against me was made for the sake of ridicule and had nothing substantive to add to the discussion. Ergo, I stand by my original assessment.

 

[Betterave]

Sure, but that is why I thought this analogy was flawed. It is not the case that Prop 8 bans same sex marriage in a “statistical and incidental” sense. The proponents of the law clearly stated that the intended purpose of the law was to ban same sex marriage. To claim anything else is to be, shall I say, cavalier with the facts? (this is the charitable interpretation)

You’ve missed the point of the analogy: The shopkeeper could clearly intend to specifically exclude Mexicans from her store, if they are the only significant Spanish-speaking demographic she needs to worry about - but she still clearly is not discriminating against them on the basis of their Mexican-ness.

 

[Betterave]

If that were true you should not be making the elementary logical errors that you have continued to make throughout this thread. You have also been in constant denial of the obvious and even when confronted with what you know to be true you simply chalk it up to “statistical aberration”. Disingenuous indeed!

Groundless assertion and straw man. If all you have is nonsense, don’t even bother posting.

I have had enough formal training in logic and philosophy to know that your conclusions are unsound and have very weak theoretical grounds.However, since you care to know, my background is in science.

Enough, huh? LOL! And what do you consider to be “enough”? (My first degree was science too… but I never asked about your background other than as it relates to your knowledge of logic… but I guess you know what a red herring is.)

I do not think your statement qualifies as an enthymeme…there are way too many assumptions between that premise and the conclusion for there to be a clear logical connection.

That’s nice, “you don’t think…”; but the point you miss is that this enthymeme was not offered out of the blue as you seem to be implying. I have already supplied the supporting premises.

Your ad hominem against me was made for the sake of ridicule and had nothing substantive to add to the discussion. Ergo, I stand by my original assessment.

Your claim here is false. It was made on the basis of you yourself writing the following:
“Please forgive my errors in my previous posts. I was quite tired and as a result my attentiveness in proofreading was severely inhibited.” It was intended light-heartedly and was perfectly justified.

 

[secular_freedom]

My apologies for the tardy reply.

Actually, I don’t follow your logic at all. You say that gays and lesbians are being discriminated against because they aren’t permitted to marry their partners. The term “partner” in this context is ambiguous. What is that? A partner is obviously not a spouse, because the people that we’re talking about aren’t married. Is a partner someone who is the object of a person’s romantic attachment? If that is so, then gay or lesbian people are, by operation of Proposition 8, not permitted to marry persons whom they want to marry, since nowadays people almost always want to marry people for whom they have romantic feelings. In a word, Proposition 8 prohibits some people from marrying those they want to marry. But I am at a loss as to how you get from that to discrimination in the equal protection sense, since there are all sorts of laws that prohibit some people from doing what they want to do and equal protection isn’t implicated at all. The mere fact that a law prohibits a certain behavior doesn’t give rise to an equal protection claim.

The reason why Lawrence is relevant here is that equal protection was rejected by the court as a basis for reaching its ruling. I’m certainly not saying that you have to show a due process violation in order to raise an equal protection claim, but in order to make an equal protection claim you have to show that there is discrimination against a particular group. The claimants in Lawrence made that argument, and the court rejected it. That, however, was the way that Justice O’Connor wanted to attack the problem (of course what she wrote was dicta, it was a concurring opinion), and Justice Scalia, in dissent, pointed out that it would be difficult for a prohibition against gay marriages to survive an equal protection attack if the court had adopted Justice O’Connor’s approach. Of course, the court didn’t adopt Justice O’Connor’s approach. Now the opponents of Proposition 8 would like to import Justice O’Connor’s reasoning into the dispute. But, as you pointed out, her reasoning is dicta.

But what if equal protection does apply here? Can Proposition 8 survive the rational basis test? Well there is certainly a lot of extant social science that supports the opponents of Proposition 8, and none that I know of (or that was presented in the District Court case) that supports the proponents. That, however, doesn’t end the matter. It is permissible for communities to legislate community standards of morality even where the First Amendment is implicated. The standard that is applied, I’m sure you know, is the Miller test. Contemporary community standards loom large under the Miller test to permit the prohibition of obsenity that would otherwise be protected speech. I cannot conceive of why contemporary community standards could not be relevant to a rational basis test, or why maintaining such standards could not provide such a rational basis. Thus it appears that Justice O’Connor’s proposed basis for constitutionally upholding a prohibition of gay marriage isn’t so ambiguous after all.

Jack, my apologies, but it will be a few more days before I get to your reply. I actually just wrote up quite a detailed response but it got lost when I clicked the submit button (very frustrated about this!). I do appreciate your respectful attitude and the sincerity with which you approach this discussion (unlike others), so I will continue this exchange.

 

[Oresteian]

I never said it did.

your argument implies that this distinction is made

Again? Have you not read what I’ve already written? It’s because they positively image the procreative ideal; they are not fundamentally alien to it as same-sex unions are.

How can it? The procreative ideal (if we want to be accurate) would be a young man and a young woman who desire to have children but that is beside the point. Why SHOULD anyone accept this as the only legitimate form of marriage when historically and to this day there are plenty of other marital arrangements that do not conform to this ideal?

None of this makes sense, not even grammatically - you should have accepted that offer of a redo.

Sad day for you

Yes, you gave specific examples, just like some guy gave specific examples of same-sex couples where one was the “male” and the other was the “female” partner. But that’s a dumb argument. Your claim is still false and irrelevant. If you disagree, please explain. I notice you chose not to explain the relevance of the Ancient Roman practise of same-sex marriage. Did that slip your mind?

It’s not dumb at all. My claim in regard to the biblical figures was that “one man, one woman” was not necessarily the normal arrangement biblically. I do not believe anyone can point to any place in the bible where God places such a mandate upon the institution of marriage.

And no it did not slip my mind but it surely slipped your eyes.Here it is (with corrections)

You have it all backwards. It does not follow that homosexual marriage needs any further justification that heterosexual couples seemingly do not need just on the basis of their homosexuality. All that is required (for a marriage)] are that the parties involved want to enter into contract to create or strengthen ties of kinship for romantic, economic, or political reasons. This is ALL the law presumes. As far as the government and the secular recognition of this contract are concerned, both exist to serve the needs of the people, not the other way around. We do not live in a fascist state (theoretically)

See what I did here? I merely dismissed the idea that the Ancient Romans (or any other society for that matter) needs to JUSTIFY same sex marriage above and beyond the notion of mutual contract.

“…rooted in…”? Please explain what you mean, with reference to the argument that I have actually offered here.

I am talking about your assertion that the fundamental purpose of marriage is procreation is rooted in your religious beliefs and little else more.

Au contraire, by my observation the notion that you are not bigoted against my religion is laughable. I won’t laugh about it though, because you obviously are unaware of your own bigotry. The problem with bigotry is that the bigot often doesn’t see it, precisely because he’s a bigot. It’s a bit of a catch-22.

Nothing I said in this thread can be construed as an attack against ANY religion, therefore your accusation is baseless and mere assertion.

You obviously do not think WHAT way about religion?

Bigoted, prejudicial attitudes and stereotypes. I let people open their mouth and hang themselves before I cast judgment on them.

LOL! OH NOOO! That was NEVER THE ISSUE? Three words bud: begging the question.

This has been the general form of the argument that secular_freedom, larkin, myself, and others have accepted

1. Under Prop 8, a woman is allowed to marry a man but not another woman; under Prop 8, a man is allowed marry a woman but not another man.
2. Hence, under Prop 8, men are allowed to do something women are not allowed to do; hence, under Prop 8, women are allowed to do something that men are not allowed to do. (from 1)
3. Hence, Prop 8 discriminates on the basis of sex.
4. Under Prop 8, homosexuals are prohibited from being able to marry their partners; under prop 8, heterosexuals are not prohibited from being able to marry their partners.
5. Hence, Prop 8 discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.
6. If Prop 8 discriminates on the basis of either sex or sexual orientation, and the discrimination is unjustified, then Prop 8 violates Equal Protection.
7. The discrimination on the basis of sex is unjustified; the discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is unjustified.
8. Therefore, Prop 8 violates Equal Protection (From 7, 6, 5, 3).

Sorry, no questions begged here. It was established in the OP and several times in different ways and no one has demonstrated how the argument was invalid, but merely asserted that Prop 8 does not discriminate without addressing this argument.

 

[Oresteian]

You’ve missed the point of the analogy: The shopkeeper could clearly intend to specifically exclude Mexicans from her store, if they are the only significant Spanish-speaking demographic she needs to worry about - but she still clearly is not discriminating against them on the basis of their Mexican-ness.

This changes nothing. If a man is allowed to do something a woman cannot do and vice versa, it is discrimination based on sex. Prop 8’s intention was to disallow same sex marriages and that is precisely what it does. It is not “statistical” or incidental" as the analogy is. The analogy is simply misapplied.

Groundless assertion and straw man. If all you have is nonsense, don’t even bother posting

.

You keep holding onto that raft there.

Enough, huh? LOL! And what do you consider to be “enough”? (My first degree was science too… but I never asked about your background other than as it relates to your knowledge of logic… but I guess you know what a red herring is.)

If I can ascertain the fallaciousness of your arguments, it is enough. I mentioned my science background for explication nothing more.

That’s nice, “you don’t think…”; but the point you miss is that this enthymeme was not offered out of the blue as you seem to be implying. I have already supplied the supporting premises.

Not really, you made a bunch of assertions which you have not given compelling reasons why we should accept them. Still have not answered us as to why procreation IS and SHOULD be the justification for marriage contracts.

 

[Betterave]

your argument implies that this distinction is made

Correction: because you are not a very good reader you think my argument implies this.

How can it? The procreative ideal (if we want to be accurate) would be a young man and a young woman who desire to have children but that is beside the point. Why SHOULD anyone accept this as the only legitimate form of marriage when historically and to this day there are plenty of other marital arrangements that do not conform to this ideal?

I’ve already answered this question! One reason, again, it can, is because they have in common with a young man and a young woman the fact of having been a young man and a young woman and the fact of still being a man and a woman (again, you don’t have to be very bright to see this as “daddy-figure” and “mommy-figure”). Why should anyone accept WHAT as the only legitimate form of marriage? Is this another question that I’ve already answered, or another straw man?

Sad day for you

How so?

It’s not dumb at all. My claim in regard to the biblical figures was that “one man, one woman” was not necessarily the normal arrangement biblically. I do not believe anyone can point to any place in the bible where God places such a mandate upon the institution of marriage.

Okay, here’s the problem: you apparently don’t read (with comprehension) what I write or even what you write. Again, you wrote: ‘biblically speaking, marriage was hardly ever “one man, one woman” as polygyny was quite common.’

This statement contains a true claim P: “polygyny was quite common”; a false claim M: “marriage was hardly ever ‘one man, one woman’”; contains one non sequitur: P so M; and implies another: [P and M] so N (N = “there is no biblical/historical precedent for the calling ‘same-sex marriage’ absurd”).

And no it did not slip my mind but it surely slipped your eyes.Here it is (with corrections)

You have it all backwards. It does not follow that homosexual marriage needs any further justification that heterosexual couples seemingly do not need just on the basis of their homosexuality. All that is required (for a marriage)] are that the parties involved want to enter into contract to create or strengthen ties of kinship for romantic, economic, or political reasons. This is ALL the law presumes. As far as the government and the secular recognition of this contract are concerned, both exist to serve the needs of the people, not the other way around. We do not live in a fascist state (theoretically)

See what I did here? I merely dismissed the idea that the Ancient Romans (or any other society for that matter) needs to JUSTIFY same sex marriage above and beyond the notion of mutual contract.

LOL! This is getting tiresome. Here’s what you originally wrote: “it is not true that there was NEVER same sex marriage in the past, for example the Ancient Romans and a couple others did have it.” So why did you bring this up? To prove that nobody needs to justify their particular conception of marriage? But you’ve done nothing of the sort! You’ve only proved that you have no justification for your conception of marriage and aren’t even interested in having one! You just want to beg the whole question! Time for you to crack open those logic text books again.

 

[Betterave]

I am talking about your assertion that the fundamental purpose of marriage is procreation is rooted in your religious beliefs and little else more.

Duh! - which is a groundless assertion, apparently based on your bigotry, NOT an explanation with reference to the argument that I have actually offered here!

Nothing I said in this thread can be construed as an attack against ANY religion, therefore your accusation is baseless and mere assertion.

Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

Do you understand how a catch-22 works? You have repeatedly asked the same questions here that have already been answered, so apparently you are obstinately and intolerantly devoted to your own opinions and prejudices, and your obstinate intolerance manifests in the groundless, obstinate, and fallacious ad hominem dismissal of my view as “rooted in your religious beliefs and little else more” - good one!

Bigoted, prejudicial attitudes and stereotypes. I let people open their mouth and hang themselves before I cast judgment on them.

Do you understand how a catch-22 works?

This has been the general form of the argument that secular_freedom, larkin, myself, and others have accepted

1. Under Prop 8, a woman is allowed to marry a man but not another woman; under Prop 8, a man is allowed marry a woman but not another man.
2. Hence, under Prop 8, men are allowed to do something women are not allowed to do; hence, under Prop 8, women are allowed to do something that men are not allowed to do. (from 1)
3. Hence, Prop 8 discriminates on the basis of sex.
4. Under Prop 8, homosexuals are prohibited from being able to marry their partners; under prop 8, heterosexuals are not prohibited from being able to marry their partners.
5. Hence, Prop 8 discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.
6. If Prop 8 discriminates on the basis of either sex or sexual orientation, and the discrimination is unjustified, then Prop 8 violates Equal Protection.
7. The discrimination on the basis of sex is unjustified; the discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is unjustified.
8. Therefore, Prop 8 violates Equal Protection (From 7, 6, 5, 3).

Sorry, no questions begged here. It was established in the OP and several times in different ways and no one has demonstrated how the argument was invalid, but merely asserted that Prop 8 does not discriminate without addressing this argument.

LOL! Wow! First, you really need a logic refresher! Begging the question means you assume what you need to prove. You can’t refer to the form of the argument that YOU ACCEPT as being established if others don’t accept that it is established. That is called begging the question.

Second, you’re amalgamating the argument presented in this thread with an even more foolish one presented in another thread.

Third, (4) to (5) is a non sequitur, as has been repeatedly pointed out.

 

[Betterave]

This changes nothing. If a man is allowed to do something a woman cannot do and vice versa, it is discrimination based on sex. Prop 8’s intention was to disallow same sex marriages and that is precisely what it does. It is not “statistical” or incidental" as the analogy is. The analogy is simply misapplied.

So if a non-Mexican is allowed to do something a Mexican is not allowed to do, it is discrimination based on being Mexican? I thought you had understood that this form of argument was an obvious non sequitur - what happened?

You keep holding onto that raft there.

You need to try to read more carefully and to actually understand what you’re reading. Seriously.

If I can ascertain the fallaciousness of your arguments, it is enough. I mentioned my science background for explication nothing more.

“IF…” - right. But you can’t because you clearly don’t understand ‘fallaciousness’ very well… which is no big deal, it’s just too bad that you’re so stubborn about thinking that you do.

Not really, you made a bunch of assertions which you have not given compelling reasons why we should accept them. Still have not answered us as to why procreation IS and SHOULD be the justification for marriage contracts.

Again, you really need to learn to read more carefully and open-mindedly. I obviously have answered that question.