In other words, you can't find any logical failures in my statements. Please try.


<The fact is, in this country, one is asked if they're in a loving relationship when they get married. This is the part of every marriage ceremony, whether it's performed by your local witch doctor or the justice of the peace, that ends with "I do." >

Hooooooooooooooooooorse hocky. Cooooooooooooooooow pie.

liaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar.

www.capitol.state.tx.us/statut...toc.htm

Please click on 'marriage license' and tell me where you have to check mark 'in a loving relationship'

No luck, liar mc lies alot?

<Therefore, sexual preference is crucial to marriage>

This has no bearing on the legal codes regarding marriage - its an assertion made by you with absolutely no substantiation - this language is simply not found in the legal codefication of marriage.

<Marriage is the institutionalization of the sexual preference and mating habits of a vast majority of humans>

Again, tangental to the argument. This may be a factual statement, but it has NOTHING to do with the logic of the argument at hand.

What you are doing is the exact same thing the Gay marriage lobby is doing - trying to turn the *justice* issue into an *equality* issue.

<To say that gays and straights are both equal under the law because they can both enter into a heterosexual marriage is not logical.>

yes, its perfectly logical. As I have said before, you may not find it rationable or sensible, but its fully logical, which is why you keep having to reach outside of the logical construction of the argument in order to attack it.

<Well, they're just as free to eat Mars bars as everyone else. >

Yes, if the law was 'everyone can eat only mars bars' then everyone is equal under the law.

'everyone can drive up to 65 mph' - even the people who don't LIKE driving under 65 mph?

yes, everyone is equal under the law.

<It would be no more or less fair to say that only Catholics can get married>

This analogy is so flawed I can't believe you came up with this. this is showing a clear prejudice towards a singular religion, which would be illegal under US precedent as derived from the establishment clause.. Not only that, not all citizens are catholics - you're putting the limitation on the wrong pool.

If you said 'all citizens can marry only X' then yes, that would be EQUAL under the law, even if it was unjust.

<the coupling instinct, which marriage institutionalizes>

again, you're going into some unsubstantiated historical analysis of the development of marriage which has no bearing on the equality issue.

I understand if you can't wrap your head around the logic because it flies in the face of your 'common sense'- but equality and justice are two distinct realms within the legal system.

but anyway, I could just as easily say that marriage institutionalizes the procreation instinct - not the coupling instinct, and I would have vastly more data to support my assertion than you would to have yours (coupling is a relatively modern contrivance, still challenged by many cultures today, Islam, Christian sects, etc).

<then your entirely hypothetical "straight same gender unions" (SSGUs) would also be allowed. >

according to you?! You write the laws? You're big on assumptions Paul, and low on substantiation.

<Salil, if your point on this thread hinges on the notion that gay marriage can't be legalized because it doesn't include these SSGUs, I'd say you need to rethink this. >

Hey Paul, do I need to get you a book on reading comprehension? Where on EARTH did I ever say that gay marriage can't or shouldn't be legalized? Please find that statement somewhere, otherwise stick to the argument at hand and stop making shit up.

well there ya go, sweetcheeks. I was waiting for you to realize that.