Let me get this straight:
The difference between RATIONAL and ILLOGICAL is so slight as to be nothing more than a semantic quibble, correct?
No, the difference between what I said in #298 and your attempt at correction in #301 is a semantic quibble. You remain free to point out, as I said in #310, the practical distinction between your interpretation and mine, if you can.
Everything you said on the issue after that point was a meandering hodge-podge, and I decline to take any of it seriously.
I still can’t wrap my head around how genesis supported one man one woman “traditional” marriage concept.
To claim it does is just quite absurd!
This should probably be a new debate topic but Abraham married his flipping sister!!! She couldn’t have kids so she had him sleep with Hagar one of her slaves. Sarai, the sister/wife was jealous when Hagar did get knocked up and started abusing her until she ran away.
Yahweh then told Hagar to go back and she did. Some time later Abraham’s sister/wife did produce a son and he discarded his bastard sister/wife slave’s and his son.
Is this really a better “more traditional” marriage than lesbians using artificial insemination?
I am guessing David42 that you do not have a reply on how Genesis is a model of traditional marriage as claimed by the MN supreme court?
Well, you can shoot the messenger all you like. You have gotten to a point where your argument is pretty close to: “because I disagree in result, I’m going to disagree with everything you say.”
Now here is what you said:
(My bold.)
Now do you see that bolded part? You wrote that.
I contradicted you because you are wrong. A reasoning for the existence of the law must be logical to pass rational basis scrutiny, so I said:
Which is far more accurate.
The practical difference–If Congress passes a law that Dopers who make silly statements must become the dutiful lackey of those who do not, such a law would get challenged in the courts.
When it gets to court, the government defends the law with a statement that we need this law “Because our reptilian Annunaki overlords from Niburu have demanded we do so, or otherwise they will invade.”
Now, under what you say, that it does not have to be a logical reason, then the law passes the test and it stands (if all other considerations are in the law’s favor.)
However, under what I say, that there must be a rational basis for a law under challenge, the law is struck down for this reason alone–it is not rational.
Please quote the MN supreme court that “genesis is the model of marriage.” The court did no more than note that marriage is ancient, as one of our first records of it is the bible. I think you’re building another strawman, always having to change what goes against your argument since you can’t contradict the legitimate claim.
I would note, too, that as a historical record, the first instruction given was “to go forth and multiply” but I guess in the oh so thorough analysis of historical marriage concepts given in this thread by gay marriage proponents, this was overlooked, even though it is clear evidence that somebody thought, thousands of years ago, that marriage and procreation were very closely tied.
If you’d like to prove that marriage is NOT “as old as Genesis,” please feel free.
Uh, as much as I agree with you, no.
He passed her off as his sister (and let some Egyptians, er…, enjoy her :dubious::eek:**) when it was convenient for him – but she wasn’t really his sister.
I agree with all the rest of what you said.
No, the result is still a semantic quibble, I figure. Since my intent was to provide a lay summary of the process, I used “logical” in the casual everyday sense, not in the sense a judge might apply it, which to the lay person might not seem logical at all.
After all, any number of arguments you’ve advanced in this thread are blatantly illogical (and I said as much well before this current round of semantic tennis), but they were accepted as valid by various judges over the years. We know better now, of course, that women voters, interracial marriages and equality for homosexuals are not going to destroy society, and various laws restricting them served no logical purpose.
Anyway, if you’d said it was a “minor error”, I would have let it slide, but claiming it as a “serious error” requires a serious explanation, and I remain unimpressed. The “messenger” will just have to deal with it.
That is not what the Judge claimed, this is the justification as presented.
I provided several cites where it was not as such, you are the one presenting the strawman sir.
BTW, even at the time of the founding of this country the monogamous Christian ideal of marriage was in the minority.
Only a half sister so I guess that makes it OK 
Heck, we’re surrounded by selectively-interpreted traditions. Christmas trees and Santa Claus (indeed, celebrating Christmas itself) are fairly recent additions to the mythology, but ask they be removed from public land and some people will act like you just bitchslapped the baby Jesus.
No cites, but from what I was always taught, Sarah being Abraham’s half-sister is actually quite dubious, and is used by relighous scholars as an “out” to explain why Abraham wouldn’t be technically lying – and that the sources taht wrote this part of Genesis used the same ploy.
The more common belief (IIRC) is that she was his niece.
Of course, since the historical veracity of nearly all Genesis characters is contreversial, this all is really niether here nor there…
It would have been added in previous to the Pentateuch, I think you were given an excuses by an apologist.
It sounds like they were claiming it was a Deuteronomist addition, but that causes some serious crisis of faith for any Abrahamic based faith, if you dump D texts core ideals like Monotheism go out the window too.
From what I see the current claim is that it is from the Yahwist source, and that there are three deceptions relating to wives, Abraham and Pharaoh, Abraham and Abimelekh and Isaac and Abimelekh.
I would be interested to see how your sources discounted those deceptions. It seems more that they are trying to deflect questions about incest, which was quite common in the the area and around the world.
IIRC Often it was forbidden for the eldest daughter of a tribe to be sold off to other tribes.
That is an icky thing if you are trying to justify monogamy through the bible (Full disclosure, I actually am also a fan of monogamy but for practical reasons)
Don’t look at me, I think it’s all mythology anyway… 
At any rate, this is becoming an unnecessary hijack, so I’ll just concede the argument (since I couldn’t really care less anyway)
[QUOTE=The MN court:]
The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis .
[/QUOTE]
You’re having some memory problems. You see, when you add “one” to man and woman, you change the court’s statement from a statement that can include polygamy to a statement of that eliminates it and then criticize the speaker for it, when you are the one who changed the statement so that it could only be about monogamy.
Are claiming that the word “man” or “woman” is to be taken as also plural?
Can you provide any case law that would support that a polygamous or incestuous marriage would be so protected due to it’s traditional nature?
Well, if one may venture a reference to the learned works of Justices Zager and Evans, their contention that in the year 2525, if man is still alive, if woman can survive, presumably does not refer to a specific man or woman.
Does the sentence “Man has achieved the goal of going to the moon” mean only one man did it?
In a legal context no, not when the law you are defending says
If your claim is correct, why not protect incestuous or polygamist marriage as they would fit the Judge’s claim.
By what means does only the gender relate to the tradition of marriage?
You have ducked this question many times, you have claimed this decision was the root of your argument.
It would seem that you could at least posit what the tenants of traditional marriage are, and where they came from.
Why have the traditions of no divorce, prohibitions on birth control, multiple wives, marriage of your brothers widow and incest not been worthy of protection due to their traditional role?
It appears to me that, in the absence of any definition let alone any valid history of “traditional marriage” that it is clearly just…
[
We are talking about what the MN court said, at the moment, and not DOMA. DOMA didn’t even exist then. You said the judge was wrong by building the strawman that he said “one” man and woman where he just said man and woman, which can be used in a general sense as all of mankind.
You have moved the goalposts.
I didn’t see the judge claim that. By this argument, you must be claiming that pederasts, pedophiles, the incestuous etc. can all marry too, if saying “man and woman have been marrying forever” means you are claiming that marriage is about incest, etc.
It takes one of each, in most states, but some states allow the same sex to marry one another.
What question? And since we are tlking about ducking questions, I note again neither you nor Bryan Ekers have answered the most important question I have asked:
If the nature of marriage is not primarily responsible procreation, then what aspect of marriage could make it “fundamental to the survival and existence of the human race?”
Why? I have made no arguments here not based on court rulings. If you wanna know about traditional marriage, look it up or find someone with that position.
I have never argued that we must ban gay marriage in the name of tradition. My points revolve around why we need marriage and where they right comes from, not “we must adhere to tradition.”
Ummm, is the history of traditional marriage fake?
Of all the things you’ve asked in this thread, you consider this the most important?
Okay… my answer is that is that is not necessary to consider any aspect of marriage fundamental to the survival and existence of the human race. Why would we? Any legal concept that requires such is built on shaky foundations, possibly from a more delicate time when reproduction was only considered proper within marriage - outside was shocking and scandalous and unheard of! - like the unfathomable concept of women voting or letting black men ride at the front of the bus among white men.
So much for the second part of your question. Regarding the first part, even if (responsible?) procreation is “primary” in the nature of marriage, is it mandatory in marriage? That’s a question I have asked several times, to no avail. It is clearly not mandatory for some marriages in Utah as I have cited - in fact, it’s forbidden - and I’m not aware that is mandatory anywhere in the U.S., so how can something that is not mandatory be used as a critical requirement?
You have nothing.