AJP keep on clownin'.

"Race" is a big filthy lie, and the very concept of "interracial" is itself an even more disgusting lie still inflicted on young people. The concept itself is actually racist and completely unsustainable on examination of humanity's actually universal mixture (except in maybe some in-bred royal circles, for example).

No surprise that the gaily-weds spout the disgusting "race" term so much in a desperate grab at more elevated Victim status: actually dynamic and obviously genetically diverse marriage and hybrid reproduction is at the polar opposite of the Sparta-Nazi-Norfolk Island-style Gay cults which would so comfortably back the current bogus S-S "marriage" campaign.

An even filthier aspect of the "race" concept noticeable here is the deranged and utterly perverse comparison between actual life-affirming marriage of opposites and the total failure symbolized by shams of those many psychologically pickled types who've failed to achieve that basic part of their human potential in courting and propagation.

Sham bogus pretend "marriage" is obviously meant to compensate for the inadequacies and failures of people who deem themselves "Too Big To Fail"
- and more people are realizing that fact.

Come to think of it AJP, seems a bit like your lost struggle with the subjects of law, morality and values.

Oh well, say hi to Singer and Nitschke for me! (better you than me)

Enjoy your time on the wrong side of history (and biology, ideology, philosophy, religion, not to forget serious spirituality and child-rearing)

mil.observer,

I tend to clown about when the arguments I’m dealing with do not deserve to be taken seriously, and arguments involving Nazism and NAMBLA in a discussion on same-sex marriage do not deserve to be taken seriously.

I’m aware of the fact that race is not a scientifically valid concept and any righteousness that you display in referring to the concept of race as a “filthy lie” is not going to do much to neutralise the bigotry you display towards homosexuality. But the fact that race is not a valid concept, while sexuality is, does not make the two any less analogous. So long as the arguments are literally the same and display an intolerance towards others and an ignorance of science, my analogy remains perfectly valid.

The fact that you think that the invalidity of race as a concept detracts from the parallels I’ve drawn between objections to interracial marriage and objections to same-sex marriage only strengthens my analogy by exposing an ignorance on your behalf - the implication that science/biology holds the answer to the goodness or rightness of same-sex marriage. This is essentially the Appeal to Nature fallacy.

Furthermore, marriage is a social construct, it’s not biology; your conflation of the two, in your notion of “life-affirming marriage”, is sociologically naive.

So, you’ve failed to support your argument on a biological level, a logical level, and a sociological level; and all while, ironically, accusing me of not understanding biology. Let’s see what else you’ve got…

<<...seems a bit like your lost struggle with the subjects of law, morality and values … ideology, philosophy, religion, not to forget serious spirituality.>>

I can assure you I know a damn sight more than you do about the law. You’re yet to explain how I’ve also failed on the topics of morality, values, ideology, philosophy and religion. Spirituality you would need to define first, since that means something different to everyone. As for child rearing, though, I’ve studied developmental psychology and developmental criminology, so I’d be fascinated to learn my about failings in that respect.

Over to you.

A J Phillips:

“Civil law works based on a 'balance of probabilities' (as opposed to the requirement for 'guilt beyond reasonable doubt' in criminal law). It is unlikely that an individual would fake their sexuality to such a great extent and given the reduced standard of proof required with the ‘balance of probabilities’, I don’t think any legal principals are under any great threat. Sharing a house together for a couple of years and some joint bank accounts would be sufficient evidence for a same-sex relationship in a civil case.”

Are cases of discrimination civil cases? When you bring a case of discrimination to an Equality Commission is it not because you think you are a victim of someone who has broken the law against discrimination?

Civil discrimination in the lower courts is subject to Statute, unless there is a defined harm that occurred as a result of the discrimination that may be actionable as a tort. In statutes, there should be clear definitions of the various elements of the matter, including the nature of the parties. In discrimination law, the nature of the parties is intrinsic to the claim and so is clearly defined, or if it is not, may form grounds for an appeal which will eventually lead to some clarification of the definitions.

What was your point?

Phanto,

Yes, cases of discrimination are civil cases covered by civil law (as opposed to criminal law) and only require the reduced 'balance of probabilities' standard of proof. The easiest way to differentiate between a civil case and a criminal case is not whether a law has been broken or not, but whether or not it requires police involvement.

A J Phillips. Thank you.