Your waffling again AJPhillips.

Your playing from a scale the rest of life's musicians, (IE the 98% of the other), have never heard of, and it does not follow the mathematical formulas of the music of the mind!

The scale of equality? Or you may mean, the scales of justice?
Homosexuals are part of the "C" Major scale, the whole seven of them, and more, all the sharps and flats possible, all on board. But the scale of equality? It's (appropriately) a scale with a couple of missing notes by deliberate intent; a Country scale! Or a Blues scale a third flat down.
Ya see, if you mess with the scales, then all that unique music of the Blues and Country disappear.
Down the gurgler with Dorris Day.

Well let's have a court case and apply to have equality restored to the Blues scale. Please your honour, we demand all those poor little Blues songs from hundreds of years, those tunes left out in the cold for so long neglected, we want their two and six notes, restored for equality sake...look the test of the world is now celebrating the return of those two lost blues notes...we want them too.

Get off the "grass" AJP. Some things can't change and shouldn't change for OBVIOUS reasons.

Dear Geoff,

«Marriage is a secular, civil institution, enacted and regulated by the state.»

Is that all? No real substance whatsoever?

If that's indeed the case, then there should be no marriages.

Divorce the state!

“My waffling again”, diver dan?

<<Your waffling again AJPhillips.>>

Oh, you mean “I am” waffling.

No, I’m not. To waffle means to speak at length in a trivial manner, and at no point have I done that. But I’ve noticed that many around here quick to write off arguments as “waffle” when they are unable to counter them.

<<[You’re] playing from a scale the rest of life's musicians, (IE the 98% of the other), have never heard of, and it does not follow the mathematical formulas of the music of the mind!>>

Sounds deep. I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean, though.

<<The scale of equality? Or you may mean, the scales of justice?>>

Either nether, or both. I’m not sure. But guess who is waffling now?

It sounds to me like your analogy, using musical scales, is supposed convey the idea that marriage equality will result in the collapse of civilisation. I’ve heard that one before. But if that IS what you are claiming, then you need to explain why. A creative analogy doesn’t cut it.

You also appear to be alluding to the small percentage of people being gay as a reason to reject marriage equality, but don’t explain why that is a reason.

You should go back to cheering on the throwing of poofters off the rooftops of buildings. This poetic stuff just doesn’t suit you.

<<Some things can't change and shouldn't change for OBVIOUS reasons.>>

You are yet to explain why marriage, which as always changed, can no longer be one of these things. It shouldn't be too hard if it's so obvious. Typing in capitals isn't a substitute for sound reasoning.

Quote AJP.

**The only argument that those in favour of marriage equality need to present (thus far, at least) is equality.**

This premise is patently "bogus". This is the lie from which all other lies emanate that support gay marriage. (Keep in mind, all marriages are invariably "Gay" until the divorce).
You've run out of runway before take off!

My explanation of the equality "bogus" argument, uses a musical analogy as to why something's in life can never, and should never be equal...suggest you allow the simplicity of the description to sink in!

diver dan,

Okay, so you don't think equality is a valid justification for same-sex marriage. But you never actually explain why. The closest you come to doing so is to refer back to your bizarre analogy.

<<My explanation of the equality "bogus" argument, uses a musical analogy as to why something's in life can never, and should never be equal...>>

Your “analogy” wasn't an analogy at all because there was nothing analogous about it. In no way does it explain why same-sex marriage can or should never happen. For mhaze’s benefit (because I know how much he likes fallacies), that's the False Analogy fallacy, a fallacy of irrelevance.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_analogy

The closest you come to explaining your analogy's relevance is to appeal to its simplicity. Which proves nothing.

Try again.

"«Marriage is a secular, civil institution, enacted and regulated by the state.»

Is that all? No real substance whatsoever?

If that's indeed the case, then there should be no marriages.

Divorce the state!"

I agree!!