Sayonara

It was Mavis Cruet, waving her wand.

Riiiight... so Proposition 8 can revise the legal meaning of "marriage" only by means of a ballot which turns out to be insufficient, but nobody else can. Maybe you should let the Supreme Court know before they mistakenly allow a review of the challenges. Whooops! Too late. Throughout your posts (and this one) you continue with this theme of trying to turn the tables instead of countering points. I find this snake-like. Yes, it is much more likely that I don't understand simple sentences than it is that you have erred in your reasoning. I was talking about the (Christian) religious definition of "marriage". The Bible as we know it was largely written in the Dark Ages (oddly enough, coinciding with cultural collapse in Western Europe. Hmmm). That paragraph will now probably make more sense in the light of this revelation. I find you quite transparent and so you can be assured that I won't find it amusing in the least. Sigh. Let me run through Special Pleading again. You have a scenario where the law defines who is and is not married. Any given person has as much right to eschew that definition in favour of a religious definition to which they voluntarily subscribe as they have the right to ignore the definition of murder and stone an adulterer to death. If you are going to cry out "help, help, I'm being repressed" every time someone in a same-sex marriage tries to visit one of their loved ones in hospital, then you also have to have the same tantrum whenever society's laws prevent you from stoning an adulterer to death in accordance with your Biblical morals. And on all the other myriad occasions on which an unlawful action is mandated by your religion's tenets. So if you just pick out that one instance to have a hissy fit, then you are making a case of Special Pleading, and it does not take a genius to work out that the extra ingredient which prompted the leap into action is prejudice against the subjects of your wrath. Nobody is having a definition "forced on them" any more or less than they already do by the countless other laws which already exist (or are on the books) and which trump religious values or teachings. Calling this a "forced definition" is poisoning the well, another fallacy, but if it were the case that Christendom were to make a legal challenge to enshrine their specific definition in law (which would be incredibly egotistical and self-involved, but that's in-groups for you), then as I indicated above - and you parroted by way of reply - the onus would be on them to make their case. Furthermore, even if it were the case that you could magically suspend ethical consistency, when this person from a same-sex marriage comes to visit their loved one in hospital, then the worker who objects to their use of the term marriage has only to think to themselves "I don't think I want to consider them married, I shall henceforth regard them as being civil partners", and POOOF! all is well with the world. Choosing vile recrimination and spiteful attacks is exactly that - a choice. Someone once said "turn the other cheek"; quite poor advice when you are facing a stoning or a witch hunt but rather apt in this scenario. I think it's incredibly bare-faced of you to put "truth" and "equality" in there, given what you have said in this thread. Since "alignment of human rights regardless of religion" is a concern for you then you may wish to apply this to your argument. Unless of course the small print includes "...except for the gays". Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Last call for the on-topic train.

Surveys never lie YT!

Maybe he could rub the balloon on the carpet until it acquires enough static to adhere to the firmament.

I'm afraid you've been beaten to the punch on this one. You can buy them for gaming on PCs. Not that it's not a good idea, ofc.

What if he jumps a bit facing in the opposite direction to the Earth's rotation while holding a balloon, on a trampoline?

What about when he jumps a bit?

Or do what Lost in Space did: get halfway through your plot, realise there is a paradox, and then rewrite the ending to make it all about the paradox (but not to the extent of renaming the film to "Lost in Space a bit but mostly in Time".)

The fact that it bothered you so much is probably a compliment to the filmmakers. It's not easy to make a picture about morality that genuinely affects people in a precise way.

I quite like the idea of a giant LCD clock complete with snooze button orbiting Earth, but viewed from afar it would always give the wrong time.

Like mad people who think they are sane, crackpots rarely consider that they might be any kind of crackpot. So you're leagues ahead already and probably not a crackpot.

Your time machine is just a plot device which allows you to tell the characters' stories. There's no particular need for it to be explained in any great detail.

General question: Isn't the idea of exams that they show how much the student has retained and understood their learning, rather than how much they can regurgitate in a specified time just for the hell of it? If a disability means that a person physically takes longer to get their knowledge onto the page, of course it means they need to be given more time. Otherwise they have a comparatively smaller opportunity to demonstrate their learning. A diploma or degree shows that they have the proper academic aptitude to warrant that award - it is not a manufacturer's warranty to future employers which guarantees that they will perform at a particular rate of knots.

I thought I'd quite robustly stated that I didn't perceive any necessity to do so. The onus is on the people saying they are having a definition "forced on them" to show that this is true, and furthermore to show why it should not be allowed to happen. Indignation alone has never been a legal argument and it never will be. If it were, an obvious defence to a charge of murder would be that you don't much appreciate having that definition forced on you. That wouldn't be very good at all, would it? As has already been pointed out, this aptly demonstrates that the debate is a two-way street, and to use this as an argument against gay couples using the word "marriage" reeks of hypocrisy. Even better yet, acknowledge all the other words which current laws define differently to the counterpart meanings found in documents from the Dark Ages and consider that the reason nobody is crying foul about those differences is because they don't threaten the institutional discrimination which has allowed religion to tread down on groups they don't like for centuries for no reason other than spite endorsed by "god". So being denied the right to call your marriage a marriage because of the petty whim of one particular club of like-minded people is not denial? Or is it a special kind of denial which can be safely ignored because it's okay, it's just those awful gays who are affected? That wasn't your argument. Please leave the goalposts where they are. Since you asked, the people in charge of hospital visits are professionally obligated to follow the rules that govern those visits. ALL the rules. You don't get to decide which rules jibe with your personal prejudices on the way into work, and making a special case out of one particular rule because you* don't like it is Special Pleading. The only way you can link this to the point of yours which I was replying to is to state that hospital workers are denying access to visitors because of their own personal Biblical beliefs, in which case the only response is that they should be fired immediately. I find it extraordinary that you keep "pointing out" that I have not given reasons for things which don't need any reasons given, yet you have utterly failed to address or refute any of the major points I made. I am going to reiterate what iNow said. Pay special attention: Equality. Constitutionality. Alignment of human rights regardless of sexuality. You are arguing against these principles. Take a step back from your objections and consider carefully if you think that they are in proportion with what is at stake. Then consider how the arguments might play out in the Supreme Court and get back to us with your findings. * Not necessarily you, obviously.

It doesn't matter. If they can exchange information, then they are by definition not different universes.

Me neither, it is somewhat anachronistic. Especially since the downturn in population trends is actually a global blessing. Wait, what? Where did you make that case? All you said was "[i don't think same-sex married couples should have] tax breaks for married couples, which I think are intended to make things easier on them and their children, which I think is somewhat less applicable to same-sex couples!" Where is the difference? All you have stated there which is capable of being a proposition (and therefore being refuted) is that same-sex couples can't physically have a family, which is completely false. What more need I refute? If you are happy with that refutation but would like some evidence, maybe I could post some gay adoptive or assisted conception parents and their children to you by UPS so that you can inspect them for authenticity. YOU raised the issue of tax breaks being a bug-bear for you, with regards to the apparently quite different marriages of the heterosexuals and those other second class citizens. Regardless of whether you object to those tax breaks across the board, YOU made the distinction. I can't see the relevance of that point and therefore can't discuss the "major point" in terms of it if you don't adequately elaborate on what you meant. You have already plainly stated in this thread "I don't particularly like homosexuals", so it falls on you to go the extra mile to show unambiguously that when you say things like "gay families should be financially persecuted as compared to straight families" it has a rational basis and is not simply based in parochial disdain. The words are clear, yes. The logic isn't. You can't have your cake and eat it though, can you? That is precisely the problem with religion in politics where there is supposed to be separation of church and state, and that is exactly what Prop 8 is trying to exploit. Very cleverly too, it has to be said. I think we both recognise the core problem with the debate here and it is almost certain that this issue will appear as the major battlefront in the courts. Also, a legal definition being at odds with a "religiously charged" definition is not good enough reason for the legal definition to not be adopted in legal circles. Far from it being up to anyone to show why it should be, I think it falls on the hypothetical complainant to show why it shouldn't. If the hypothetical complainant is going to kick up a stink and make that stink the basis of their attack on a much-needed social change, then the hypothetical complainant ought to put their money where their hypothetical mouth is and explain just what all the stink is about. And "it demeans this arbitrary institution which some humans made up once for the exclusive use of their own in-group" is not very compelling. Especially if you want to restrict the scope of the arguments to those which are "relevant secular constitutional" ones. Yes. I strongly disagree that their freedom is being trampled on, as they have not suffered any form of loss or denial, but still yes. However I'm not invested in your political system which may be a factor there. False requirement. Allowing gay couples to call their unions "marriages" doesn't force anyone else to do squat.* * That should be the closing remark at court.

Can the OP please show how this thread is going to be different from the epic mammoth discussion we have previously had on this very topic? (Because if not, -50 redundant.)

Our survey said "bingo".

Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? Not providing the same tax breaks to same-sex couples is quite clearly providing a barrier to them having a family. This is a classical example of discrimination. How do we think the courts' views on Prop 8 might be affected by such examples? I don't follow the logic. It seems to me like you are saying "the bible defines marriage in this particular way, and so if anyone acts as if there might be a different definition then they are somehow trampling on the rights of people who deny the meaning of words which are used outside the context of biblical stories." If that is the logic that Proposition 8 is based upon then good luck to it; it's a specious and egocentric argument which I'd hope a court won't buy. I don't think popularity is a factor at court. Slippery slope. The same argument won't necessarily lead to the same conclusion if the premises and circumstances differ even slightly.

Does a infinite multiverse where every possibility has enough "room" to be realised mean that you will find entire galaxies made of mashed potato, or planets populated only by dancing hatstands? Our survey says no.

Because then they wouldn't be different universes.

Have you learned nothing?

Mr Skeptic (and to a certain extent, but less so, ParanoiA): There is a difference between discussing a semantic issue and indulging in a disingenuous semantic debate. The two things are not the same just because they have the same word in them, as I am entirely sure you realise. This thread would not be on 24 hour suicide watch if I did not perceive it to be suffering the latter. I will remind you again, as a free gift: the question posed in the OP is this: The thread is about the legal merit of Proposition 8 and the basis on which the courts might make their decision. It is not an arena for setting up cross-population motives and then bashing them down. To me, this quote indicates exactly what is wrong with this thread. The discussion is not about "what the GLBT community is asking for". Proposition 8 is hardly their baby, is it? This thread will be staying on 24Hr Suicide Watch until the time is up. I suggest getting back to the questions posed in the OP.

Like iNow I find it very disheartening to see that this discussion always degenerates into a disingenuous semantic debate which is painted as a battle over the right to enshrine one particular "definition" of a particular word. Yeah, right. As if. This topic has come up time and again and the same lame-ass arguments get trotted out each time, despite being thoroughly and repeatedly debunked in other threads. For the love of cheese, the ability to reproduce is irrelevant, as a sterling example. Bestiality also has nothing to do with the case at hand, and neither does bigamy. This thread was started to discuss the legal merits and implications of Proposition 8. If it can't be kept on track, then it will be closed. Simple as. This thread is now on 24 Hour Suicide Watch. The thread starter has failed or is failing to support their position, has not managed the thread direction in a manner which supports its purpose, or is actively encouraging a disorderly discussion. The thread starter must bring the thread under control in order for the thread to stay open. Alternatively, there are more reportable posts breaching the SFN Rules in this thread than there are non-reportable posts, and all participants are expected to improve their level of input if this thread is to remain open. If the thread does not turn into a productive and rational discussion within 24 hours of this post, then it will be closed without any consideration of the moderation policy. All participants are responsible for helping to bring the thread back on track. This notification is a standard text set by SFN policy.

So basically you consider yourself a "creationist", because your belief is that there was a creator who was responsible for all of creation. Apt choice of word I guess.