revprez

Depends. That convention follows in relativistic quantum field theories. In classical relativity, on the other hand, time is usually in the fourth component of a 4-vector.

He's not. He's pointing out that your answer boiled down to "it is this way because I say so." It's not an explanation.

Sure. Reduce the state's influence over the private sector.

It's called area. For forces emanating from a point source, you would expect intensity to diminish as an inverse function of area. Since area is a squared function of distance, you'd expect an inverse square relationship between a force field's strength at any given point and distance.

Did you figure out a speed for distance while you were at it?

The above quote is no justification at all. It is a challenge to proponents of miscegenation. Likewise, its a challenge we can throw at advocates of pedophilia, bestiality and same sex marriage. What it does not do, as the poster who provided it intended, is dismiss opposition to same sex marriage as the product of bigotry. Whether or not the basic structure of the assertion is morally offensive or not depends on the context. Rev Prez

That is special pleading. Where's the standard for delineating between an appropriate or inappropriate relationship? What's so important about consent? Why isn't the minimal self-contained capacity for reproduction in a pairing an equally valid delineator? There is no doubt that the preference for consensual heterosexual coupling is the most enduring aesthetic in human reproductive relationships. If the traditional--secular and religious--reasons for providing special recognition to relationship on the basis of sexuality, then what is the defense for consent? Rev Prez

Yes, it is discriminatory in the (irrelevant) broader sense that it involves "recogniz[ing] or perceiv[ing] the difference." Of course, that renders the context meaningless. A more appropriate definition--the "unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice"--preserve the proper connotation conveyed in Trumbull's remarks. "If a male or female human being is denied the right to marry a male or female animal, [and] a male or female animal is equally denied the right to marry a male or female human being[,] I see no discrimination against either." This assertion is sound enough to most people. However, indefensibly invoking a shallow case of special pleading leads us to question deep principles delineating proper and inappropriate relationships (i.e., consent). Rev Prez

Same sex marriage involves an entirely different set of circumstances than miscegenation. You can re-work the above quote to claim discrimination against polygamy (association), pedophilia (age discrimination), and bestiality (animal rights). Rev Prez