Banning "gay" "marriage" is like banning rectangular triangles.

Here's a transcript. What word would you use instead of "ban"?

Banning "gay" "marriage" is like banning rectangular triangles.

... and then the next obvious step is for you to publicly support a constitutional amendment banning rectangular triangles. Because, if you don't, a few liberal judges may want to redefine the tradition of geometry and say that there can be rectangular triangles. And if a few judges can impose the idea of rectangular triangles against the will of the people and what has been defined in geometry books since the beginning of time and in all cultures, then ....

Just amazing.

Justin - you have often scolded those whose comments lack the 'nuance' you say is necessary to be part of this debate. For example - those who attack the theological view of homosexuality.

I guess my point is that the analogy of rectangular triangles with civil marriage between same-sex partners ---- lacks 'nuance'.

Prof. Rosenberg,

I think the word is merely the singular indication of a spun approach. The entire sentence "the court struck down the ban on gay marriage" is incorrect. It suggests that there was a banning law or policy to which the Constitution was prior, and it inherently answers the very question at the heart of the debate: what is marriage.

It presumes, in short, exactly as the SJC inappropriately did, that "a union between a man and a woman" is not really the definition of marriage, but that marriage just means, essentially, "a union." This approach is just one of the more subtle ways in which the media has blocked out an entire side of the debate. (And, to be fair, it is one instance in which it mightn't be deliberate, but rather just evidence of a worldview that creates an inherent bias.)

Mark,

I'm not sure a one-sentence quip can be expected to have much by way of nuance — pointing, rather, to a larger conversation that might or might not bring that nuance into the picture. If the point, in this case, is that the entire debate has a surreal feel in which words are simply asserted to mean what they do not mean, I have to confess that I empathize.

At any rate, it isn't just the inability to see nuance in the arguments of those who oppose gay marriage that makes it objectionable, but that doing so leads to a conclusion of bigotry. Squares and rectangles strike me as a relatively benign way to make a point for which much more dramatic example could be used.

"Because, if you don't, a few liberal judges may want to redefine the tradition of geometry and say that there can be rectangular triangles." You make sure to let me know when you see any indications of that, okay? Thanks. :-)

P.S. Besides, I am well-know for my pithiness. :-)

I notice you now have not only the transcript, but a video. Nice work.

You make a fair point about "ban". Would it be fair to say that the amendment would ban gender-neutral definitions of marriage?

I should also note that nobody seemed to get so upset when the Supreme Court ruled that Long Island wasn't an Island.

Actually, I think it would be fair to say that an amendment would "ban gay marriage," because that's what it would do. What I object to is the insinuation that things that have never been thought to exist are, therefore, banned.

Let me make a clearer (less-nuanced) statement: The analogy between a "rectangular triangle" (which is a scientific contradiction, would we agree on that ?) and "marriage" among same-sex people is nonsensical at every level.

Now I agree that the legality of in addition to the social and cultural effects of are debatable.

But comparing the legitimization of same-sex relationships to a scientific contradiction ? And you expect this to be taken seriously ?

By the way, the argument is that there is no such thing as 'gay marriage'. The issue is whether 'marriage' - should be extended to members of the same-sex. Have you ever heard of 'straight marriage' ? Should there be a different term to define *marriage* among people of different faiths or races ? Is 'inter-faith/race marriage' a different institution than just plain 'marriage' ?

P.S. I don't have a problem with "pithiness" (ask Justin about that). Do we want to debate the issue or have a contest of one-line quips ? Buyer beware. I can take it - but I can dish it out too.

Well, Mark, if marriage means a union of a man and a woman, as husband and wife with the expectation that sexual consummation is open to the production of children and families, then it is a matter of scientific fact that homosexuals can't marry.

Imagine, say, that the local swim club hands out triangle badges to members, giving them access to a private area but also gives out day-pass badges in the shape of a rectangle. What we're facing, in this metaphor, is a movement to declare rectangles to be "four-sided triangles."

It isn't nonsensical to make this comparison. You may disagree that it applies, you may disagree that ELC meant it in more or less this way, but it does summarize a legitimate way of approaching the issue, in my opinion.

OK, the mathematical side of me can't help but jump into the whole triangle/rectangle debate despite finding it a little silly. Topologically--a branch of mathematics dealing with continuous maps)--a rectangle and a triangle are the same shape. They are both homeomorphic to a disk (a filled in circle).

What's the significance of that? Not much, except to say that in mathematics one specifies what are the properties you want to distinguish and what properties are indistinguishable. I like the principle that the law should strive to avoid distinctions made on sex, color, faith, and ethnicity. Others may feel it is critical for the government to make distinctions basedon sex in the matter of marriage.

One of the key aspects of the debate here is what are the fundamental aspects of marriage and what are aspects that while once critical are no longer so important. Another key question is must the answer to that question be universal? Is it possible to say that for some couples one aspect of marriage is most important while for other couples another aspect is most important? For some religions the ability to form "one flesh" is an essential aspect of marriage. Without it the marriage just doesn't exist. For other religions marriage is an act of "setting aside" that identifies a person as being no longer available to anybody but the spouse.

Alright.

First, referring to "the expectation that sexual consummation is open to the production of children and families", there are examples of man-woman unions that do not meet that criteria. But I won't elaborate as that horse has been beaten.

Your metaphor does make sense to me. The movement is about whether, in keeping with your analogy, whether those who have been given triangle-shaped badges should be allowed to enter the private area which had been previously reserved for those with rectangular-shaped badges.

That works for me - and I'm a mathematics major (yet just slightly less accomplished than Prof. Rosenberg).

I happen to think that ELC did not mean that and that it was more akin to a Coulter-ish (or Moore-ish or Sullivan-ish) quip. But I could be wrong.