--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Or is it moral, just
> >> and a good idea to treat someone differently because of their
sexual
> >> orientation?
> >
> > Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but everyone in New Jersey was and
is
> > free to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation....
>
> They're not free to marry someone of the same orientation, so they're
> being treated differently.

But that's only for a definition of marriage as a "partnership between
any two people", that's not true for a definition of marriage as "a
partnership between a man and a woman", or even as "a partnership
between three people."

> You're also being obtuse. I have attempted
> to have a wider discussion on gay marriage, and you're keeping it in
> the narrowest scope, that of this particular ruling and state. Fair
> enough, you don't want that wider discussion.


First, in fairness, I find you to be equally obtuse on this issue.   For
example, when you write:

> Which you've said before, and I agreed that judicial activism is a
> bad thing. But the "liberal vs conservative" thing is a waste of
> time, John. The world doesn't divide that way in real life, because
> some conservatives want judicial activism too (witness the post-Dover
> furore where a conservative judge who showed due process was accused
> of judicial activism by people who wanted him to be an activist
> judge... *brain explodes*), and liberals who respect the role of the
> courts and the role of the legislature in making law. Your paragraph
> would have had exactly the same sense if you'd substituted "liberals"
> and "conservatives" for "people", because there are a range of views
> across the US political spectrum.

....it seems clear to me that you are wasting my time.   Of course there
is diversity within Party Labels and Ideological Labels, but these
labels nevertheless represent broad generalities about those groups that
are useful.   When people start arguing about not using labels to
discuss the views of broad groups of people, I generally get the sense
that they are not being serious about the discussion.


Secondly, I've said twice now that I support civil unions.   I don't
know what more you want.

JDG



_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to