Arlo my "typical response" might be reflective of a pattern on your part.
Even if your example is ACTUAL it is clearly an outlier. Let's schtick with reality. You are the one hiding behind young children and animals. Muslims and fundamentalist mormons, among others, are actively pushing for recognition of their cultural practices. If gay marriage becomes universally recognized then these groups will have a strong argument. Your other examples do not apply here and it is interesting to note that many blacks do not support gay marriage. ""Your experience of "love", with a rich tapestry of Air Supply and St. Vincent Milay to draw from, is a much deeper, much richer, historical process than what your dog "feels"."" - ahahahaha... ________________________________ From: Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, June 5, 2009 2:59:02 PM Subject: Re: [MD] The New Socialism - Wired Magazine [MK] Arlo I have read your example and see that you are fond of setting up straw men [Arlo] Yeah, that's the typical response I get from people who want to say things but hate concrete examples, or having to really have what they say analyzed. It's not a "strawman", its an ACTUAL situation that an ACTUAL couple is going through. Got that? Real people, real situation, how should the law respond? I know that escapes a lot of people, who prefer generalities and slippery slope fear rhetoric. Its sad, really, but I expect it. [MK] My "slippery slope" examples are quite reasonable. [Arlo] Hardly. I prefer any "line" based on reason. I can see you prefer it based on something else entirely (hey, if we let gays marry, we'll have young children marrying farm animals). [MK] Any line drawn by reason or bias will exclude consenting adults by definition and our sense of entitlement seems to know no bounds. [Arlo] Hey, why should we allow inter-race marriage, that might lead to 8 children married to 12 ducks! You know the funniest thing about you slippery slope people, you always conveniently draw the line after YOU are on the safe side. Why is that? Here's another concrete example for you. The year is 1966. Its one year before Loving v. Brown declared anti-interracial marriage laws unconstitutional. Would you be using your "slippery slope" argument against that? And here's another. Do you think there are any similarities between the Nurernberg laws prohibiting inter-racial marriages and American laws prohibiting gay marriage? Can you give me a reasoned answer as to why they are different? If all you are intend to keep doing is making unreasoned slippery slope responses, we don't need to go on. If your entire argument against gay marriage is "gay marriage will lead to inter-species incestuous polygamy", then I'll bow out now. If I want talk-radio, I can turn my dial. At the moment I am enjoying some Catherine Wheel on XM. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
