[MK] Your insistence on bringing up inter-race marriage is a red herring. Nice try fella.
[Arlo] No its not, but I can understand why you want to pretend it is. Its 1966, Loving v. Virginia has not occurred yet. You've used the "slippery slope" argument as an argument against allowing gay marriage, would you use it in 1966 against inter-race marriage? I know why you can't answer, and its a dishonesty that is sad. If you answer "yes", to be consistent with your claim that the "slippery slope" is a valid argument, you'd acknowledge the argument was without merit. If you answer "no", you'd have to tell me why the "slope" is valid in one case, but not the other. So I get your desire to evade away from that. Really. I do. [MK] Arlo you make my "slippery slope" case with your inconsistencies. [Arlo] When have I been "inconsistent"? I've answered directly your comment about "8 queer muslims..." My comment about that being "reality" was in response to your, again understandable, desire to avoid a real pending legal issue. I asked if you were familiar with "case law", you obviously are not, because if you were you'd understand that this case, and how the courts handle it, has a direct impact on your stance. I ask again (in vain, I know). Should that married couple, both now gender female, have their marriage revoked by the state? Why is it "okay" for females to be married if one once had a penis? I don't even think I need to point out the obvious reasons you want to avoid this. But it is intellectually dishonest, and I can see you'd rather play the talk-radio game, god knows we've seen that before. [MK] It sounds like "anything goes" is a moral position for you. [Arlo] Between consenting adults, sure. Whats the matter, MK, you don't like when people live their lives differently than you do? Its a "danger to society" to have consenting adults choose unions different from the one you've chosen? Oooo... how lucky you are that what you choose is conveniently the only option safe for society to continue. [MK] Arlo I am starting to think that you suck. [Arlo] Yeah, I get that a lot from people used to talk-radio dialogue. Sucks when Hannity can cut off the caller and squalk his same rhetorical nonsense over and over, and you can't. That sucks. For sure. > >Arlo: And, as I said, if they are consenting adults, MK, they should. Why do you >care? How would their unions effect you? I am not "hiding" behind anything. >I've answered clearly and straightforwardly. Consenting adults should be able >to choose their own unions. The state, if its going to confer benefits, should >confer them regardless if someone else's union is different than yours. > >It sounds like "anything goes" is a moral position for you. > >Your insistence on bringing up inter-race marriage is a red herring. Nice try fella. > >Arlo I am starting to think that you suck. > > > > > > >________________________________ >From: ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Friday, June 5, 2009 8:36:13 PM >Subject: Re: [MD] The New Socialism - Wired Magazine > >[MK] >Arlo my "typical response" might be reflective of a pattern on your part. > >[Arlo] >Don't sell yourself short. > >[MK] >Even if your example is ACTUAL it is clearly an outlier. Let's schtick with >reality. > >[Arlo] >So a real case, actual people, and (I assume you are familiar with something >called) "case law" is not reality? > >Your slippery slope of 8 queer muslims marrying 12 something or others... >that's "reality"?? > >Yikes. > >[MK] >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. > >[Arlo] >And, as I said, if they are consenting adults, MK, they should. Why do you >care? How would their unions effect you? I am not "hiding" behind anything. >I've answered clearly and straightforwardly. Consenting adults should be able >to choose their own unions. The state, if its going to confer benefits, should >confer them regardless if someone else's union is different than yours. > >[MK] >Your other examples do not apply here and it is interesting to note that many >blacks do not support gay marriage. > >[Arlo] >Oh they do apply, nice evasion. You guys are funny with that. Refuse to answer >simple questions, use fear based slippery slope rhetoric. > >Again, its 1966, MK, would you use the same "slippery slope" argument against >inter-race marriage? No? Yes? Why or why not? > >And who cares if "blacks" support gay marriage or not? Like I said, you guys >and your slippery slope always conveniently define yourselves on the "yes" side >before you draw the line. I bet if "marriage between blacks" was being debated, >they wouldn't buy your slippery slope argument one bit. > >[MK] >""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... > >[Arlo] >Humor makes the dialogue fun. > > > > >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/ > > 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/
