[MK] I'm sure the freakshow doesn't end there. [Arlo] Not like MK = freakshow. Got it.
[MK] Obviously I am not using a slippery slope argument. [Arlo] You are, and you said yourself that the slippery slope is a valid argument. 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. Like I said, its perfectly obvious why you'd want to keep pretending this a "red herring". Such intellectual dishonesty is sad. [MK] I believe that I am also answering your red herring questions implicitly. [Arlo] Are you? What, do you lack the balls to answer explicitly? I'll just assume your answer is, "yes", you would use the slippery slope argument back in 1966 to deny inter-racial marriage. I won't expect you to deal with analysis of that. [MK] These individuals are clearly mentally ill and using them as vanguards for gay rights is obscene to say the least and denigrating to the overwhelming majority of gays who of course are not mentally ill. [Arlo] Yikes! The man (now-woman) is clearly transgendered. After living a life of self-deceit, s/he fessed up to those s/he loved so that s/he could live happily in accord with her inner-self. Not like MK = mentally ill. Got it. The point it (case law continues to escape you), any law we pass defining marriage will have an immediate impact on this couple, and if the court decides to force states to continue to recognize their marriage, then it will have to explain why two females being married is "okay" so long as once upon a time one of them had a penis. [MK] When I marry 12 queer muslims I want you to be my maid of honor. [Arlo] I don't look good in a dress. But if all involved are consensual, and this brings you happiness, then good for you. Not like Arlo = no big deal to Arlo. Get it? [MK] Doesn't the MOQ state that unbounded liberalism ( entitlementism ) endangers the very liberty it purports to defend? Hmmm... [Arlo] Sounds like neoconservative stuff to me. The MOQ says society has a moral right to regulate biological behavior when it threatens society. How does "gay marriage" threaten society? Draw the line at behavior that can be shown to be a threat to society, I think John (??) started doing this when he mentioned the genetic ramifications of incestuous unions. Intellect, by the way, also has a moral right to regulate society when social patterns seek to dominate intellectual ones. 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/
