> [Platt] > If not the voters, who do you think should decide? > > [Arlo] > So, just so we are clear, you believe that states should be able to > decide whether or not to recognize interracial marriage. Is that correct?
Not any more. The Supreme Court struck down state laws against interracial marriage. But, voters have influence as we have seen with the recent shift in the Supreme Court towards conservatism,. thankfully. > [Arlo had asked] > The same argument was made when "interracial marriage" became an > issue. We were told that allowing "blacks and whites" to wed would > undermine social values, erode society away and lead to all sorts > of social ills. Why has that changed? > > [Platt] > To many minds who see a general degeneration of society it hasn't. > > [Arlo] > Are you saying there is validity to the argument that interracial > marriage contributes to the degeneration of society? Hard to prove one way or another. What some consider a societal improvement, like graduating everyone regardless of performance in the name of equality, others (like me) consider degenerate. > [Platt] > Says you. What's necessarily "violent" about drug abuse, > prostitution, pornography and lawlessness? And as usual, you > introduce a personal attack. > > [Arlo] > In your litany of associations with gay marriage you include, and I > quote, "out-of-wedlock births, prostitution and > pornography, violence, drugs, profane language, discipline, > upholding the law, etc., etc., all of which undermine the bonds that hold > a society together". These are the things you wish to equate with "gay > marriage" I don't "equate" those things. Those things don't "equal" gay marriage. Talk about distortion! > As for the "personal attack", cry me a river. Its an atrocious > rhetoric association, sorry if that bothers you to have it pointed out. I did not "associate" gay marriage with those things either. Another gross distortion just so you could launch another personal attack, hoping that such attacks will help you win arguments. > [Platt] > I was answering Keith's argument. Your question is nonsensical. > > [Arlo] > Just to be clear, you agree that whether or not "marriage" encourages > long-term relationships should not be a basis for its social recognition? > Yes or no. The question is nonsensical. But just to be clear, my position is that marriage should be restricted to the union of a man and woman. 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/
