> [Arlo had asked]
> 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?
>
> [Platt]
> 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]
> Help me out here. Do you FAVOR the Supreme Court denying the rights
> of states to not recognize interracial marriage, or would you like to see
> this returned to the states?
I favor whatever decision the Supreme Court makes. Otherwise, anarchy.
> What would be the difference between the Supreme Court striking down
> laws against interracial marriage, and striking down laws against gay
> marriage?
No difference. Are you in favor of the Supreme Court striking down current
state marriage laws to allow gay marriage?
> [Platt on whether or not interracial marriage promotes 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.
>
> [Arlo]
> But what do you think? You seem pretty vocal that gay marriage would
> contribute to the (further) degeneration of society. Do you believe
> interracial marriage has as well?
Not sure. Possibly.
> [Arlo had said]
> 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,u
> pholding the law, etc., etc., all of which undermine the bonds that
> hol> a society together". These are the things you wish to equate
> with "gay marriage"
>
> [Platt]
> I don't "equate" those things. Those things don't "equal" gay
> marriage. Talk about distortion!
>
> [Arlo]
> From you conversation with Keith.
>
> "I think the effects are more subtle than that. When "marriage" comes to
> mean something other than socially approved union of a man and women,
> another moral code of society is weakened. For example, we have seen over
> the years a weakening of codes regarding 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."
>
> It is a direct rhetorical equation. "Gay marriage" will weaken
> society in the same way that "out-of-wedlock births, prostitution and
> pornography, violence, drugs, profane language, discipline, upholding the
> law, etc., etc" have.
Nonsense. Out-of- wedlock births, prostitution, pornography, violence,
drugs, profane language, discipline, upholding the law are behaviors AS A
RESULT of weakened moral codes. Behaviors are NOT codes. Where is your
brain?.
> Too bad you lack the balls to just say these things outright, rather
> than resort to sly (but not to bright) rhetorical tricks.
Tool bad you don't have the brains to understand the meanings of words.
> [Platt]
> Another gross distortion just so you could launch another personal
> attack, hoping that such attacks will help you win arguments.
>
> [Arlo]
> The only thing I "hope" is to point out your vile rhetoric, as I have done.
By distortion -- you usual trick.
> [Platt]
> 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.
>
> [Arlo]
> I know, the great beacon of "freedom" wants everyone to be "free" to
> be like him, nothing more.
I'd rather everyone be free like me than free like Marxist you. On June
12, a memorial in Washington to the 100 million Victims of Communism was
dedicated. ("Victims" means "those who died under the yoke of " in case
you try to distort what it means.)
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/
