I'm confused; how does race enter into the quality of a marriage? Should the government start performing socio-economic screenings before allowing a heterosexual couple to marry? I hear lots of couples fight about money, maybe the haves and have-nots shouldn't be mixing either. People with southern accents also shouldn't be marrying northerners; how will their kids speak? At this rate, I'll be married to my sister in no time...
The fact that heterosexual marriage is "better" than a gay union or non-married relationship is a social convention, and you cannot prove that either has more quality. The value judgements surrounding premarital sex, drinking, pornography, and out-of-wedlock births are also societal conventions. Without non-logical means (faith, religion, bible) there isn't even an argument. It may be easier to raise a child in a two-parent household, but is having two bad parents inherently better than having one good parent? Sounds like a social convention developed over time from the economic and pragmatic rigors of parenthood. Two would be better than one if a family was responsible to raise their own food, build shelter, etc. The attitude that old school morals and conventions are better...just because they're better, is the definition of a static pattern. In MOQ, aren't societal concerns below intellectual concerns? Blind faith in the government is an interesting proposition. It seems like a supreme irony in a democratic republic founded on civil disobedience. On 7/16/07, Platt Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > [Platt] > > Follow me closely: I do not think that interracial marriage should be > > decided by the states. Why? Because the Supreme Court has decided > > otherwise. I support Supreme Court decisions. Otherwise, anarchy. > > > > [Arlo] > > This is a bit of doublespeak, Platt. You favor "interracial marriage" > > because the Supreme Court has okayed it. Does that mean if the Supreme > > Court okays "gay marriage" you'd be in favor of it as well? > > Yes. For the reason I cited. How many times do I have to repeat myself > before you get it? > > > If not, why do you support a Supreme Court ruling on "interracial > > marriage" but not "gay marriage"? Why, on one hand, do you support a > > Federal authority usurping state's rights, and on the other say the > > "state should decide"? They are both about marriage? Is "interracial > > marriage" more of a "natural right" than "gay marriage"? > > I always defer to the states to decide legal questions except when the > Supreme Court and/or the Constitution specially holds otherwise. For > example, states cannot decide to reinstitute slavery. > > > [Platt] > > Figures. How about allowing polygamy? If not, why not?. > > > > [Arlo] > > More doublespeak. If allowing the Supreme Court to rule on "gay > > marriage" leads into the polygamy argument, then why not its ruling > > on "interracial marriage"? > > > > When the Supreme Court overturned state's rights and guaranteed > > "interracial marriages", did you say "how about polygamy" then? > > Nice attempt to duck.the question. Again, if gay marriage is OK why not > polygamy? > > > [Platt] > > Only you would associate gay marriage with out-of-wedlock births. > > Truly hilarious. > > > > [Arlo] > > Again, your comment showing your association stands. Nice rhetorical > > attempt here though. > > > > [Platt] > > Better to be free to do the things I choose than become a serf in > > Marx's dictatorship. > > > > [Arlo] > > What if I don't want to be "free" just to do the things _you_ choose? As > > for the serf/Marx nonsense, I'll pass. > > If you don't want to be free like me, that's OK. As for Marx/serf, of > course you'll pass, ignoring the historical record. > > > [Platt] > > Just a friendly reminder of the historical record your idol Marx has > > spawned. > > > > [Arlo] > > Again, not Marx. Lenin adopting neoconservative state nationalism, > > which became the sole end of the latter regimes of Stalin, et al. > > Where do you think Lenin got his ideas about and justification for > dictatorship? > > > [Arlo had said] > > By the way, gays could not marry in Stalinist Russia, or Pol Pot's > > Cambodia either. > > > > [Arlo] > > I think its fairly clear. > > Again, ducked my question. (In fact, left it out completely.) To repeat. > What's your point? > 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/
