> [Platt] > 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.
> [Arlo] > This isn't just status quo stuff, Platt. The states cannot decide to > reinstitute slavery because some rights usurp what "the voters" want. With > regard to interracial marriage, the Court said it is not up to the voters > to decide whether or not a black and white can marry. What's your point? > The same nonsensical slippery-slope argument, rolled out then as now, said > "if you allow interracial marriage, why not polygamy?". I'm glad to see you > give it exercise. But the point is, as Micah says (and he misreads me, > because I agree completely with him), that consensual activity between > adults should not be a concern of government. If I choose to leave my > inheritance to a gay partner, it should be bequethed in the same manner as > if I chose to leave it to a female partner, or one many partners, or divied > up among partners. If I have a same-sex partner, that partner should have > the same end-of-life power of attorney as any opposite-sex partner would > have. If I have multiple consensual partners, how we decide to enact our > estate and wills is up to us. So I gather you think the states shouldn't interfere with polygamy. > So there is no "dodge", Platt. I only point out the absurdity of the > ridiculous "slippery slope" talk-radio bunk. And the absurdity, and sad > irony, of your "Platt the Beacon of Freedom" rhetoric. I take it -- ignoring the familiar smokescreen -- that polygamy is OK with you. How about consensual sex between a father and adult daughter? > [Platt] > 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. > > [Arlo] > No, ignoring your historical distortions. Yeah, distortions like 100 million lives snuffed out under communism. > [Platt] > Where do you think Lenin got his ideas about and justification for > dictatorship? > > [Arlo] > >From thinking Marxism itself would not work, that the state needed a > >strong > myth of "holy war" patriotism and state nationalism to subjugate the > masses. Marx himself proposed a dictatorship. You can run, but you can't hide from the record. > [Arlo had said] > By the way, gays could not marry in Stalinist Russia, or Pol Pot's Cambodia > either. > > [Platt] > Again, ducked my question. (In fact, left it out completely.) To repeat. > What's your point? > > [Arlo] > As I said, I think its clear as crystal. Arlo the "Marxist" is all for > allowing consensual adults to lead their lives the way they choose, and to > enjoy the same civil affordances as any other adult making differing > choices. Platt the "Libertarian" is all for using the authority of the > state to forbid "deviant" behaviors that could lead to the "degeneration of > society". Now of these two positions, mine and yours, which do Stalin and > Pol Pot agree with? Clue... not mine. I've seen a lot a specious arguments from you in the past, but this takes the cake. Using the same argument, you are for state run health care and are therefore hold the same position as Stalin and Pol Pot. On second thought, maybe the argument isn't so specious after all. :-) Incidentally I'm sure it will cheer your heart to know that Russia made an effort to fulfill your dreams by abolishing the institution of marriage altogether. In fact, many of the arguments it used are the same as those of liberals today. See: http://www.ejfi.org/Civilization/Civilization-4.htm 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/
