ST Alpha - "Then vote against multi-partner marriage when it comes up." (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 185

In response to "Here's where I fell during the debate up here." by Name Withheld By Request

Then vote against multi-partner marriage when it comes up.

Posted by ty97 Nov 4 '08, 22:32

Don't punish gays for your fears of a topic that may arise in the future.

Responses:

What would be the legal argument preventing a further broading of the term if the first broadening is acceptable? (Plus... - Name Withheld By Request Nov 4, 22:35 10
- Vote on the issue at hand, don't color it with a possible future issue. - ty97 Nov 4, 22:39 7
  - Choices have consequences ty. It's the "think of the now and who cares about the future ramifications" that guided the Bush presidency. -- nm - Name Withheld By Request Nov 4, 22:43 6
    - Certainly they do, and you could dig 5 layers down into possible consequences. - ty97 Nov 4, 22:53 3
      - Why is it so hard to say, "We want the word too?" - Name Withheld By Request Nov 4, 22:57 2
        
        We want fairness. Not a word. - musubi Nov 4, 23:00 1
        
        He can. -- nm - Dr.Vermin, pundit Nov 4, 23:05
    - PS: Why do we call the genders different words if we're all equal anyhow? - Name Withheld By Request Nov 4, 22:47 1
      - good grief. -- nm - citizen b. Nov 4, 22:48
- What's the legal argument for different gender polygamy? - musubi Nov 4, 22:38 1
  - Well, previously, it would have been that it didn't fit the Canadian definition of marriage, that being two people of opposite gender. - Name Withheld By Request Nov 4, 22:41
That's like not having a car because it increases the chance of carjacking. (nm) - musubi Nov 4, 22:34 10
- Ethicist - and certainly no religious righty nut - Margaret Somerville argues that children have the right to a mixed gender upbringing. -- (link) - Name Withheld By Request Nov 4, 22:37 9
  - I've read it before, and to put it nicely, I think she's full of it. (nm) - musubi Nov 4, 22:42 8
    - thank you. that link didn't work for me, but i was wondering if that was one of those pieces. - citizen b. Nov 4, 22:46
    - And as a supporter of SSM, that's perfectly your right, but it doesn't cancel out the argument as unworthy of discussion. -- nm - Name Withheld By Request Nov 4, 22:44 6
      - It does because it's used as smokescreen for bigotry. - musubi Nov 4, 22:48 5
        
        And this exact attitude is why 8 passes tonight. Instead of arguing the policy, you argue a person's right to disagree with you. - Name Withheld By Request Nov 4, 22:50 4
        
        I've pointed out the logical flaws with the Sommervilles P.O.V., you're the one who brought up silly "right to disagree" arguements. - musubi Nov 4, 22:58 3
        
        No. Because she has a rebuttal for the "married couples without kids" argument. - Name Withheld By Request Nov 4, 23:05
        
        It's the arrogance and intellectual laziness of dismissing all varying opinions as 'bigotry' that prevents you from appealing to your opponents. - Dr.Vermin, pundit Nov 4, 23:03 1
        
        I'm still waiting for a logical reasoning that doesn't use illogical exteremes like protecting procreation, polygamy or marrying animals. - musubi Nov 4, 23:07

Post a message top

Then vote against multi-partner marriage when it comes up.

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.