| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
28 Mar 2005 11:47:58 AM |
| Object: |
ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
Why would any man need another man to provide him with health care
benefits? The advantage of gay partnerships is that there are no
children at home that need attending. Let each man provide his own
health care, just like single straight people do. This notion that one
guy stays home and plays "Donna Reed" while the other one goes to work
should not become a burden on the American health care system. The
people of Michigan (and many other states) have spoken; No gay
marriage. Stop seeking "special" dispensations just because your
different.
http://www.freep.com/news/mich/gay22e_20050322.htm
Despite marriage ban, couples want health care
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit Monday asking the
courts to protect same-sex couples' health benefits in light of a state
constitutional ban on gay marriage.
In the suit, filed in Ingham County Circuit Court, the ACLU asked the
court to stipulate that the ban on gay marriage does not extend to
health care benefits for same-sex partners. The amendment, they said,
is ambiguous.
The ACLU filed the suit less than a week after state Attorney General
Mike Cox issued his legal interpretation about what effect the
amendment should have on health benefits. He concluded that the
amendment bans government agencies from extending benefits to same-sex
couples in any future contract negotiations.
.
|
|
| User: "Jenn" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 10:16:05 PM |
|
|
Jenn: <<>w quotes: <<If gay marriage is legalized, then any church
or
religious organization that doesn't agree with same-sex marriage will
likely come under intense pressure to either change their views or go
silent>>
Jenn: >>>Slippery slpoe argument
w quotes: <<<Canadians Will Lose Religious Freedom Once Homosexual
Marriage Is
Entrenched
More slippery slope. Marksman must be furious.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
22 Apr 2005 05:25:47 AM |
|
|
"Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114139765.621434.293390@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Jenn: <<>w quotes: <<If gay marriage is legalized, then any church
or
religious organization that doesn't agree with same-sex marriage will
likely come under intense pressure to either change their views or go
silent>>
Jenn: >>>Slippery slpoe argument
w quotes: <<<Canadians Will Lose Religious Freedom Once Homosexual
Marriage Is
Entrenched
More slippery slope. Marksman must be furious.
Why? You are projecting.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 11:27:39 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:35:57 +0200, Duke Kahanamoku
<longboard@oldtimers.org> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On 21 Apr 2005 00:20:37 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com>
wrote:
w: <<< Laws are intended to do
the most good for the most people.
SSM only does good for everyone.
Prove it.
Can you prove it would do something bad for anyone?
The radical homosexual agenda and the destruction of standards
Ben Shapiro
March 9, 2005
The Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters Alliance
(BGLTSA) of Harvard University is fighting mad. Last week, actress
Jada Pinkett Smith won an award from the Harvard Foundation for
Intercultural and Race Relations. During her acceptance speech, she
told women in the audience, "you can have it all -- a loving man,
devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career ... To my men,
open your mind, open your eyes to new ideas." Rather sweet, no? Not to
the BGLTSA, which called for an apology from the organizers of the
Cultural Rhythms show, explaining that Smith's statements were
"extremely heteronormative." "Heteronormative," for those who don't
speak the radical homosexual lingo, may be defined as the viewpoint
that heterosexual relationships are normal, and others are not.
The organizers immediately complied with the BGLTSA's demand, issuing
a mea culpa stating, "She wasn't trying to be offensive. But some felt
she was taking a narrow view, and some people felt left out." The
Foundation also pledged to "take responsibility to inform future
speakers that they will be speaking to an audience diverse in race,
ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender and class."
The BGLTSA, as a wing of the radical homosexual movement, is looking
to broaden the definition of normality to include deviant behavior.
They're not looking for passive tolerance. They're looking for active
acceptance. Now, ignoring homosexuality is no longer allowable; we
must instead champion it, equating it with heterosexuality. In fact,
homosexuality must be prized over heterosexuality; an open homosexual
may proclaim to his heart's content that "dreams can come true -- you
can find a same-sex partner," but an open heterosexual may not state
that marriage constitutes "having it all."
Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan noted such a broad societal trend toward
normalizing the deviant as early as 1993, when he coined the term
"defining deviancy down." He posited that "the amount of deviant
behavior in American society has increased beyond the levels the
community can 'afford to recognize' and that, accordingly, we have
been re-defining deviancy so as to exempt much conduct previously
stigmatized, and also quietly raising the 'normal' level in categories
where behavior is now abnormal by any earlier standard."
Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer pointed out that alongside
the movement to "define deviancy down," there was a concurrent
movement to "define deviancy up": "As part of the vast social project
of moral leveling, it is not enough for the deviant to be normalized,"
Krauthammer wrote. "The normal must be found to be deviant." One of
the agendas of the "defining deviancy up" movement, Krauthammer noted,
was promoting "an underlying ideology about the inherent aberrancy of
all heterosexual relationships."
The Moynihan-Krauthammer prediction has come to pass. Straight men and
women may no longer consider themselves normal, unless they also
consider homosexuality normal. The rage against "heteronormalism" is
rage against traditional societal standards as a whole. Exclusive
morality has always offended the immoral. The only difference is that
now offensiveness receives a stiffer societal sentence than blatant
immorality. This is what political correctness -- the "live and let
live" societal model -- has wrought.
The rise of the homosexual movement is a textbook example of societal
amorality devolving into societal immorality. The rationale behind
societal amorality is the myopic question: "How does my immoral
behavior hurt you?" The answer is: It may not, in the short term. But
when society sanctions your immoral behavior, that does hurt me. If
millions of people accept the deviant as normal, that reshapes society
in vastly destructive ways. Your moral self-destruction may have no
consequences for me, but destruction of societal standards always has
consequences.
When the stigma left single motherhood, society felt the sting in
rising rates of single motherhood and juvenile crime. When the stigma
left sexual licentiousness, society felt the sting in rising rates of
teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, emotional emptiness and
nihilism. Your immoral personal behavior may not affect me, but
exempting your immoral behavior from societal scrutiny certainly does.
A society without standards is an unhappy, unhealthy society -- a
society with no future. And all of us have to live in that society.
The BGLTSA isn't asking for tolerance on a person-to-person level.
Instead, they're asking us to continue lowering societal standards. If
we must choose between alienating the immoral and ravaging societal
standards for the personal comfort of the immoral, then choosing the
former is the only rational decision.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 04:37:27 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On 21 Apr 2005 00:20:37 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com>
wrote:
w: <<< Laws are intended to do
the most good for the most people.
SSM only does good for everyone.
Prove it.
We will, once it becomes legal in all 50 states. ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jenn" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 10:06:47 AM |
|
|
w: <<<Laws are intended to do
the most good for the most people.
Laws are also passed to prohibit the majority from trampling on the
minority.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 10:06:32 AM |
|
|
"Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114096007.840758.27140@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
w: <<<Laws are intended to do
the most good for the most people.
Laws are also passed to prohibit the majority from trampling on the
minority.
But it does take a majority to pass them now, doesn't it?
--
"In questions of power, then, let no more
be said of confidence in man but bind him
down with the chains of the Constitution."
- Thomas Jefferson
Maverick
http://www.independent.org/
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 11:33:54 AM |
|
|
"Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote in news:YjP9e.5040162$Zm5.781873
@news.easynews.com:
"Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114096007.840758.27140@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
w: <<<Laws are intended to do
the most good for the most people.
Laws are also passed to prohibit the majority from trampling on the
minority.
But it does take a majority to pass them now, doesn't it?
And it takes the courts to overturn them
if they violate the Constitution.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
23 Apr 2005 07:21:34 AM |
|
|
Maverick wrote:
But it does take a majority to pass them now, doesn't it?
Interestingly enough, here in the USA, all it took was a tea party. How
gay is that? ;-)
--
The psychotic person knows that 2 and 2 makes 5 and is perfectly happy about it; the neurotic person knows that 2 and 2 makes 4, but is terribly worried about it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 11:41:45 AM |
|
|
On 21 Apr 2005 08:06:47 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com>
wrote:
w: <<<Laws are intended to do
the most good for the most people.
Laws are also passed to prohibit the majority from trampling on the
minority.
and the minority from usurping the will of the people.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
20 Apr 2005 10:21:32 PM |
|
|
On 20 Apr 2005 14:22:29 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Marksman: <<<You have the same "right" to marry as any other US
citizen. You are not
being discriminated against.
If you were only allowed to marry those you couldn't love, would you
consider that just?
Dutch Disaster: How Holland Destroyed Marriage
Mark Earley
As America moves closer to embracing same-sex "marriage," one can
almost picture people in the wedding industry rubbing their hands in
delight. After all, if we legalize gay "marriage," we'll have
more weddings than ever, right?
Wrong. We will end up having fewer marriages, not more. Just ask the
citizens of Holland, where marriage is going the way of typewriters
and
buggy whips.
In the Weekly Standard, Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at the Hoover
Institution, points out that in recent decades-a time when parental
cohabitation was sweeping across Northern Europe-the Dutch clung to
the last, ragged remains of their religious traditions. Yes, they
engaged in cohabitation-but when Dutch couples had children, they
usually got married.
Not anymore. During the mid-1990s, the rate of out-of-wedlock births
began to shoot up. By 2003, the rate of increase nearly doubled to 31
percent of all Dutch births.
What accounts for this phenomenon? Gay "marriage." These were the
years, Kurtz notes, "when the debate over the legal recognition of
gay relationships came to the fore in the Netherlands." The debate
came to an end when Holland legalized full same-sex "marriage" in
the year 2000.
The conjunction of these two social phenomena, says Kurtz, is no
coincidence. During Holland's decade-long drive to legalize same-sex
"marriage," gay advocates openly scorned the idea that marriage
ought to be defined by the possibility of childbearing. Love between
two partners-any two partners-was the real basis of marriage. Thus,
as one gay "marriage" advocate told the Dutch Parliament, "there
is absolutely no reason, objectively, to distinguish between
heterosexual and homosexual love." Dutch leaders bought this
argument. Marriage would be reduced to-as Kurtz put it-"just one
choice on a menu of relationship options." In marriage, as with
cheeseburgers, you could have it your way.
Then a funny thing happened on the road to redefining marriage: Dutch
people simply stopped getting married-even when they had children.
This really ought to come as no surprise. After all, Kurtz writes,
"Spend a decade telling people that marriage is not about parenthood,
and they just might begin to believe you. Make relationship equality a
rallying cry, and people might decide that all forms of relationships
are equal."
The ease with which the Dutch jettisoned marriage happened in large
part because the Dutch had already abandoned their Judeo-Christian
heritage. The few religious voices raised in defense of traditional
marriage were drowned out. And as a result Holland is now going the
way
of Scandinavia-where acceptance of gay "marriage" has led to the
continued deterioration of marriage.
What's happening in the Netherlands gives us clear evidence of what
gay "marriage" does: People stop getting married, and children
suffer. Let this serve as a warning to Americans. Marriage between one
man and one woman must be protected and strengthened. If it isn't,
then American families-already deeply damaged by divorce and
illegitimacy-will be destroyed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenn" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 02:18:43 AM |
|
|
<<>Marksman: <<<You have the same "right" to marry as any other US
citizen. You are not
being discriminated against.
Jenn:>>>If you were only allowed to marry those you couldn't love,
would you
consider that just?
w quotes: <<<Dutch Disaster: How Holland Destroyed Marriage
I see that you avoid tough questions as well.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 12:08:22 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On 20 Apr 2005 14:22:29 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Marksman: <<<You have the same "right" to marry as any other US
citizen. You are not
being discriminated against.
If you were only allowed to marry those you couldn't love, would you
consider that just?
Dutch Disaster: How Holland Destroyed Marriage
<Snip story with slew of logical fallacies including, but not limited to
Post Hoc, Joint Effect, and Wrong Direction>
In fact, according to the Dutch Central Bureau for Statistics, the
"out-of-wedlock births" rose significantly *BEFORE* any court ruled on
the validity of homosexual marriage, or even same-sex unions.
From 1975 to 1989 when the first court case started, it rose from ~2%
to ~11%...a 550% increase (if I have my math correct)!
This article is summarily rejected due to the slew of logical fallacies
within it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
20 Apr 2005 03:50:14 PM |
|
|
"Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114029684.721931.46240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Peacenik: <<<Frank and Mary are in love. They can marry each other.
Right of marriage
granted.
Bruce and Gary are in love. They can't marry each other. Right of
marriage
denied. >>>
The implications of this and the party line from those who cry that
same-sex marriage is immoral or that we must "protect and save
marriage" are far reaching. Let's take the case of two couples:
Mark and Daisy live together for a year and have a child. During that
time, both of them are cheating on each other, and lying to the other
about it. Both of them have cheated on their taxes for years. Mark
did a year in state prison for selling drugs to kids. He convinces
Daisy to prostitute herself because he needs money for his own drug
habbit. Daisy was once arrested for child abuse on her child. As the
child gets a bit older, Mark starts preaching to the kid about his
skinhead beliefs, and tells the child about how he gave moral support
to Tim McVeigh when McVeigh was first talking about blowing up a
federal building. Mark teaches the child to hate all Jews and people
of color. Daisy gets pregnant again and again, and she has 4
abortions. Daisy, in her activities as a prostitute, contracts a VD
and knowingly passes it along to Mark without telling him. Finally,
for tax purposes, Mark and Daisy decide to get married. They are
welcomed at the Justice of the Peace with open arms.
Deb and Tricia have been a couple for 8 years. They pay their taxes
honestly and donate considerable money to charity. They give of their
time at their church's homeless shelter and at a center for abused kids
that they founded. They work hard and are regularly promoted at their
jobs. They often babysit the neighborhood children, as the parents
know that they can be trused. Tricia starts a literacy class for
adults who are trying to better themselves, for which she charges
nothing. Deb and Tricia decide to register for domestic partner status
in California. On their way into City Hall, they are handed a tract
from a protester, which tells them that they are immoral and not worthy
of marriage.
So much for "protecting marriage."
The typical American family, right?
--
"In questions of power, then, let no more
be said of confidence in man but bind him
down with the chains of the Constitution."
- Thomas Jefferson
Maverick
http://www.independent.org/
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenn" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
20 Apr 2005 04:03:36 PM |
|
|
Maverick: <<<The typical American family, right?
For the illustration, no, not Mark and Daisy. Deb and Tricia are far
more typical for lesbian couples. But the point is made and is true.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
20 Apr 2005 03:45:33 PM |
|
|
On 20 Apr 2005 13:41:24 -0700, "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com>
wrote:
So much for "protecting marriage."
It's amusing how many of these protectors of marriage are serial
divorcers and adulterers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenn" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
20 Apr 2005 04:01:32 PM |
|
|
<<<It's amusing how many of these protectors of marriage are serial
divorcers and adulterers. >>>
Indeed:
Jim Bakker - adultery
Jimmy Swaggart - adultery
Bob Dole - adultery
Coulter - "Let's say I go out every night, I meet a guy have sex
with him. Good for me. I'm not married." Rivera Live
Helen Chenoweth (R - Idaho) - serial adultery
Sue Myrick (R- N.C.) - adultery
Henry Hyde - adultery
Bob Barr - adultery
Dan Burton - adultery
Bob Livingstone - adultery
Bob Packwood - sexual harassment
Steve Symms - (R- Idaho) - serial adultery
Newt Gingrich - adultery
Beverly Russell - (S. Carolina) - child molestation
Jim Bunn - (R - Oregon) - adultery
Jim Nussle - (R - Iowa) - adultery
Jim Longley - (R - Maine) - adultery
Enid Green - (R- Utah) - adultery
Joe Scarborough - (R- Florida) - adultery
Meredith Christensen ( Nebraska) - adultery
John McLaughlin - sexual harassment
George Will - adultery
Tim Hutchinson (R - Arkansas) - adultery
Sun Myung Moon - violence, adultery
Rudy Giuliani -adultery
George Roche III - adultery with his son's wife
Earl Kimmerling - child molestation
Mike Trout - adultery
Mike Bowers - adultery
Richard Delgaudio - ( he brought us Paula Jones) - child pornography
Ken Calvert - arrested for engaging with a prostitute
Matt Glavin - homosexual indecent exposure
Deal Hudson - sexual harassment of a female student
Edward L. Schrock (R-Va.) - married but solicited sex from male
homosexual
Al Regnery - left DOJ after porn discovered on his PC
Philip Giordano - sexual child abuse
Randal David Ankeney - attempted sexual assault on a child
Robert Bauman - homosexual sex with a minor
John Hathaway - sex with a minor
Stephen White - soliciting a 14 year old boy
Jon Matthews - indecency with a child
Earl "Butch" Kimmerling - child molestation
Paul Ingram - incest
Andrew Buhr - sodomy with a 12 year old
Keith Westmoreland - indecency with minors
John Allen Burt - molesting a minor
Parker J. Bena - child pornography
Larry Jack Schwarz - child pornography
Robin Vanderwall - soliciting sex with minors of both sexes
Marty Glickman - unlawful sexual activity with a minor
Dan Crane - sex with a minor (a Congressional page)
Donald "Buz" Lukens - sex with a minor
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
20 Apr 2005 04:07:57 PM |
|
|
"Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114030892.455207.200380@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
<<<It's amusing how many of these protectors of marriage are serial
divorcers and adulterers. >>>
Indeed:
Jim Bakker - adultery
Jimmy Swaggart - adultery
Bob Dole - adultery
Coulter - "Let's say I go out every night, I meet a guy have sex
with him. Good for me. I'm not married." Rivera Live
Helen Chenoweth (R - Idaho) - serial adultery
Sue Myrick (R- N.C.) - adultery
Henry Hyde - adultery
Bob Barr - adultery
Dan Burton - adultery
Bob Livingstone - adultery
Bob Packwood - sexual harassment
Steve Symms - (R- Idaho) - serial adultery
Newt Gingrich - adultery
Beverly Russell - (S. Carolina) - child molestation
Jim Bunn - (R - Oregon) - adultery
Jim Nussle - (R - Iowa) - adultery
Jim Longley - (R - Maine) - adultery
Enid Green - (R- Utah) - adultery
Joe Scarborough - (R- Florida) - adultery
Meredith Christensen ( Nebraska) - adultery
John McLaughlin - sexual harassment
George Will - adultery
Tim Hutchinson (R - Arkansas) - adultery
Sun Myung Moon - violence, adultery
Rudy Giuliani -adultery
George Roche III - adultery with his son's wife
Earl Kimmerling - child molestation
Mike Trout - adultery
Mike Bowers - adultery
Richard Delgaudio - ( he brought us Paula Jones) - child pornography
Ken Calvert - arrested for engaging with a prostitute
Matt Glavin - homosexual indecent exposure
Deal Hudson - sexual harassment of a female student
Edward L. Schrock (R-Va.) - married but solicited sex from male
homosexual
Al Regnery - left DOJ after porn discovered on his PC
Philip Giordano - sexual child abuse
Randal David Ankeney - attempted sexual assault on a child
Robert Bauman - homosexual sex with a minor
John Hathaway - sex with a minor
Stephen White - soliciting a 14 year old boy
Jon Matthews - indecency with a child
Earl "Butch" Kimmerling - child molestation
Paul Ingram - incest
Andrew Buhr - sodomy with a 12 year old
Keith Westmoreland - indecency with minors
John Allen Burt - molesting a minor
Parker J. Bena - child pornography
Larry Jack Schwarz - child pornography
Robin Vanderwall - soliciting sex with minors of both sexes
Marty Glickman - unlawful sexual activity with a minor
Dan Crane - sex with a minor (a Congressional page)
Donald "Buz" Lukens - sex with a minor
What purpose does it serve, to show this? Surely you understand there are at
least 300 million other people out there. Are we to take your publication
here to mean that we are all one form or other of a bad family prospect?
You're smarter than to try to make a point this way.
--
"In questions of power, then, let no more
be said of confidence in man but bind him
down with the chains of the Constitution."
- Thomas Jefferson
Maverick
http://www.independent.org/
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenn" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
20 Apr 2005 04:15:14 PM |
|
|
Maverick: <<<What purpose does it serve, to show this?
To show that those to claim to want to "protect the santity of
marriage" are doing nothing of the sort.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
20 Apr 2005 04:17:45 PM |
|
|
"Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114031714.890574.298480@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Maverick: <<<What purpose does it serve, to show this?
To show that those to claim to want to "protect the santity of
marriage" are doing nothing of the sort.
So you show .00001 percent and use that as a reason?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenn" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
20 Apr 2005 04:21:19 PM |
|
|
Marksman: <<<So you show .00001 percent and use that as a reason?
Whatever the percentage is, it's not just.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
20 Apr 2005 04:23:58 PM |
|
|
"Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114032079.614156.191430@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Marksman: <<<So you show .00001 percent and use that as a reason?
Whatever the percentage is, it's not just.
Without proof, it is just that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenn" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
20 Apr 2005 04:30:33 PM |
|
|
Jenn: <<> Whatever the percentage is, it's not just.
Marksman: <<<Without proof, it is just that.
Without proof of what? Are you saying that the examples don't exist?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
20 Apr 2005 04:34:09 PM |
|
|
"Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Without proof of what? Are you saying that the examples don't exist?
I am saying you "showed" .000001 percent and you cannot use that as a rule
for the rest.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenn" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
20 Apr 2005 04:37:56 PM |
|
|
Marksman: <<<I am saying you "showed" .000001 percent and you cannot
use that as a rule
for the rest.
If the law allowed the beating of guys named Marksman, of which there
is only ONE in the country, should the law not be changed?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
20 Apr 2005 04:40:28 PM |
|
|
"Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114033076.912930.69410@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Marksman: <<<I am saying you "showed" .000001 percent and you cannot
use that as a rule
for the rest.
If the law allowed the beating of guys named Marksman, of which there
is only ONE in the country, should the law not be changed?
Strawman.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenn" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
20 Apr 2005 04:48:10 PM |
|
|
Jenn: <<> If the law allowed the beating of guys named Marksman, of
which there
is only ONE in the country, should the law not be changed?
Marksman: <<Strawman.
No, a rhetorical question. Why don't you answer it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
20 Apr 2005 04:49:22 PM |
|
|
"Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114033690.320628.66160@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Jenn: <<> If the law allowed the beating of guys named Marksman, of
which there
is only ONE in the country, should the law not be changed?
Marksman: <<Strawman.
No, a rhetorical question. Why don't you answer it?
Because it is a strawman.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenn" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
20 Apr 2005 08:43:58 PM |
|
|
Marksman: >>Because it is a strawman
You have no answer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
20 Apr 2005 09:15:18 PM |
|
|
"Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114047838.656461.286450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Marksman: >>Because it is a strawman
You have no answer.
To your strawman? LOL!
Here let me educate you:
The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to
refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but
instead attacks a position-the "straw man"-not held by his opponent. In a
Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw
man" he has set up, but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong with
the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of context, that
is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the straw man. It is only
because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponent's
position that a Straw Man fallacy is committed. So, the fallacy is not
simply the argument, but the entire situation of the argument occurring in
such a context
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenn" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 02:16:48 AM |
|
|
Marksman: <<<Here let me educate you:
The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting
to
refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do
so....>>>
So, in order to not "attack a position not held by my opponet", I need
to know your position: If you were only allowed to marry those you
could not love, would you consider that just?
You see, I believe that you are afraid to show that you have no
empathy; one of the most human of qualities. So, rather than answer a
simple question, the answer to which would probably show your lack of
empathy, you duck the question by dragging out some debate rules. I
find this strange since I've not yet seen you DEBATE with anyone. You
instead attack ad hominem and avoid answering any questions. You won't
answer my question because you lack the human ability to put yourself
in someone else's shoes.
Additionally, it's not a "strawman" because my question is not setting
up any kind of false situation; it's EXACTLY the situation that gay
people are in.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
