Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:26:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1702 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Thomas Stangl wrote:
| |
You’ve never said it in those exact words,
|
Thank you.
|
Shame on you for following Dubya’s lead. It is a mistake to pretend, because
you have not made a statement using a specific phrase, that you therefore have
not made an equivalent statement using other words. Dubya does this all the
time: “If we’d had specific information about an attack on New York in
September, we’d have acted.” No kidding. This is the exact kind of lawyer-ish
equivocation that is most offensive about Dubya’s childish refusal to accept
responsibility.
Whether or not your real-world views support this, your rhetoric in this forum
has clearly indicated an intolerance for views that oppose your own. Based on
an assessment of your arguments, it is not unreasonable to conclude that, given
the choice, you would remove those views from public discussion.
Consider your refusal to allow that the marriage amendment may be a gay
issue. Whether or not you consider it to be so is irrelevant; others, who have
a far greater stake in the outcome than you or I, do identify it as a gay
issue. Your utter rejection of that viewpoint is equivalent to removing the
viewpoint from discussion, which is the kind of thing Tom was talking about.
| |
| |
and you have several times tried to
profess that you’re an open-minded person,
|
I believe I am.
|
With respect, I must contest that you display in this forum an unwillingness to
imagine that viewpoints other than yours may be correct, especially if those
viewpoints conflict with your aesthetic preferences. Additionally, you seem to
be unable to accept the validity of beliefs that conflict with your own, to the
point that you would prevent those beliefs from being considered. A more
open-minded person would accept that different people have different viewpoints,
and opposing viewpoints need not be condemned merely because they are held only
by a tiny majority.
And for purposes of this example we can exclude such “yeah-buts” as people who
wish to steal from or physically harm others, since that is an issue separate
from discussions of viewpoint.
| |
| |
I’d really, just once, like to hear a straight answer from you on what you
have been dodging repeatedly in this thread - why, exactly, will same-sex
marriage destroy the institution of marriage?
|
I have repeatedly stated that this is not a gay issue, but one of
redefining the institution of marriage.
|
You have repeatedly said it, and we all understand that this is your view.
However, you are apparently unable to accept that others see the issue
differently. Can you at least acknowledge that some of us identify this as
an issue of discrimination against gays? Even if you don’t agree, can you
accept the existence of that assessment?
Conversely, I disagree with your formulation of the isssue, but I accept that it
is your formulation. In contrast, you seem unwilling even to entertain the
possibility of other interpretations, and this unwillingness is inconsistent
with an open mind.
| |
| |
Are you going to say that your marriage will fall apart
if *gasp* 2 men or 2 women get married in some other state? Sheer idiocy!
|
Won’t affect my marriage at all. I believe it will screw up young minds who
will go on to marry some day.
|
Exactly! You believe that this is the case, and now we’re getting
somewhere. Present your arguments in support of this belief, rather than simply
declaring that it is so, and then we can discuss it.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
