Thread: What motivates people to vote other people's rights away

Quote: Originally Posted by Blake If that is the closest you can come to civility then I have no interest in discussing this with you. You are making silly, illogical arguments. Can I have a list of words you'll find acceptable to describe such arguments? Or not, either way.

Quote: Originally Posted by Blake Why are they required to recognize or comply with the terms of ya power of attroney? Because it's part of the conditions of their employment. Simple as that. There's no difference. But you only added "power of attorney" into the mix after I pointed out the flaws in your original position, which was: Quote: Originally Posted by you If it were up to me there would be no state...

Quote: Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers Maybe, in the most generalized possible sense. It's like saying an asteroid that destroyed the Earth would resolve the obesity problem. It's true , but something more specific is typically sought. Here was the line that started this: Quote: Originally Posted by raindog For those who are against SSM (and ftr, I have never taken that position) there are reasons----for many to be sure----that...

Quote: Originally Posted by Der Trihs Nonsense. In both cases, people are forbidden to marry the person they want solely because...well, you know the reason even if I can't use the word. They are exactly the same. I KNOW you understand what I am saying. Take, as an example, someone that wanted to marry a child or a tree. The ACT is illegal and we are all affected equally by the law. These people are not being discriminated against even...

Quote: Originally Posted by Miller Okay, let me get this straight: Referring to people who pass laws narrowly tailored to negatively effect only homosexuals as homophobes is an unacceptable insult. Comparing people who support SSM to Al Qaeda is perfectly okay. Does that about sum it up? It sure does! Never mind that this is a juvenile, simplistic, and distorted summary of my posts in this thread. It just reads so well!

Quote: Originally Posted by whorfin We are indeed in crazy hypo land, and adding assumptions by the minute. But that's fine from a logical point of view--I would, however, question whether it makes the argument less and less compelling (since it narrows more and more the possible situations in which it could actually apply--and since we're already beyond the point at which its assumptions effectively rule out it applying to any...

Quote: Originally Posted by raindog I never claimed to be pro or anti SSM, right? You are clearly anti-SSM, whether you choose to admit it or not.

Quote: Originally Posted by Blake No, it makes sense even if only 1% of homosexuals marry. Well that is your opinion of course, but the point is that the argument is rational. Whether you find it convincing or whether you think it has flaws, it remains rational, which was the question asked. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were posing. It sounded to me like you were suggesting that people may be worried about SSM because in the future they...

100 percent of marriages end in either divorce or death. 100 percent. Kind of sobering, huh?

Quote: Originally Posted by raindog It sure does! Never mind that this is a juvenile, simplistic, and distorted summary of my posts in this thread. It just reads so well! <Updates list of acceptable insults when debating SSM proponents.>