On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:29:15 GMT, DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 01:00:50 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
><dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>>> But the same could be said of those who would want the right to marry their
>>> dog or their tree (admitedly ridiculous examples, but they illustrate
>>
>>...your ability to come up with ridiculous examples not at all germane to
>>the topic.
>
>They are no more ridiculous than *** ------- another man.

Are you posting from the jeep newsgroup? :-)

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:29:15 GMT, DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 01:00:50 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
><dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>>> But the same could be said of those who would want the right to marry their
>>> dog or their tree (admitedly ridiculous examples, but they illustrate
>>
>>...your ability to come up with ridiculous examples not at all germane to
>>the topic.
>
>They are no more ridiculous than *** ------- another man.

Are you posting from the jeep newsgroup? :-)

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:29:15 GMT, DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 01:00:50 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
><dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>>> But the same could be said of those who would want the right to marry their
>>> dog or their tree (admitedly ridiculous examples, but they illustrate
>>
>>...your ability to come up with ridiculous examples not at all germane to
>>the topic.
>
>They are no more ridiculous than *** ------- another man.

Are you posting from the jeep newsgroup? :-)

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:

> > > I know the definition of a slippery slope argument
> >
> > I doubt it. If you did, you'd recognise such arguments on sight.
>
> In order to show that a conclusion is unacceptable, a sequence of
> increasingly unacceptable events is shown to follow from the
> conclusion.

Very good.

And that is exactly what is embodied by: "Gay marriage?! Sure, and what's
next? Marriages with three people? Adults marrying kids? People marrying
their dogs? People marrying the tree in their back yard? People marrying
their torque wrench! Layers of the onion, the leftist liberal crowd always
claims they'll stop with this one, but they keep peeling the layers away,
dont' tell me it's not happening".

DS

 

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:

> > > I know the definition of a slippery slope argument
> >
> > I doubt it. If you did, you'd recognise such arguments on sight.
>
> In order to show that a conclusion is unacceptable, a sequence of
> increasingly unacceptable events is shown to follow from the
> conclusion.

Very good.

And that is exactly what is embodied by: "Gay marriage?! Sure, and what's
next? Marriages with three people? Adults marrying kids? People marrying
their dogs? People marrying the tree in their back yard? People marrying
their torque wrench! Layers of the onion, the leftist liberal crowd always
claims they'll stop with this one, but they keep peeling the layers away,
dont' tell me it's not happening".

DS

 

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:

> > > I know the definition of a slippery slope argument
> >
> > I doubt it. If you did, you'd recognise such arguments on sight.
>
> In order to show that a conclusion is unacceptable, a sequence of
> increasingly unacceptable events is shown to follow from the
> conclusion.

Very good.

And that is exactly what is embodied by: "Gay marriage?! Sure, and what's
next? Marriages with three people? Adults marrying kids? People marrying
their dogs? People marrying the tree in their back yard? People marrying
their torque wrench! Layers of the onion, the leftist liberal crowd always
claims they'll stop with this one, but they keep peeling the layers away,
dont' tell me it's not happening".

DS

 

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:

> Don't suppose you can tell us where we can verify the claim of "most folks
> with credentials?"

American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association,
American Medical Association, government of Ontario, government of Canada,
government of Germany, government of Holland...and there are many, many
more.

> >> The defining difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the
> >> type of activity they each engage in

> > Repetition does not bolster this statement's validity.
>
> It's validity doesn't need to be bolstered.

Well, if you hope to use it to support your argument, you're going to have
to back it up *somehow*, and simply repeating it doesn't get the job done.

DS

 

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:

> Don't suppose you can tell us where we can verify the claim of "most folks
> with credentials?"

American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association,
American Medical Association, government of Ontario, government of Canada,
government of Germany, government of Holland...and there are many, many
more.

> >> The defining difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the
> >> type of activity they each engage in

> > Repetition does not bolster this statement's validity.
>
> It's validity doesn't need to be bolstered.

Well, if you hope to use it to support your argument, you're going to have
to back it up *somehow*, and simply repeating it doesn't get the job done.

DS

 

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Greg wrote:

> Don't suppose you can tell us where we can verify the claim of "most folks
> with credentials?"

American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association,
American Medical Association, government of Ontario, government of Canada,
government of Germany, government of Holland...and there are many, many
more.

> >> The defining difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the
> >> type of activity they each engage in

> > Repetition does not bolster this statement's validity.
>
> It's validity doesn't need to be bolstered.

Well, if you hope to use it to support your argument, you're going to have
to back it up *somehow*, and simply repeating it doesn't get the job done.

DS

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?

Apparently not, see Harvey Milk Public High School, City of New York. It is a
separate public high school for gay students only. Interesting that the gay
lobby only feels like latching on to the civil rights crusade to receive equal
treatment when it is most convenient.

First we hear that gay people need to be married, because they need to be
treated like anyone else, than we hear that they need separate schools, unlike
anyone else.

And just try not hiring any job applicant with that school on his/her resumé and
try to claim that you aren't discriminating on sexuality.