Re: OT pointless debate about second-class citizen/ re: Disurbing article

[Guest guest]

It seems to me that the argument wasn't so much over the 'meaning of a

completely vague and for-extremely-subjective-rhetoric-only term like

" second-class " , but really whether the law forbidding homosexuals to marry

is equally applied to homosexuals and heterosexuals. At least, that is the

argument that I have been engaging in.

You are helping though - I do appreciate the intellectually superior

attitude...and yes, I did have plenty of set theory and formal logic.

>

> From: " Anton " <michaelantonparker@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:39:43 -0000

>

> Subject: OT pointless debate about " second-class citizen " / re: Disurbing

> article

>

>

> Why are you guys wasting your time debating the meaning of a

> completely vague and for-extremely-subjective-rhetoric-only term

> like " second-class " ??? Nobody will win the debate. This

> whole " framing the issue " nonsense is just playing games with grade

> school set theory using English instead of mathematical notation.

> All the members of the union of sets A and B that are not in set B

> are in the complement of the complement of A... Like, who cares?

>

> There is clever rhetoric and irrelevant analogy for every corrupt

> cause you can think of.

>

> At least 's carrot/sheep thing was good reading; this other stuff

> is grain-fed tripe.

>

> Mike

> SE Pennsylvania

>

>

>> In a message dated 2/15/04 3:25:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,

>> implode7@p... writes:

>>

>>> In one case, we have a heterosexual who can marry, and in the

> other case a

>>> homosexual who cannot marry in the sense that marriage is the

> same action

>>> for both - i.e. with someone that they want to marry. The core

> difference is

>>> one of orientation, not action - the desired action is not

> permitted in one

>>> case. in the voting example, similarly, the core difference is

> not one of

>>> action, but the desired activity is, of course, action.

>>

>> Look, I'm not defending the law as it stands by any means. But

> there is a

>> fundamental difference between a law that is applied differently to

> two groups,

>> and a law that is applied equally to two groups. I think

> made the

>> point better than I'm making it, so I might as well just observe

> the two of you

>> debate it.

>>

>> As with Social Security, does a person's preference make them a

> second-class

>> when it is contrary to the established law? I don't think it does,

> but if you

>> do, we're using different definitions of the term.

>>

>> Chris

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@@@

> It seems to me that the argument wasn't so much over the 'meaning

of a

> completely vague and for-extremely-subjective-rhetoric-only term

like

> " second-class " , but really whether the law forbidding homosexuals

to marry

> is equally applied to homosexuals and heterosexuals. At least, that

is the

> argument that I have been engaging in.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Hey Gene,

In between the yawning and cringing, I noticed you won that argument

pretty early on. Congrats!

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

Anton wrote:

> @@@@@@@@@@@@

>

>> It seems to me that the argument wasn't so much over the 'meaning of

>> a completely vague and for-extremely-subjective-rhetoric-only term

>> like " second-class " , but really whether the law forbidding

>> homosexuals to marry is equally applied to homosexuals and

>> heterosexuals. At least, that is the argument that I have been

>> engaging in.

> @@@@@@@@@@@@@

>

> In between the yawning and cringing, I noticed you won that argument

> pretty early on. Congrats!

On what basi's? The fact that you agree with him?