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

[Guest guest]

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