Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 25th Oct 2008 19:26 UTC, submitted by SK8T
In the News In a rather unusual move, both Google and Apple have publicly backed the fight against "Proposition 8", both by words as well as by donation. Proposition 8 is an initiative measure in the state of California that would ban same-sex marriages in California by amending the Constitution of the state to include that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". Both companies gave out their reasoning for supporting the fight against 'Prop 8'.
Permalink for comment 335106
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Applause
by null_pointer_us on Sun 26th Oct 2008 19:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Applause"
null_pointer_us
Member since:
2005-08-19

"What about daughters who have sex with their mothers? Shouldn't they be equal? What about siblings who sleep together? A man who is in love with a minor? The idea that *any* two people in love means the relationship should be treated as a good thing is just completely ridiculous.


Wow, that is one odious tin of red herrings you've opened up, with a nice dash of the slippery-slope fallacy to garnish.
"

(See the responses for all the other times people pretended that I equated homosexuality with other types of sexual perversions.)

"Why give homosexuality special treatment, compared to incest, polygamy, bestiality, and other sexual perversions? What's the difference between them, if you take your personal beliefs entirely out of the equation?


Ah, a page from the Rick Santorum playbook.

So you equate homosexuality with bestiality? I'm guessing you don't extend that to the figurative abuse of red herrings?
"

Why are you pretending that I equated homosexuality with bestiality? They're only alike (not equivalent) -- in the same way that two people can have male DNA without being the same person -- in that they are both sexual perversions by definition. That's what sexual perversion means. Look the words up, and at least try to understand what I'm saying, if you intend to respond to me.

"But you are wrong about marriage being the unconditional amalgam of whatever any two people in love want it to be.


Glad to hear you've made it official. Guess you had better contact and share your discovery with all of those ignorant lexicographers who seem to think that marriage also means "an intimate or close union," or "a blending or matching of different elements or components."
"

*sigh*

Well, you can pretend my words mean whatever you want them to mean, if that helps you make fun of me. The reality is that dictionary entries using literary constructs such as imagery (for example usage, "a marriage of bricks and mortar") are irrelevant. What's being discussed is whether it's right or wrong to equate homosexual "marriage" with marriage. I don't see you attempting to write any rational responses to what I've written. You seem content to just jump around and pick fights with me.

Reply Parent Score: 1