4 ms·

There was no conjugal definition in law until anti-SSM people put one there. All over the world for millennia. In 372, the first Christian emperors of Rome ba

by BobNNN 11y ago

There was no conjugal definition in law until anti-SSM people put one there. All over the world for millennia. In 372, the first Christian emperors of Rome banned SSM and tens of thousands of people across the Empire were led to their deaths as a result. That's also pretty "normative" since the rise of Christianity and its domination of govt. Why would anyone ban something that didn't even exist in the imagination, as you would probably claim. You rely on a cheap and stupid recollection of the 60s and 70s to claim that gay people didn't want marriage. If they didn't, then explain Baker v. Nelson, 1970. Explain the marriage certificate issued in CO in 1972. Explain the fight for Domestic Partnership, which began in CA in 1979. Explain the marriages conducted, with no legal effect of course, by MCC since the 60s. Sure, quite a few gay people in the 60s and 70s eschewed patriarchal marriage, in which men owned wives and spousal rape was entirely legal. A lot of heterosexuals did too. I would hope you also oppose certain aspects of the legal tradition of marriage in this country. Even if you don't, I would guess your wife does. And stop pointing me to hackneyed arguments that ignore the humanity of gay people. It is not "civil" to deny equal rights. And, given your apparent dislike of anonymity, why are you directing people to an anonymous website?

BrendanEich 11y ago
I'll be brief: marriage defined conjugally by common and higher law is not for all (pairs of) humans, and never has been. So no one individual is per-se dehumanized by not being able to marry. What's more, as dissenting SCOTUS opinion makes clear, revising marriage without any essentialist basis for defining it means that polygamy should be legal too. Dispute or dodge that, and you are the hater: http://adam4d.com/whos-the-bigot/ http://adam4d.com/whos-the-bigot/ Finally, ad hominem arguments are fallacious on their face, and tiresome. I'm calling out your anonymity to level the playing field between you and me, not among us and http://discussingmarriage.org http://discussingmarriage.org folks, because you keep trying to smear me as "anti-gay" (or now pro spousal rape, or whatever). Argue the facts, not the person.
BobNNN 11y ago
"Finally, ad hominem arguments are fallacious on their face, and tiresome." And where do you see one in my comment? You're just flailing. You spend too much time on the intertubes and think what you're doing is discussing. Later. Well, never actually.
- BrendanEich 11y ago
  Calling me anti-gay based on a circular argument is an ad-hominem. It makes me the issue. I think that's clear. BTW it's not cool to downvote your counterparty here. Let others do that.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    People can't downvote replies to their posts. There's a minimum karma threshold for downvoting - about 500 or 750. A green account is unlikely to have that much karma.
    - BrendanEich 11y ago
      Thanks.
  - DonHopkins 11y ago
    Don't accuse people of doing things that are impossible for them to do. It weakens your statements that "Finally, ad hominem arguments are fallacious on their face, and tiresome" and "Calling me anti-gay based on a circular argument is an ad-hominem." You're being downvoted by people other than the one you're accusing, simply because of the weakness of your arguments, and your historic and ongoing failure to justify your actions. But you could turn over a new leaf now, and finally explain yourself: Which of Scalia's arguments do you agree with? And do you have any better arguments that he forgot? You're not the victim here, Brendan. Don't make yourself the issue, if you're not the issue.
    - BrendanEich 11y ago
      You have definitely chosen to make me the issue, Don. The personal animus you sent my way over the years on Facebook got your fake account banned, and it does you no credit. I'm not going to post that message log for detraction's sake, but people need to know that there is a log. You can't pretend to be civil here as if we are starting from a clean slate, and play _tu quoque_ games. Anyway, you interrupted BobNNN, who was making me the issue with a personal attack (that I'm anti-gay) based on a circular argument. I'm definitely the focal point of lots of anger, I get it. The 7M who voted for Prop 8 have me as single-combat avatar now. None of them have to pipe up; I'm "it". But really, any fool can find and read the arguments for Prop 8. I've made some here and cited links. Don't fixate on Scalia, his intemperate dissent is neither relevant to Prop 8 in its context, nor the best dissent to read (try Roberts). Given your pathological hate-messaging at me over the years, I'm not going to throw more words your way. You're a smart guy, read all the content here, follow the links. Don't make me or you the issue, look to the substance, not the person.

by BobNNN 11y ago

BrendanEich 11y ago

I'll be brief: marriage defined conjugally by common and higher law is not for all (pairs of) humans, and never has been. So no one individual is per-se dehumanized by not being able to marry. What's more, as dissenting SCOTUS opinion makes clear, revising marriage without any essentialist basis for defining it means that polygamy should be legal too. Dispute or dodge that, and you are the hater: http://adam4d.com/whos-the-bigot/ http://adam4d.com/whos-the-bigot/ Finally, ad hominem arguments are fallacious on their face, and tiresome. I'm calling out your anonymity to level the playing field between you and me, not among us and http://discussingmarriage.org http://discussingmarriage.org folks, because you keep trying to smear me as "anti-gay" (or now pro spousal rape, or whatever). Argue the facts, not the person.

BobNNN 11y ago

"Finally, ad hominem arguments are fallacious on their face, and tiresome." And where do you see one in my comment? You're just flailing. You spend too much time on the intertubes and think what you're doing is discussing. Later. Well, never actually.

BrendanEich 11y ago
Calling me anti-gay based on a circular argument is an ad-hominem. It makes me the issue. I think that's clear. BTW it's not cool to downvote your counterparty here. Let others do that.
- DanBC 11y ago
  People can't downvote replies to their posts. There's a minimum karma threshold for downvoting - about 500 or 750. A green account is unlikely to have that much karma.
  - BrendanEich 11y ago
    Thanks.
- DonHopkins 11y ago
  Don't accuse people of doing things that are impossible for them to do. It weakens your statements that "Finally, ad hominem arguments are fallacious on their face, and tiresome" and "Calling me anti-gay based on a circular argument is an ad-hominem." You're being downvoted by people other than the one you're accusing, simply because of the weakness of your arguments, and your historic and ongoing failure to justify your actions. But you could turn over a new leaf now, and finally explain yourself: Which of Scalia's arguments do you agree with? And do you have any better arguments that he forgot? You're not the victim here, Brendan. Don't make yourself the issue, if you're not the issue.
  - BrendanEich 11y ago
    You have definitely chosen to make me the issue, Don. The personal animus you sent my way over the years on Facebook got your fake account banned, and it does you no credit. I'm not going to post that message log for detraction's sake, but people need to know that there is a log. You can't pretend to be civil here as if we are starting from a clean slate, and play _tu quoque_ games. Anyway, you interrupted BobNNN, who was making me the issue with a personal attack (that I'm anti-gay) based on a circular argument. I'm definitely the focal point of lots of anger, I get it. The 7M who voted for Prop 8 have me as single-combat avatar now. None of them have to pipe up; I'm "it". But really, any fool can find and read the arguments for Prop 8. I've made some here and cited links. Don't fixate on Scalia, his intemperate dissent is neither relevant to Prop 8 in its context, nor the best dissent to read (try Roberts). Given your pathological hate-messaging at me over the years, I'm not going to throw more words your way. You're a smart guy, read all the content here, follow the links. Don't make me or you the issue, look to the substance, not the person.