[QUOTE=kladner;321239]It is a false equivalence. You might as well ask if I would be OK with, "God made me a serial killer. Who are you to argue?"[/quote]I didn't say they are equivalent. In fact, that was precisely my question. Why are the two situations nonequivalent?

(Note: The opinion piece that Xyzzy posted seems to suggest that some people think they are equivalent.)

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;321255]I didn't say they are equivalent. In fact, that was precisely my question. Why are the two situations nonequivalent?

(Note: The opinion piece that Xyzzy posted seems to suggest that some people think they are equivalent.)[/QUOTE]

The equivalence was implicit in repeating the structure of my statement. I also answered that implication.

chappy,

Ignoring your [i]ad hominems[/i], let me respond to the rest. Oh wait... :razz:

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;321257]chappy,

Ignoring your [I]ad hominems[/I], let me respond to the rest. Oh wait... :razz:[/QUOTE]

You [I]are[/I] really good at diversion, aren't you? :surprised

[QUOTE=kladner;321256]The equivalence was implicit in repeating the structure of my statement. I also answered that implication.[/QUOTE]

I'm just not getting it then. Let me try one last time.

You made an argument that (1) it is immoral to force things upon people for being who they are, (2) harm is done through attempts to change people, (3) such attempts to change people are repressive, (4) young people trying to come to terms with their sexuality should be left alone.

This argument could be used against about any sort of law. You brought up murder, for one. You probably have an argument in your mind why these four issues are not applicable to murder. I believe I could guess what some of those arguments are.

Similarly, it appears you don't see these four arguments as working for promiscuity. But in that case I [b]do not[/b] know why you see the nonequivalence. Unlike murder, I can't guess why you might see this as different. That was my question. What is your argument that 1-4 apply with respect to homosexuality, but not to other natural sexual desires?

[QUOTE=kladner;321259]You [I]are[/I] really good at diversion, aren't you? :surprised[/QUOTE]

Read his post. Can you honestly tell me it wasn't chock full of [i]ad hominem[/i]. Who is the one diverting the discussion?

Neither of us will persuade the other. Your rules are different than mine.

[QUOTE=kladner;321262]Neither of us will persuade the other.[/quote]That is where you are wrong. ;-) Oh, you are right that I will never persuade you. But, believe it or not, I've been persuaded many times to change my opinion. It is one of the things I enjoy about the internet--learning.

But, beyond that, I wasn't trying to persuade you of anything. I was asking you to clarify why you thought the two situations are not the same. Apparently, you cannot articulate the difference other than you view the difference in the same way you view the difference between gay relations and murder. Fair enough.

[quote]Your rules are different than mine.[/QUOTE]If you are talking about the [i]ad hominem[/i] remark, then yes. I see no point in trying to have a discussion about a serious topic if the other person belittles others without addressing their views. [It is true that chappy addressed some views. I was being a bit hyperbolic in my response. I suppose I could have tried to explain the reasons I understand why Ed Whelan brought up the congressional vote for DOMA. Or why Scalia voted for this or that. But it would have been fruitless if the ad hominems continued.]

[QUOTE=chappy;321241]
Of course I think Scalia will vote to uphold DOMA because he is nothing if not a hypocrite.
[/QUOTE]


The only ad hominem in my post :) ( Hell, I had two in one paragraph in my previous post on this topic. )

And I'll not apologize for it. Imagine being one of the greatest legal minds of the age and trapped by your own prejudices into constantly finding new ways to justify voting against what you claim to be your guiding principles.

State's Rights
Individual Rights
Against judicial activism
Constitutional primacy

except when it is the ACA or DOMA or torture or immigration or medical marijuana or any other hot button issue where he doesn't like the outcome if he votes with the above. See the aforementioned Romer v. Evans and his almost Mel Brooks worthy dissent.

I suppose you could consider "brilliant Ed Whelan" an ad hominem on all other judicial commentators. mea culpa...

oh snap! I just ad hominem'ed a second time!

[QUOTE]But, believe it or not, I've been persuaded many times to change my opinion.[/QUOTE]

Same here, and I don't need the internet to get there. My partner of almost 31 years takes care of that.....sometimes.

Oh, wait. Now I'M guilty of diversion. Tsk. (Except that the whole issue of devoted gay relationships IS the topic.)