[MD] The New Socialism - Wired Magazine

[Arlo Bensinger]

[MK]
Arlo I have read your example and see that you are fond of setting up straw men

[Arlo]
Yeah, that's the typical response I get from people who want to say 
things but hate concrete examples, or having to really have what they 
say analyzed.

It's not a "strawman", its an ACTUAL situation that an ACTUAL couple 
is going through. Got that? Real people, real situation, how should 
the law respond?

I know that escapes a lot of people, who prefer generalities and 
slippery slope fear rhetoric. Its sad, really, but I expect it.

[MK]
My "slippery slope" examples are quite reasonable.

[Arlo]
Hardly. I prefer any "line" based on reason. I can see you prefer it 
based on something else entirely (hey, if we let gays marry, we'll 
have young children marrying farm animals).

[MK]
Any line drawn by reason or bias will exclude consenting adults by 
definition and our sense of entitlement seems to know no bounds.

[Arlo]
Hey, why should we allow inter-race marriage, that might lead to 8 
children married to 12 ducks!

You know the funniest thing about you slippery slope people, you 
always conveniently draw the line after YOU are on the safe side. Why is that?

Here's another concrete example for you. The year is 1966. Its one 
year before Loving v. Brown declared anti-interracial marriage laws 
unconstitutional. Would you be using your "slippery slope" argument 
against that?

And here's another. Do you think there are any similarities between 
the Nurernberg laws prohibiting inter-racial marriages and American 
laws prohibiting gay marriage? Can you give me a reasoned answer as 
to why they are different?

If all you are intend to keep doing is making unreasoned slippery 
slope responses, we don't need to go on. If your entire argument 
against gay marriage is "gay marriage will lead to inter-species 
incestuous polygamy", then I'll bow out now. If I want talk-radio, I 
can turn my dial. At the moment I am enjoying some Catherine Wheel on XM.