I have also written about my opinions on topic bans. More than once. I’m not in favor of them. But I also think if that is what is more important to the community, there should be topic bans. Or bans of specific, harmful opinions on a given topic. And I’ve said that before, too.
~Max
Your open-mindedness is an inspiration to us all.
Has anyone ever swayed you from those positions?
For the most part, nobody has tried. Hamilton did debate me on the Ninth Amendment, not specifically as relates to same-sex marriage, but generally. It is, I think, my favorite of all the threads I’ve participated in. I didn’t change my mind in the end but I did learn a lot.
I have changed my mind on other questions, even some legal/philosophic ones.
~Max
Max_S, as the OP of that thread, I’m not sure what you want exactly. Do you want disclaimers attached to every statement? “Not all _____ are bad.” “Most _____ this.” “Many______ that.”
Technically, pretty much every statement about any group of humans in the world would have to have such disclaimers attached. I mean, there were even good Nazis. John Rabe, a Nazi, saved thousands of civilian lives in World War II.
Although, sure, I could and perhaps should have said “If (some) conservatives think…”
I’m not being sarcastic, I don’t understand what exactly you are advocating.
I have no issues with your posts and did not feel they insulted me. But, off-topic, I would encourage you to read Miller’s contributions in that thread.
~Max
You are apparently laboring under the misapprehension that I obsessively follow and catalogue your posts on this issues; let me assure you that this is not the case.
I did extent the courtesy of reading the linked posts, several of which had little or nothing to do with same sex marriage, and even of those that did framed your objection in legalistic terms (in essence, that such a right was not within legal traditions or specifically enumerated in the Constitution) rather than making some evidential pr principled case for an objection based in logic or essential necessity. The closest that came to any fundamental explanation was this:
Setting aside the prejudicial terminology in “reverse incorporation”, it does not explain why if civil unions are sufficient for same sex couples why they should not be legally adequate for male-female unions, and of course overlooks the substantial limitations of civil unions, to wit that states are not Constitutionally required to acknowledge ‘civil unions’, as well as protections for community property, parental rights, et cetera. And it certainly doesn’t explicate your objection to the extension of marriage to same sex couples—something that much of the developed world has legally codified as a fundamental right—being ensconced in American law beyond the argument of tradition.
So, in plain language, is your specific objection to same sex marriage that is not veiled in some kind of malice or the cruelty of treating someone as a second class citizen for not being heterosexual?
Stranger
You can write thousand word arguments justifying bans on interracial marriage, immigration of Chinese people, etc. as long as you focus on the literal legal basis for all of these to the exclusion of any consideration of humanity of people.
This is a thread that runs through conservatism. Slavery is legal. Grandfathering voting rights is legal, separate but equal is legal, anti miscegenation laws are legal, child “marriage” is legal, every kind of legal horror is, well, legal, by the circular reasoning of the conservative.
“Boomer” doesn’t even mean “Boomer” when the kids these days use it. That is to say, when someone from Generation Z calls someone “boomer” they don’t literally mean someone from the Baby Boomer Generation. They mean someone over ~40.
That is the objection. It’s not exactly a secret if you search for “@Max_S same-sex marriage” or any other topic. I’m not sure how much more plain I can make it. I don’t agree with the legal arguments actually used to protect the right to same-sex marriage in this country. I don’t bear ill will to gay people, I just don’t think the law should be interpreted the way it has been. I don’t know what else you’re asking of me at this point.
~Max
And that’s a distinction without a difference, even ignoring that since we can’t read your mind claims that you “bear no ill will” are empty platitudes. Why would anyone care about ill will or the lack of it when handed a statement of intent to do harm? Which that is.
It reminds me of the movie trope where someone is about to shoot someone else and tells them it is not personal as if that makes it better somehow.
Really? 
:cough: Karen. :cough:
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
–John Kenneth Galbraith
Defending the indefensible, and struggling mightily to couch the indefensible in superficially less vile terminology, gives rise to things like scientific racism – not coincidentally, a topic that’s generally closed to further discussion on this site.
While trying to make “good faith arguments” for what tends to meet the dictionary definition of bigotry or intolerance may not yet be on the list of tired topics here, the fact that those arguments tend to be met with more than a bit of opprobrium should give the person offering those arguments a sense of where those topics are inexorably headed.
Once aware of that sense, it’s – IMHO – incumbent upon a moral and ethical person to loosen the grip on, and take a long, hard look at their closely-held belief – the one on which their grip is vise-like and immutable.
There’s an old ‘joke’ about a husband who tells his wife, “I’m not arguing with you. I’m just explaining to you why I’m right.”
Hi, @Max_S !!
Look at my concession eleven posts in, that everyone that posted after that just ignored.
And see someone about that cough.
My apologies. His thread was in regard to this: Resolved, that using “karen” as a pejorative is off limits - About This Message Board - Straight Dope Message Board
I read a lot of the posts you listed about your objection to same-sex marriage. (not all of them) They seem to focus on the legal theory used to overturn the ban. I suppose that’s debatable, (but one side certainly has the better argument) but that misses the point that i think we’re discussing here. Regardless of the legal reasoning used to strike down the bans, do you think the bans themselves were a good idea? If you support them for reasons unrelated to malice, maybe you could explain that?
Dude, are you saying being a conservative is a part of your being, but being gay is a lifestyle choice?
The person who invents virtual aspirin will become a billionaire.