Most of the misconceptions you lot throw up can be despatched quite quickly although six's posts quite often require a bit more thought because he tends to adopt considered positions.

km

I don't think you've been paying attention. Pad drew a distinction early on between the pejorative and non-pejorative use of the word 'discrimination'. When the IOC draws up rules for entry to the women's 100m it discriminates against men in a harmless and non-pejorative sense of the word. When Rosa Parks was thrown off the bus for being black she was discriminated against in a harmful and pejorative sense of the word.

Now I'd like to say in case you believe otherwise that I really haven't got time to repeat elementary points for the benefit of patrons who just want to adopt cantankerous positions for the sake of argument.

km

You're beaten by your own citation, pad...

"all individuals in a particular group or class"

A 'particular group or class' is, by definition, not inclusive of everyone.

km

Well, discrimination on that lot may or may not be acceptable in public or private contexts so no general rule can be derived from them. If a Chinese restaurant wants to hire only Chinese waiters or waitresses for example for an authentic atmosphere they ought in my opinion to have the right to do that like the state should have the right to hire only Chinese agents for undercover spying ops in Beijing.

As far Roberts v United States Jaycees is concerned it was held that "local chapters lack the distinctive characteristics that might afford constitutional protection to their members' decision to exclude women" when those exclusions would unfairly deprive a person of the benefits of membership. There's no parallel there with marriage which has very distinct characteristics but from which nobody is excluded except on grounds of age.

The case of marriage is closer to the Women Business Owners Network (WBON) of Vermont which excludes men because they can't fulfill the required characteristic of being a woman business owner. So it is in marriage where two men can never fulfill the required characteristic of a consummated union of one man and one woman.

km

Well howdy, patron!

Just as long as you acknowledge that it is a "lot" as opposed to one or two. When you have this many people challenging your POV on so many topics, or simply not buying your convoluted, Oxford Dictionary-centric rationales, it might indicate a crack (thank you, Bird) in your facade. Not to trash your right to any opinion in any way, but to repeatedly dismiss every argument based on some misconception that you alone have all the answers tends to rub the veneer thin.

Oh well, carry on...

This would not be necessarily true. A persistent and high volume of responses from a few does not add up to "many people". This does not count any of us that open this thread and just think, "kill me now with this endless babbling." For rational argument I would check off KM the winner in virtually every one of these long threads. Not that I agree with his premise but I don't think that is KM's point.

I would vote for quality, not quantity.

Yeah, it might, but unfortunately for you it doesn't. You still haven't answered why Obama suddenly went from "appearing to be homophobic" to "appearing not to be homophobic".

km

IMHO, the quality stops when the total dismissal of even rationale arguments overtakes the discussion. There are those like you and yoyo and six and Pad and others that try to debate on a more cerebral level, and there are ball-busters like me and a few others, who shoot for the emotional content. Both are valid, IMHO.

I've never denied being of the latter. And I have as much right as the former to voice an opinion (or opposition as the case more commonly is). As far as "endless babbling" is concerned, it's a shared flaw, and when one party in particular is bent on having the last word, or "winning" every debate, marathon threads happen — as does kaka — which is why even the high road debaters frequently throw their hands up in frustration and eventually walk away from the thread.

It really comes down to what you think is more important. I personally find some of his positions and/or the rationales behind them — like this one — to be insensitive and insulting. That's an emotional response, and that's the hand I play. You don't have to like it, and you can skip over my posts quite easily.

'Nuff sed.

And sexual orientation, obviously ...



And looking at their bylaws and membership levels, it appears they meet the qualifications of a private, exclusive association and are therefore allowed to practice their discrimination. The institution of civil marriage is neither private nor exclusive, as you mention above, and therefore draws no justification from a comparison with the WBON for the ability to legally exclude select groups from the benefits of that institution ...



The bolded part is possibly the strongest argument against same-sex civil marriage -- if it were true. Fortunately, no such requirement exists in the US. I know we've had that discussion already, and I don't think either one of us convinced the other at that time. So perhaps it's better to simply disagree on this point.