Comments on: One Year Anniversary http://rightank.com/2006/01/05/one-year-anniversary/ Unapologetic. Conservative. Commentary. Fri, 09 Jan 2009 22:12:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0 Comment on One Year Anniversary by: Tank http://rightank.com/2006/01/05/one-year-anniversary/#comment-275 Thu, 05 Jan 2006 23:06:52 +0000 http://rightank.com/2006/01/05/one-year-anniversary/#comment-275 Thanks. Yeah, Carpenter's position aligns with many of those who advocate for same-sex marriage: individual interests of marriage justify state approbation and support rather than the interests of the state in sustaining marriage. Ironically, as you suggest, many SSM advocates rely on procreative genetic probability (infertility) in order to justify their procreative genetic impossibility (a child cannot be created from the union of two females or two males). I wish Carpenter would have responded to my last comment as well, as a response in defense of his position would have been difficult. The debate over SSM will continue to escalate in 2006 as more courts (state and federal) are given the opportunity to play legislator. Rightank, I hope, will be at the forefront of the SSM dialogue. I'm glad you enjoy my site. Keep up the good work at Opine Editorials. Thanks.

Yeah, Carpenter’s position aligns with many of those who advocate for same-sex marriage: individual interests of marriage justify state approbation and support rather than the interests of the state in sustaining marriage. Ironically, as you suggest, many SSM advocates rely on procreative genetic probability (infertility) in order to justify their procreative genetic impossibility (a child cannot be created from the union of two females or two males). I wish Carpenter would have responded to my last comment as well, as a response in defense of his position would have been difficult.

The debate over SSM will continue to escalate in 2006 as more courts (state and federal) are given the opportunity to play legislator. Rightank, I hope, will be at the forefront of the SSM dialogue.

I’m glad you enjoy my site. Keep up the good work at Opine Editorials.

]]> Comment on One Year Anniversary by: On Lawn http://rightank.com/2006/01/05/one-year-anniversary/#comment-274 Thu, 05 Jan 2006 18:00:49 +0000 http://rightank.com/2006/01/05/one-year-anniversary/#comment-274 Congrats on the anniversary. I spent some time replying to Carpenter also, on Volokh. Its clear though that he was ill prepared to depart from his script. On the procreative issue, he said he couldn't see any difference between an infertile couple who could't procreate and a same-sex couple who couldn't procreate. And because he couldn't see it, they should be equally treated. Well I for one provided a difference. An infertile couple is handicapped, a same-sex couple isn't even trying (biologically speaking). That and all the others pointing out a number of other flaws in his reasoning made him abandon that thread altogether. I notice that he didn't even attempt to reply to your point. In his daily reply he simply stated it wasn't important to the case anyway, upon the recomendation of other s-s"m" advocates who considered his attempt a verbal train-wreck. There were other examples, but it was clear he was out-paced by the marriage defenders. All that was left was a number of yes-men to start proclaiming their emperor had clothes completely ignoring the discussion at hand. I've linked to your site from mine a few times because I really like your commentary. I hope you keep it up through the next year. Congrats on the anniversary.

I spent some time replying to Carpenter also, on Volokh. Its clear though that he was ill prepared to depart from his script. On the procreative issue, he said he couldn’t see any difference between an infertile couple who could’t procreate and a same-sex couple who couldn’t procreate. And because he couldn’t see it, they should be equally treated.

Well I for one provided a difference. An infertile couple is handicapped, a same-sex couple isn’t even trying (biologically speaking). That and all the others pointing out a number of other flaws in his reasoning made him abandon that thread altogether. I notice that he didn’t even attempt to reply to your point. In his daily reply he simply stated it wasn’t important to the case anyway, upon the recomendation of other s-s”m” advocates who considered his attempt a verbal train-wreck.

There were other examples, but it was clear he was out-paced by the marriage defenders. All that was left was a number of yes-men to start proclaiming their emperor had clothes completely ignoring the discussion at hand.

I’ve linked to your site from mine a few times because I really like your commentary. I hope you keep it up through the next year.

]]>