I won’t argue the point here; it’s too wildly OT. I assure you, though, that arguing the point would be about as hard as smacking a one-winged fly
Won't play, will just assure everybody of superior skill? Thanks a lot. The point, in cased you missed it, was that legal tinkering with the definition of "marriage" makes many people uneasy. I said, "so far as that, it's hard to argue" I really wouldn't have thought it was a controversial statement.
I wonder if Mr. Warren believes that the right to pursue happiness is inalienable, or if he believes that the state should see to it that his neighbors pursue their happiness solely in directions compatible with his personal religious convictions.
It's very easy to accuse anyone who doesn't think that "societal norms" is an oxymoron of seeking to saddle all of us with "his personal religious convinctions", but it does rather side-step the question of whether society did have, has, or ought to have, any legally enforced norms, and what the cost might be of too hastily changing them.
Warren actually has a lot in common with den Beste. Both put style above content
No, neither of them do; both write to put their own opinions of the current political situation forth. Style is secondary, particularly with den Beste, who is not a very good writer. You just don't like their content. |
