DISQUS

lloydletta · 2 years ago

And the Democrats will claim that fighting against this will be all they can do So they can't move forward on anything....  but they'll still want gay money. 

We will see if OutFront Minnesota holds legislators accountable.  After watching last session, I wouldn't hold my breath.

DavidD · 2 years ago

What will the DFL do? So what will the DFL do this time?  Are they going to be a bunch of pansies and fold at the first sign of conflict?  That's what they did last legislative session.... Why does a veto threat of Gay rights cause them to capitulate to the Governor, but a veto threat over tax increases doesn't even phase them?  It showed me where their true ambitions and loyalties exist.

Les · 2 years ago

Ready, and raring to go. Hope they get on with passing it quickly.  I can't wait to vote for the amendment.

Phoenix Woman · 2 years ago

Scratch a homophobe, find a misogynist The whole root of anti-gay hatred is based in the idea that Penetrators=Good, Penetrated (meaning women and male bottoms)=Bad.  That's where the old saw "it's not gay if you're the guy" has its origins.

If conservatives didn't hate women (especially strong women), they wouldn't be homophobes.

Petra · 2 years ago

They must be very proud of themselves Once again, trying to solidify their own power by appealing to people's basest instincts. It's amazing how many people will just blindly let themselves be manipulated. But it looks like the strategy is backfiring with immigration, at least--turns out Hispanics, you know, vote. Let's hope this backfires, too.

Avidor · 2 years ago

Will Rep Mark Olson Sponsor the New Anti-Marriage Amendment? Rep. Mark Olson sponsored it in 2005.

joelr · 2 years ago

By and large . . . . . . conservatives oppose things like same-sex domestic partner benefits because they're seen as a step toward SSM, which most conservatives oppose.  (I'm generally conservative, but I'm in favor of governments -- although not private individuals or institutions -- being compelled to honor marital contracts between consenting adults, regardless of the adults' gender or number.) 

They probably see it that way because they are a step toward SSM.  Were I opposed to SSM, I'd prefer that SSM proponents be working on -- and frustrated in -- intermediate steps rather than trying to hold the line at SSM.

It's not like OutFront would agree to DP benefits, hospital visitation laws, etc., and cease pushing for SSM, eventually. 

monitorexposer · 2 years ago

This appears to be nothing more than a pile of strawmen awaiting a match. "the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender advocacy group now is working on initiatives that Minnesotans do support: hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples, allowing local units of government to determine for themselves whether they would like to provide health benefits to same-sex partners of employees, and providing health benefits for the same-sex partners of state workers."

I often hear about the trouble gays have at hospitals, but for the life of me I don't see the problem.

I have never been refused access to friends who are hospitalized, nor have I ever been asked about my sexual preferences.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, are not most local units of government all raising their tax burdens through the roof this year?

The thinking reader has to wonder where they are hiding all the cash they have on hand to extend all of these health benefits.

I think that before local government starts slinging benefits around, they had better check with their constituents...you know, just in case you might be mistaken about all of that support out here.

Les · 2 years ago

Les Boy, talk about jumping to conclusions.  Anti gay equals anti female.

Do you really beleive this, or were you just up late?

Andy Birkey · 2 years ago

That's the point The entire point of the law is to allow local government to decide for themselves if dp benefits are appropriate. If it costs too much or there isn't popular support, then maybe they shouldn't do it.

Andy Birkey · 2 years ago

And you might want to... You might want to check the definition of straw man as well. A straw man is distorting an opponents argument and attacking the distortion.

Les · 2 years ago

There you go with the definitions again Andy, You might want to check a dictionary yourself.  You'll see no reference to distortion or attack in the definition of strawman.

strawman
  - In general, a strawman is an object, document, person, or argument that temporarily stands in for and is intended to be "knocked down" by something more substantial


http://searchcrm.tec...

or:

Noun 1. strawman - a person used as a cover for some questionable activity


figurehead, front man, nominal head, straw man, front


beguiler, cheater, deceiver, trickster, slicker, cheat - someone who leads you to believe something that is not true

  2. strawman - a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted


straw man


specious argument - an argument that appears good at first view but is really fallacious

  3. strawman - an effigy in the shape of a man to frighten birds away from seeds


bird-scarer, scarecrow, scarer, straw man


effigy, simulacrum, image - a representation of a person (especially in the form of sculpture); "the coin bears an effigy of Lincoln"; "the emperor's tomb had his image carved in stone


http://www.thefreedi...

This is the second word I've seen you use that you do not seem to understand the definition of.  If nothing else, you make a good case for the position of editor in any communications media.

Andy Birkey · 2 years ago

Straw Man I've used the definition of the rhetorical device "straw man" correctly. You and MonitorExposer have not.

"A straw man is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."

http://en.wikipedia....

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

http://www.nizkor.or...

Those are the first two results when searching for "straw man." And it is consistent with the way I've used it.

Les · 2 years ago

It's not the first two when you google "strawman" + definition And wikpedia doesnt even make the list at all

Andy Birkey · 2 years ago

Try googling "straw man" Straw man is two words, google even tells you that when you search for "strawman." When you add "definition" to the search terms, those are still in the top results.

But that doesn't really matter, does it? The definition you provided: "strawman - a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted," is the definition of the rhetorical device to which I was referring.

Now, can we focus on the actual topic of the post and refrain from falsely accusing me of falseness?