is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by dubman

well no, that'd be taking you seriously

Are you 12?

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Thank you so much for saying that. I have wanted to say that for so long. He can be so insightful, sometimes, and then he goes a bit, I don't know. Like a 12 year old.


Oh, and you (god knows what the hell this damn long number name is supposed to mean), I'll get back to your arguement later...


34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j
pants (WOW, LOOKIT, IT LET ME COPY AND PASTE THAT!)

[dubman]

oh excuse me, i didnt know fusing little people and 420 activicts with gay rights and bundling it all up inside an Appeal to Ridicule was such a mature and developed way to approach things, then telling people they missed the point when it was the main thrust of "well that logic could go there".

gotta brush up on my internet rhetoric machine i suppose.

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by dubman

oh excuse me, i didnt know fusing little people and 420 activicts with gay rights and bundling it all up inside an Appeal to Ridicule was such a mature and developed way to approach things, then telling people they missed the point when it was the main thrust of "well that logic could go there".

gotta brush up on my internet rhetoric machine i suppose.

It's not that hard to understand is it? The point is that everyone is gonna argue based on whatever bias they have, even if the idea itself is not a good one. Any other kind of 'link' is just your imagination - are you seriously just looking for something to argue or do you have a point somewhere?

[dubman]

my point is that you're full of shit, and i think it's a classic mistake of this forum to not ignore shit posts like that and try to reason with it when it should just fall away like so much deadweight.

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by dubman

my point is that you're full of shit, and i think it's a classic mistake of this forum to not ignore shit posts like that and try to reason with it when it should just fall away like so much deadweight.

Alright!

It's obvious you have no clue what my argument even is, so I would suggest taking a reading comprehension class before posting again.

Ciao!

[Sean]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

I figured someone would bring this up. I think if you compared society's bias vs. blacks a couple of generations ago vs. today's bias vs. gays you would be able to make a much stronger argument that the ban on inter-racial marriage WAS just a product of bigotry. I don't think there ever was a decent or logical argument for banning inter-racial marriage was there? I still know of many people who think of marriage as primarily a vehicle for couples who plan to have children. I think it's pretty obvious that gender is a much more significant distinction than race.

Well, I don't personally feel there was ever a decent or logical argument for banning inter-racial marriage, and frankly, I have yet to hear the decent or logical argument for banning same-sex marriage.

So far, your two arguments cited against same-sex marriage as I've seen them have been the potential "slippery slope", and that "marriage as primarily a vehicle for couples who plan to have children".

The slippery slope argument is flawed in multiple ways. One, what slope are we supposed to be afraid of exactly? I assume it's the "if gays can marry, then what's to keep people from making it legal to marry their siblings/animals/the Eiffel Tower/etc?" The first response to that would be that we'd still need to have public opinion swing in favor of each of these individual scenarios enough for them to be legalized - simply allowing same sex marriage wouldn't nullify the individual issues of health, consent, common species, etc. that would have to be overcome for that to happen. That's not to say that I discount all slippery slope arguments - for example, I happen to think that the current war on tobacco and cigarettes will lead down the slippery slope of erosion of personal choice in favor of legislated health - but in the case of same-sex marriage, I see no comparable, logical progression of events that would follow affording basic civil rights to gay couples.

And the second response to the "slippery slope" argument is that it inherently equates homosexuality with inbreeding, beastiality, and a whole host of other extreme issues that it doesn't really have anything in common with at all, aside from the fact that none of them are included in the current definition of marriage. To clarify, take my fears about the war on cigarettes again. It logically follows that once cigarettes are banned for health reasons, other similarly unhealthy products will follow. Cheese, candy, prime rib, pizza - all of these things share very comparable unhealthy qualities to cigarettes that make it reasonable to understand the risks of going down that road. But gay couples have far more in common with straight couples than they do with inbreeding couples, or people who want to have sex with animals, or children, or most any of the other potential results of a "slippery slope" that opponents point to. It's simply not a logical fear as far as I can see.

The next argument you cited, that "marriage as primarily a vehicle for couples who plan to have children", is far less legitimate. Where does it say marriage is about having children? I've been married for 11 years, and my wife and I have no kids. Should we annul our marriage? What about married couples who are infertile? Should they have their marriages dissolved as well? What about couples who choose to adopt rather than procreate? Why should they be allowed to marry if marriage is "primarily a vehicle for couples who plan to have children"? I could go on, but do I really need to?

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

No, you don't have to, because I personally agree with pretty much all of it. I just can't take the interracial marriage = gay marriage thing because I don't think there was ever any argument against it that WASN'T based in fear or racism. I'm merely staying that for gay marriage, there are arguments against. I don't think they are great arguments either, but the idea does fly in the face of what some believe marriage is about. Maybe not even the idea of pregnancy, but rather the idea of sex, which some would argue isn't really possible in some marriages. Some people believe it's unnatural. My point is that all the opposers are not necessarily bigoted, hateful morons. No doubt some of them are. The idea of marrying someone of the same gender is waaay more radical than marrying someone of a different race.
I guess a similar example would be Affrimative Action; it's possible to form an argument against it without being racist, isn't it?

[Deckard]

FWIW ()

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

I'm not downplaying it.

Yes you were. Specifically, "I don't think 'society' bases their opinions on fear and bigotry". Whereas my response was that opinions are frequently based on fear and - if not bigotry (I'm not comfortable with that word), then at least ignorance.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

That it's a slippery slope?

No. That's called a fallacy. When I said "argument", I meant something, you know, with legs. I also used the word convincing, and used it very deliberately.

I don't argue that opponents of gay marriage are bigots or homophobes. But an argument doesn't automatically become watertight by mere virtue of not being rooted in homophobia or "bigotry".

Anyway I'm taking dubman's advice and cutting out the rest of my post, particularly having just read this:

The point is that everyone is gonna argue based on whatever bias they have

Really, if we can't get past the catch-all accusation of "you're biased!" then I can't be bothered wasting my time.

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by Deckard

FWIW ()


Yes you were. Specifically, "I don't think 'society' bases their opinions on fear and bigotry". Whereas my response was that opinions are frequently based on fear and - if not bigotry (I'm not comfortable with that word), then at least ignorance.


No. That's called a fallacy. When I said "argument", I meant something, you know, with legs. I also used the word convincing, and used it very deliberately.

I don't argue that opponents of gay marriage are bigots or homophobes. But an argument doesn't automatically become watertight by mere virtue of not being rooted in homophobia or "bigotry".

Anyway I'm taking dubman's advice and cutting out the rest of my post, particularly having just read this:



Really, if we can't get past the catch-all accusation of "you're biased!" then I can't be bothered wasting my time.

I don't really think it's airtight either. But the argument does exist. Maybe I misinterpreted something when I wrote that I don't think 'society' is voting on fear or ignorance. What I meant to say was quite a bit more complex than that. Of course people vote on fear all the time, but I don't necessarily think that fear has to be out of hatred or bigotry.

That 'fear of gays' thing is going to subside anyway; I'm 99% positive gay marriage is going to be legal in my lifetime, probably sooner rather than later.

I think maybe you should drop the bias thing, because that's really not what I meant. Read my posts again. Some people are biased, and some are not. My only point behind that is that it doesn't just swing one way. I don't like the argument of "we are using logic and reason, and you are biased" and some of the forceful language in this thread was implying. I'm not sure why people got so hung up on it.