Sigh. Looks like the marriage protectors are at it again.
How bizarre is it that these people – ostensibly quote-unquote small government conservatives – can find nothing better to do than try to regulate the love lives of their fellow citizens? It’s like a particularly unfunny Monty Python sketch, without a dead parrot in sight.
The more these clowns throw around their aggressive rhetoric about “defending” marriage, the more they look like a bunch of closet cases who are afraid if they get hit on by someone of the same sex they might not be able to resist their true impulses.
In any case, I’m getting pretty tired of listening to their lunatic rants. The only threat marriage rights for gays could possibly pose to my marriage is that it might make it tougher to reserve a reception hall when my kids are ready to get married… now we’re talking serious stress!
10 comments:
You don't strengthen your argument when you suggest that reasoned, principled opposition to gay marriage (and there is reasoned, principled opposition to it, whether or not you agree with it) is merely a smokescreen for being a closet case.
If somebody wants to make a reasoned, principled argument against gay marriage, I'm willing to listen -- it's just that in 20 years of debate on the issue, I've so rarely heard one. Mostly it's exclusionary and/or outright hateful rhetoric, and the more fervent the speaker, the more likely they seem to eventually be exposed a la Larry Craig.
I myself never heard Larry Craig expound on the topic. Then again, I never even heard of Larry Craig until he got busted. So I don't accept your argument.
If you haven't heard a reasoned, principled opposition to the topic in 20 years, it's sounds to me like you're the one who's not listening.
Actually, I'm listening right now... I'm just not hearing the reasoned, principled opposition you describe.
I don't think you're really listening. There are plenty of reasoned, principled arguments out there, but I don't think you recognize them as reasoned and/or principled because you don't agree with them.
So let me get this straight -- you blame your failure to make the principled argument you keep insisting is out there on me, because you don't believe me when I say that I'm willing to listen. And people wonder why I compared this debate to a Monty Python sketch?
What do you define as "principled"? I would say that it's a view that someone holds sincerely, not one that you would agree with. A reasoned view is one based on reason--again, you may not agree with it, but it's held rationally.
The fact that you haven't heard an argument--by your own admission, in 20 years--that you think someone could *reasonably* and *sincerely* hold on this topic tells me that you're exceedingly biased on the point.
Example: I don't think there's a single good justification for socialized medicine; however, I understand that people with values and beliefs different from mine can hold different, sincere views. I still think they're wrong, but that doesn't mean that their views aren't reasoned or sincere, it just means that their logic starts from a different starting point than mine does.
Ad hominem attacks against me, and against people you disagree with (the supposed closet cases, for example), don't strengthen your arguments.
I *think* you're attacking me, probably because you *think* I don't agree with you. I've been very careful not to give you any inkling about my own beliefs on this topic. I've only pointed out that you don't seem very receptive to any view with which you disagree, and I've outlined why I think that way. Am I mistaken?
Hitler and Stalin and Bin Laden and Pol Pot acted on their own sincerely held beliefs. The fact that a belief is sincere and deeply held does not entitle it to my or anyone else's respect. Beliefs that are based on principles other than fairness and equality and justice, for example, are neither entitled to nor likely to earn my respect.
I honestly can’t at this moment recall ever hearing what I would consider a reasoned, rational argument against gay marriage. Perhaps, as you seem to think, I live a sheltered life. Be that as it may, every argument I can recall hearing has been based on religious dogma or reflexive discomfort or some other non-rational source.
And let’s be clear – rationality and reasonability are subjective in and of themselves. Some people think it’s perfectly rational and reasonable to restrict the rights of others to do things for no reason other than because it makes them feel uncomfortable. The fact that the offended party believes sincerely that they are making a rational argument does not make their point of view fair or just.
You're right about my not knowing where you stand on the issue of gay marriage, and I'm beginning to suspect you may take the libertarian view on it, in which case your real point is likely about my tone and choice of words. And on reflection, I can agree that my argument would probably have been stronger if I left out the mockery. But considering the vicious slander and abuse this particular minority has endured for so long, and how frequently it has been persecuted by closeted hypocrites (there is nothing "supposed" about that fact; it's well-documented), and how many people who are important to me have been affected by this, tamping my outrage down to one snarky little comment is about the best I can manage. If that weakens my argument, so be it.
And Godwin's law is fulfilled.
I withdraw from this discussion.
Post a Comment