So, I was listening to our local right wing nut on the radio today at lunch, and they were discussing gay marriage. A caller phoned in and said THIS:
She started off by saying the in early Nazi Germany, in the 30’s, Hitler gave equal rights to the “gays” (he did?!?), and used that as way to round them up and eliminate them come the Holocaust. She then compared the Liberal government to early stage facists and said that if we allow gays to marry, the liberals will use this as a way to track them down and persecute them at a later date.
Well, due credit to the “government has no business regulating any marriage” argument, but that’s not really an anti-SSM argument as it is an anti-big government argument, that happens to touch peripherally on the issue of SSM. Outside of that, though, I agree with Bryan Ekers. There are no sound arguments against SSM.
I think you misunderstood him. It’s still a lame argument but either he explained it incorrectly or you missed a key point.
Gays were given equal rights in the Weimar era prior to Hitler. Gay people were registered as a way to help protect their civil rights. The Nazis later used these lists to round up gay people.
Sorry, I can’t agree. While all anti-SSM arguments are equally worthless, this one is far more equal than the rest. This one has several cites of worthless shit backed up by several layers of batshit insanity built on a foundation of shit. It is the Taj Mahal of shit arguments.
No they weren’t. The treatment of gays improved in Weimar Germany, the first gay rights organizations started forming in the late Imperial and Weimar periods, and there was an unsuccessful attempt to repeal the homosexual sodomy law, but gays weren’t given equal rights or registered in a national database.
I didn’t say there are no sound arguments against SSM. I said that it is a mistake to dismiss every argument as being without any rational merit. An argument may be valid without being sound.
Possibly, if that had been what I said, which it wasn’t. My exact words were:
Emphasis added. I’ll admit the possibilty of the existence of a rational anti-SSM argument; though I’ve never come across it. If you know of such an argument, please be so kind as to present it. I have my doubts such an animal exists, though. Surprise me.
I’ve yet to hear one. But I’d love to find out which ones you find convincing, given that you’re even less likely than I am to condone government interference in people’s private lives.
Assuming Lib is using the terms in their stricter logical senses, as is his wont, it is the difference between an argument which is internally contradictory, and one which is not, but is based on false premises. E.g.:
“If all dogs are cats, then Boris my dog is a cat” is valid but not sound, since not all dogs are cats.
“If all dogs are cats, then Boris my dog is not a cat” is neither valid nor sound.
His Bible didn’t have I Samuel 18-20 in it? Granted, whether David and Jonathan were bi* and had a gay sexual relationship is very hotly debated, but there is no question that they were two young men who loved each other very much and showed it physically. That to my mind qualifies as a ‘gay relationship’ even if they were celibate (at least as regards each other).
Be cautious not to refer to them as gay – both married and had children, and David’s lusts for women are detailed and notorious. Jonathan died fairly young and his love life other than with David is not described, but it’s known that he did leave sons of his body.
That an argument is rational is in no way saying that it’s convincing. It’s rational to believe that recognizing gay marriages would require businesses giving health benefits to their employees to extend those benefits to their respective partners, driving up the cost of doing business or forcing those businesses to reduce everyone’s health benefits.
I’ll have to admit, this does sound temptingly close to a sound argument, but it can be assumed that straight couples can represent an even larger burden if the health benefits are extended to their children, of which they could in theory have a large number.
In any case, a number of insurance companies have extended ‘life partner’ benefits for some time, which I presume includes common-law heterosexual spouses as well. I don’t know of any significant damage this has done to the industry. Got any figures?