Sometimes, though, it really isn’t a scotsman.
And I beg you, tell me the rational thinking processes that are not based in simple hatred [or irrational fear] that would lead a person to conclude that the right to marry must be denied to same-sex couples.
Eh?
Only if you define “rational” as anything a person believes.
If they truly believe the moon is made of green cheese it is rational?
As others have noted we have all been waiting for an actual reason why SSM would harm them. Not that they just don’t like it. Not just cuz. A reason.
A reason? 'Cuz it would piss 'em off. And their right not to be pissed off trumps anybody else’s reason for anything.
That’s the reason.
No, because women who abort are not a class of people. Group B includes women who are just as likely to carry a pregnancy to term.
If you know of a rational basis, please share it with us.
Pretty please. With sugar on top.
I don’t even know what their “thinking process”, as you call it is. I know what their *emotions *are, of course. And I know the difference between rationality and rationalization, and I trust you do as well.
But you state it as fact that some “do so rationally” and do indeed have a “thinking process”. You seem to the the only one who both knows what it is and is willing to tell us. Could you do us all a huge honkin’ favor and be the first one to state just what that rational process is?
But you see, magellan, you haven’t addressed the reason why it should have a different label when it affords everything equally to gay or straight couples.
Blacks? They’re not citizens. They’re “occupants”. “Occupants” have the same rights and the same priveleges as that of citizens - only they’re black. Would you be the kind of loony that would have supported this?
Don’t waste your time. You’ll only get even more of the “Separate but equal is TOO okay! Why can’t you people see that?” stuff.
To expand on this, I think there are only three kinds of “loonies” that could support this:
Those who aren’t at all looney but are instead deliberately planning to piss in the ‘equal’ water fountain.
Those who don’t believe in the existence of the prior group, and instead think that the opposition is perfectly reasonable and rational and would never ever do the things that got Separate But Equal is well-deserved reputation.
Those who don’t care about what happens to the gays and just want them to shut up.
I charitably assume that everyone present who argues for Separate But Equal is in group 2.
Certainly I do. I don’t necessarily agree with it, but I can assert it, and I think it has been asserted multiple times. You just don’t agree with the thinking, so you dismiss it out of hand, as “bigoted.”
A perfectly rational argument against same-gender marriage is to assert that allowing such marriages creates a culture of acceptance towards a lifestyle that involves inherently amoral behavior, thereby increasing the chances that that behavior can occur, allowing it to flourish, etc.
This is not “bigotry.” If you start from an assumption that homosexual activities are amoral (for whatever reason, religion, perhaps), then the conclusion flows logically from the assumption. Indeed, you may not dislike homosexual people at all, viewing them as simply potential sinners who can always repent of their choice. Similarly, though I view lying as amoral, I don’t run around hating liars and treating them as inherently bad. Of course, if you don’t agree with the assumption, then you are hardly going to come to the same conclusion, are you?
Now, if what you are arguing yourself blue in the face over is the notion that such a view of morality violates some other cherished notion of morality that you have, such as that people should not draw lines among themselves on the basis of their sexual preferences, or any other activity that does not directly “harm” those not practicing it, then okay, be my guest. But having a different viewpoint on “proper” moral behavior is not being a bigot per se, especially not in the sense of the word that deals with those who are intolerant and hateful towards members of a particular group.
Which is not to say that they are not bigoted, just that the mere fact of their opinion about morality doesn’t make them a bigot.
Of course women who abort are a class of people. All laws divide people into classes. Murderers are a class of people, and we discriminate against them all the time, locking them up for life, killing them in state-run executions, etc. Jaywalkers are a group of people, some of whom get ticketed and have to pay fines. People making more than $X are a class of people who end up paying higher taxes. That’s the thing about “equal protection of the law”: it cannot just eliminate laws that treat people of a different “class” divergently, because all laws do that.
So the analogy still holds. Group A isn’t bigoted simply because they deny to Group B an action that doesn’t harm Group A in the least.
Not true. magellan01 does not claim that “separate but equal” is OK, he simply pretends that the laws were not all written with exactly the same scrupulosity that he believes will be embedded in his sematic game.
His point is that “separate but equal” is bad, but that his legerdemain is different. This requires him to ignore the reality of actual history while asserting a belief in future events that he would otherwise insist was wrong.
Historical reality ignored by magellan01: the laws written following Plessy v. Ferguson gave identical protection to blacks and whites.
Interesting paradox embraced by magellan01:
We can know with absolute certainty that there will be no twisting of legislation or case law to circumvent the clear mandate of his bit of legislation, despite there being clear historical precedent for that exact situation,
HOWEVER,
We can assume that some, (undefined and, apparently, undefinable), bad thing might happen if we rely on a change of definition that is already under way in our society that will, by the very nature of the employment of a single word for all situations, make it much more difficult to subvert or circumvent the law.
Curious that they’re not trying to prevent liars from marrying, eh?
Regardless. The next question is whether we should legislate to the tune of their morality. If the only basis for their morality is religion, then it flirts with being illegal to enforce their morality by legal fiat. And it certainly doesn’t automatically trump the various rights, considerations, and moralities of the gay people being marginalized - expecially when there are various legal and constitional arguments that imply or insist that these people’s rights must be preserved.
As previously noted, I acknowledge that these people have an irrational aversion to the existence of SSM (and SS anything) that they may describe as their morality, and I recognize that these people are truly bothered by certain other people having the freedoms that others enjoy. But the imperative question is, does the harm done to them by the world not matching their preferred image of it trump the grinding down of the people they’d rather didn’t exist?
From where I stand you have made a legitmate argument that places a grain of sand on the opposite side of the scale from a five ton lead weight.
Again, the fact that they *really **really *believe it doesn’t make it rational. 911 truthers and moon landing hoaxers *really **really *believe their rubbish. It’s still rubbish.
It’s not rational because it stems from an irrational font. I don’t care if your religion tells you that blacks are stinking mud people. If you believe that, you’re a racist. Sorry to break it to you. :dubious:
Your argument is asinine. It doesn’t matter if the reason you oppress blacks is that you were taught that they didn’t side with Jesus in the war in heaven. You’re still oppressing them. Why is anyone prejudiced? Because they were taught some bullshit that they took to heart at some point. That it came from a pulpit instead of behind the woodshed is immaterial.
It is refusing people a right based on a notion that they are less than you. If you don’t want to call that prejudice then that’s *your *problem.
Again, my opinion isn’t taking away anyone’s rights. Sorry please try again, this whole argument from you is a massive and unrepentant failure.
In some cultures it is amoral (in their view) for women to expose their ankles (much less any other part of their body). It would be ok then, in your view, for some group to impose that morality on all women in the US? If they were politically powerful enough to get it done then so be it? That despite there being absolutely no rational justification to prohibit women from exposing an ankle? If some group thinks it is amoral then it is amoral and should be legislated against?
We are arguing blue in the face because our “cherished” notions are the ones embodied in the US Constitution and are the law of the land. Our FF’s explicitly set things up to try and avoid one group’s views trumping everyone else’s (e.g. religious intolerance). We believe in freedom of choice as a cherished principle. These notions are enshrined in our laws. When one group wants to trample on another group’s rights we generally say “no” to such things without an excellent reason to do so.
We are all still waiting to hear what that excellent reason is as regards SSM.
That’s only rational in the sense that it satisfies a basic syllogism. All frekniks are greebles. Toogah is a freknik, therefore toogah is a greeble. Sure, the logic is consistent, once you accept that a freknik is a greeble. In this particular case, the determination is a purely arbitrary one, and I don’t see how a purely arbitrary premise leads to anything other than a purely arbitrary conclusion, even if the transitive logic is correct.
I have a question for those who support gay marriage…
While I believe marriage should be strictly between a man and a woman, and I don’t support homosexual marriage because I do believe there would be negative consequences to our society… although I don’t know what they would be…
My question… if homosexual marriage was legalized, and 40+ years down the road we started to see negative consequences that we knew, without doubt, were caused from the legalization of SSM… would those who support it be for making SSM illegal again?
I sit corrected! In another thread, I said that six countries (Belgium, Canada, Norway, the Netherlands, South Africa and Spain) have full same-sex marriage. You can make that seven countries. Sweden joined the group on May 1. This is in addition to five US States (Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont) that have same-sex marriage or soon will have. Massachusetts has now had SSM since 2004.
So in other words, seven sovereign countries and five US States, with a combined total some 180-190 million people in them, have legalized same-sex marriage. Surely by now, we could start to detect in these societies some of the horrible consequences that conservatives say will result from this measure? Surely there are examples of the harm caused to heterosexual marriage that must have emerged by now?
Would Magellan (when he gets back to us with his magnus opus or other opponents of SSM could explain the fact that none of these countries appear to have been adversely affected?
Do you mean immoral rather than amoral? I’m having a hard time seeing why someone seeing homosexual activity as amoral would have a problem.
I think you’re right that this is behind much of the opposition, but it is not often stated. If it were, those opposing SSM on these grounds would also have to oppose civil unions, since they also have helped same sex relationships to flourish, and that train has left the station for most people. People who openly express the position you describe here are also the types who oppose children getting read to from books about gay penguins. That position seems to get less support than the anti-SSM one.
And of course Biblical support for a position does not mean that it is not a bigoted one. Consider the supposed Biblical support for the oppression of black people.
Well, now you are talking apples to the oranges we were dissecting before. The fact that you disagree with their morality, or with their approach to legislating morality is totally different from just dismissing it out of hand as “bigotry.”
The trouble with your assertion here is: all legislation about aspects of the law that govern our culture are rooted at some point in some mores held by some collective group. We don’t allow murder because our mores say that it’s wrong to murder. We don’t allow false advertising because our mores say it’s not a good thing to let it happen. If you dig deeply enough, most any law can be found to be grounded in, or based in part on, some portion of our collective moral code.
Like it or not, the MAJORITY of Californians (at least, those who are willing to vote, and probably the majority of Californians in general) do not believe that it is moral to be married to someone who is of the same gender. Now, this might be somewhat shocking in a state as liberal as California is reputed to be (frankly, I was surprised by the traction the Proposition had, having grown up in and lived for a number of years there). I think those who support the position that such marriages should be recognized by the state can justly be disappointed with the result of the vote on the Proposition. But if you view this proposition as somehow the vocal minority drowning out the apathetic majority in the process of trampling the downtrodden discriminated against minority, I think you are fooling yourself.
Given, then, that it represents the “will” of the people, as much as any democratically passed initiative does, the question revolves around whether or not the will of the majority should be allowed to establish the morality of the state, via its laws on the subject. If we assume for the moment that the tide of history is turning towards the eventual national recognition of the right of same-gender couples to marry, and to have those marriages recognized legally by the state as marriages, indistinguishable from marriages involving couples that are hetero-gendered, then you simply must carry on with the effort, striving to educate people that either their mores should change, or that their insistence upon legislating that particular set of mores should wane.