Still looking for one based on both fact and reason, and therefore meriting the appellation “rational” …
But mswas has just told us that list is all he’s got. Finally. Can we all now agree that there just aren’t any?
It’s been answered in the sense that I asked someone what time it was and he answered “Banana banana banana!”
It’s literally true that I received an answer, it’s just an answer that doesn’t relate to my question in any useful way.
In other words, the reasons are not reasonable.
I agree (although members of proselytizing faiths would disagree with both of us). What about getting someone to reconsider whether their religious opinion should apply to everyone else? Is that out of bounds?
No.
To be clear, I don’t have any problem with a dialogue, I am just getting tired of this disingenuous, “I don’t like the answer so therefore it’s not an answer.”, line that is going on here. I don’t like that on a board that is supposed to be about fighting ignorance a lot of people think that name-calling is sufficient in Great Debates.
Umm…no…not even in the slightest. You got an actual answer, you just didn’t like what you heard. So it’s more like you are at work and you want to leave and you asked someone what time it is and they said 3:00 and you really wanted it to be 5.
Can I ask, what of the answers above, the ones Bryan posted and you quoted, which do you feel are rational reasons to deny millions of Americans the right to marry?
I look at them and they all seem pretty weak. I’d like to know which you think are the solid ones that fulfill the rational requirement.
So you admit to living in the past, huh?
Anyway, it’s not a matter of personal dislike, though I have no illusions of getting you to ever publicly admit such. If the answer of “3:00” had no bearing on the time it actually was, but simply given because the person I asked really really loved the number 3 and really really hated the number 5, I’d take that into account when judging the usefulness of the response.
Do you have any additions to the list I proposed earlier?
That isn’t a fair analogy. In a more correct analogy someone is asking to leave because it’s five o’clock and the manager wants him to stay because the manager’s religion says that that particular worker shouldn’t be able to go home with everyone else.
No, actually it’s 1 o’clock so 3PM is THE FUTURE!!!
But in this case the answers DO have a bearing, you just don’t like what you hear.
The harm to cultural/moral tradition reason is sufficient to me. It is THE answer and it is REAL harm, whether or not it is sufficient reason to maintain the status quo or not is immaterial to it being a real answer to the question.
Then what was all that you’ve been telling us about simply playing devil’s advocate? :dubious:
Even if you can’t say just what that harm may consist of, even in theory? That’s sufficient? The only “reason” you can come up with is one you refuse even to explore?
So, we are going to deny a group of people something that is overall seen to be non-harmful to others, and could indeed bring benefits (see other thread in GD on “benefits of gay marriage”) based on:
An undefined, fuzzy feeling of “harm” to moral tradition. We’re not sure what this “harm” is, specifically, but we do have your word that is REAL harm. Not just “real” harm, but REAL harm.
To me, this boils down to:
“This is the way we’ve always done it, and I don’t want things to change, because I THINK something bad might happen.”
This is weak, weak reasoning, and I suspect that you yourself know it.
No matter how many times you repeat that, it won’t magically become true.
Well, if it’s REAL, you should easily be able to describe its effects. What warning signs should we be looking for? Suicide rates? Lowered life expectancy? Birth rates? Interest rates? Give me something I can measure, please, or admit that you can’t.
As much as it pains me to say it, you actually are misreading mswas, though the way he worded his post is poor.
There’s two parts to legalizing SSM:
- The US gains equal rights for gays.
- The US loses understanding marriage as between a man and a woman, a concept that has strong roots in traditional Christianity.
You can assign any value to each of these you want, but the value is irrelevant; we still have to lose 2 to gain 1. That’s real, that’s undeniable. You can think this is a good thing and that the traditional concept is too limiting for modern times (I certainly do), but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
Folks are conflating the objectivity of losing 2 to gain 1 with the values they place on each. For most posters here, the value they place on 2 is so minute as to be completely irrelevant, which is why the reason is considered irrelevant. mswas is ignoring the values when he says that it is a reason and a real one.
At least, I believe this is what he’s saying. I could be wrong. I’m also not saying whether or not this is a good or productive way to approach the subject.
No. How can one place value on something imaginary? “2” can’t be “lost” if it doesn’t even exist.
Yes, that’s what he’s saying, along with hotly refusing to consider, or to permit others’ to consider without abuse, the minor matter of the validity of his premise.
If you can suggest any other, please tell us.
Since mswas seems offended by the notion of clearly restating their arguments, instead choosing to insist that the argument already exists and we’re just all being blind in dismissing it, I shall assume that the following arguments are the ones that they accept and are claiming are rational-and-we’re-just-refusing-to-accept-that.
Analysis:
Gays can’t reproduce = irrelevent to marriage
Gays couldn’t possibly form an emotional pair-bond as deep as straights, without the “cleaving into one flesh” and such = bullshit, and also irrelevent to marriage
Gay marriage leads to polygamous and/or interspecies marriage = a demonstrably fallacious slippery slope argument that ignores that the other cases are each assessed on their own, differering, costs and merits.
It offends God = irrelevent to non-theocratic governments
It offends those who believe in God = considered but drastically outweighed by the legal rights issues - much the same way that the fact that convicted murderers might be bothered by being punished is overriden by other concerns.
It undermines religion = impossible unless religion has illegally infiltrated the government. If it hasn’t, then religion is already 100% undermined in the law. If religion has illegaly infiltrated the government, then it is imperative on us to undermine it until that is not the case, so we might as well start with SSM.
It confuses children = So does the fact bad things happen to good people. It it the responsibility of parents to decide whether they wish to clarify things to their kids by teaching them the truth, or confuse them with religion. It is quite explicitly (constitutionally speaking) not the responsibility of the government to conform reality to the religion to make the parent’s lives easier.
It might have negative effects of some kind 40 years down the road = With a REAL negative consequence, this is something to be considered based on the projected effects. Without one, this is the lowest form of irrational fearmongering and anyone who even considers presenting this should be deeply ashamed of themselves.
Aaand:
Gay marriage would undermine the moral fabric of society = this argument has as an unstated premise that the society is an implicit theocracy - otherwise there would be no fixed moral fabric associated with society to ‘undermine’. Absent that premise this argument collapes because changes to societies moral fabric are no longer definable as “bad” - and with it it becomes “It undermines religion” with the associated rebuttal.
You left out
[ul]
[li]Gays couldn’t possibly form an emotional pair-bond as deep as straights, without the “cleaving into one flesh” and such[/li][/ul]
May I suggest that this one is simply demonstrably false?
Bosstone,not really so much a misreading, but you’re correct in the concept of “assigning values”.
I would argue though that the “loss” of a concept (ie the US loses understanding marriage as between a man and a woman, a concept that has strong roots in traditional Christianity) is indeed a very weak argument for a negative effect. Especially when society as a whole has been moving over the past century away from many of the traditional Christian understandings of how the world and we as a society function.
Essentially mswas is arguing that we need to stick with a static, unchanging view of society, one that is Christian-based. This flys in the face of reality today.
An oversight - which I caught on edit, and rebutted with both barrels. 
No, it’s not weak at all. It actually does LITERAL harm to a cultural way of life because it legitimizes something that culture deems immoral. As has been pointed out by many SSM will be taught in schools and people who oppose it will be demonized. So in public schools we will be teaching that certain religious beliefs are wrong and evil. That DOES do harm to that religious belief. There is no value neutral here, someone gains and someone loses. Since, I, like most of you believe that individual choice should be the main criteria for determining legislation, SSM should win in this issue. But that argument need not be made ignorant of the actual merits of the opposing case.
What’s happening here is that the Pro-SSM side is doing exactly what they claim of the other side by trying to paint it as though one side is the good and righteous and the other side is evil. Those simplistic terms are just ridiculous.
Umm, back atcha. It IS true. Your opinion on the matter is irrelvant as it’s not a matter of opinion.
I have described the effects, your inability to actually see text that doesn’t conform to your bias is not my problem. At this point I am going to scroll past you like I do **Elvisl1ves **and **Lobohan **as your inability to think critically about the issue renders anything further you have to say, irrelevant.