Only God judges a person’s soul (in Christian theology). The idea that Chirstianity is about never judging other people’s actions is preposterous. Would you accept (or expect someone to accept) that same argument for things you disagree with?
Do you mean “why do people fight for something they believe in even if they know they are going to fail?” If it’s something relevant (for you) isn’t it worth the fight. So, ten guys with machetes come to kill your family and you stay seated because “what the hell, they’re going to beat me anyway?”.
Are you saying that you don’t know that thousands of gay people married “heterosexually” and then divorced to live/marry “homosexually”?
If somehow other people getting married affected me in even the remotest way, let alone threaten by family, you might have had a point there.
Are you saying that you don’t know that people can already divorce and live “homosexually”, and adding same-sex marriage isn’t likely to make a difference whether or not that person continues with his or her hetero marriage?
Or do you really think that’s going to be the final reason a significant portion of people to switch? And even if that were remotely true that that wouldn’t be a good thing for them to abandon their sham marriages as soon as possible?
Hats off to you, sir: this is without a doubt the most finely crafted, dead-on analogy I have ever seen. Fighting to prevent gays from marrying each other is *exactly *like fighting to protect your family from being slaughtered by machetes. I’m dumbfounded that no one thought to use this analogy during the appeal.
I am going to agree with the Prop 8 defenders here, they are right.
Even without universally-accepted SSM you have god-fearing, traditional marriage-defending Christians betraying their vows to their wives and engaging in hot, sweaty, passionate man-on-man sex. If SSM comes to be accepted everywhere, imagine the consequences. I mean, what’s stopping my husband for leaving me for his middle-aged, balding golf buddy, huh?
Do you want the world to become one endless homosexual orgy? Do you?
It looks like analogies aren’t your strong suit so I’ll go for something simpler.
Would you simply stop playing a basketgball game in the last 4 minutes because you’re losing by 40 points, simply stand in the court without moving?
Right, except the kind of basketball game where one side wants to enforce an arbitrary and hateful social order, and… the other side has machetes they’re going to use to kill the losers, I guess. Story checks out.
It matters to me if I win or lose the game, since I am one of the players.
A closer analogy would be if I wasn’t even in the game, but I fought to prevent the gay players from ever playing in an officially sanctioned basketball again. Because of something in a book written in the bronze age.
I simply said that, if something is important you’ll fight for it even if you knew you were going to lose. Wouldn’t you?
My analogy is not about gay marriage, it’s about that logic of standing for what you believe is right.
Of course, there’s also the principle of “If it doesn’t affect you in any way, mind your own fucking business”, but these folks are really good at ignoring that one.
What I consider to affect me may not convince you as being relevant or rational.
My neighbour’s beating his wife to a pulp doesn’t affect me in any way more that feelings or outrage.
In general, sure I would continue to fight. But that’s me, now, as a relatively sane non-malicious person. If I was actively fighting to stop people from doing something that makes them happy, that neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, that means something has changed in me, and I’m not the person I was. That hypothetical person, who knows? I suppose the crazier a person is, the more they tilt at windmills, so yeah, probably Crazy McAsshole would continue to fight too.
Becaaaause…marriage equality is just like domestic violence? Who is being hurt by marriage equality? Does marriage equality put anyone in the hospital? Can you actually explain how there’s any connection?
No, in this specific line of reasoning which is esclusively about one point: fighting for someting even if you tihnk/know you’re gonna lose.
So, who makes te decision that wat you’re fighting for is “good”? You or someone else? Your counterexample is wrong because you’d b fighting for someting you think is wrong.
That fact that you failed Analogies 102 is not my responsibility.
The specific point I’m arguing is that the fact that something does not impact me directly does not prevent me, legally, morally ethically, from figthing against it. The injuries on my neighbour’s wife don’t affect me particularly in any direct or indirect way, except in the “affects-the-fabric-of-society” stuff (if we’re arguing form the it-doesn’t-affect-me-personally point of view).
Did I say any of that? Can I not make a specific point witout having to reiterate the whole argument?
Or was that your horribly failed way of trying to be clever?
Maybe I’ve also conceded that putting mayo on a hot dog is wrong, since I didn’t mention it.
The fact that your analogies are giant pieces of excrement isn’t MY responsibility. With a domestic violence situation, someone is being objectively harmed. That does make it my business, at least to the extent of advocating for laws against domestic violence. Who is objectively harmed by marriage equality?
Dude, iridium-dense.
It doesn’t hurt you, does it?
Your involvement is a particular choice based on your ideas and beliefs that domestic violence is bad, even if you are never hurt by it. You make it your business out of the goodness of your heart or your own beliefs, but not on actual harm done to you personally and factually.