Perhaps not. May I please impose on your Christian charity to link to where you explained why opposing SSM is right?
No.
You fail analogies forever.
Definitely, although machetes have their own charm.
I’d rather let you fish than give you a fish. It’s for your own good.
Then please clarify what it is that you are trying to say.
Analogy, for it to be at all useful has to involve some relationship of proportionality between the source statement and the “analogy” statement.
Look up the original meaning of analogy. You cannot make an analogy from resisting gay marriage to fighting off ten guys with machetes without the implicit idea that they are somehow similar.
Go catch your own fish, a real one this time, not the imaginary kind you’ve been boasting of to your fishing buddies up to now.
Well, there are certainly some Christians who believe in the whole non-judgemental thing. Doesn’t it ever occur to you that God might not like you holding hatred in your soul towards your fellow man?
And I don’t need to accept that argument because I’m an athiest, so I couldn’t care less what God thinks of my soul. But I do accept that the price of living in a free country is that I must live amongst people who do not share my views and morals. Freedom isn’t only for me and people I agree with, it’s for everyone (as long as what they are doing doesn’t hurt someone else in some actual, measurable way).
It’s the only way to stop all those future descendants of ours from traveling back in time to TAKE OUR JOBS.
(Link not precisely SFW throughout.)
It’s really quite simple. If nobody can come up with a reasonable explanation why something is bad, then it’s good or neutral and should not be against the law.
A minimally objective person should be able to see that “to channel potentially procreative sexual relationships into enduring, stable unions for the sake of responsibly producing and raising the next generation” is pure idiocy for several reasons.
-
The people who are denied SSM are still gay, and are not going to find themselves “channeled” into the hetero “potentially procreative” relations being referred to.
-
There’s no evidence that same sex union isn’t less stable or enduring or cannot produce and raise the next generation. In fact, there’s evidence that children of lesbian parents do better than their peers. And having more couples that would need to adopt is a good thing, unless there has been some shortage of orphans I haven’t heard of yet.
So, you think other people should figure out why gay marriage is bad, rather than you telling us why gay marriage is bad?
Except, as you know, that’s not going to work, because these people don’t think gay marriage is bad. So if you won’t try to explain why gay marriage is bad, then they’ll continue to believe it isn’t bad.
In other words, if your sole contribution to the gay marriage debate is to say you’re opposed to gay marriage, but you’re unwilling to tell people why they should also oppose gay marriage, then you’re probably going to lose. And even if you think you’re going to lose anyway, if you’d just explain the negative consequences of gay marriage, in a convincing way, then you’d at least delay gay marriage.
Or maybe you’re the guy on the basketball court, and you’re team is down by 40 points, but you won’t give up, because you’re a fighter. Except, it’s beneath your dignity to actually try to block the opposing team’s shots, because, hey, they’re going to win anyway, and you’ve got better things to do than waste your time trying to prevent them from scoring. What exactly is the difference between quitting and heading for the showers early, and standing motionless in the middle of the court watching the opposing team put points on the board?
I understand what Ají de Gallina is saying, he’s just being obtuse about it. He’s saying that if you believe X is bad, regardless of whether or not it actually is, then it’s completely reasonable for you to want to fight against it to the very end even if it’s not affecting you personally. His use of domestic violence is an example of an X most people here believe to be bad.
Of course, he did a pretty shitty job in trying to sidestep the question of whether or not SSM is bad. By presenting analogies in which one person is consistently threatened with direct harm, he’s implying that SSM is similar, or at least viewed as similar. But, as usual, as it ever has been for the past decade, it’s impossible to develop the assertion beyond “SSM causes harm.”
I do not understand the religious reasoning for hating gays. God made them that way. They were born that way. They are gods children too. The religious should embrace the rights of minorities. Who are you to say god is wrong in creating gays? If your religion teaches you to hate a group of people, the problem lies in your religion and your acceptance of it. Gays are people deserving of every right anybody else has. They should not suffer discrimination. That is unAmerican and against the constitution.
The religious reasoning is that the bronze-age book of fables they think was written by god calls it an abomination. Don’t try to apply logic or reasoning to it.
Eh, if there’s an orphan shortage it’s not like we can’t up the supply.
Because religion isn’t based on reasoning at all.
Plus, if we can also ban abortion, all those irresponsible fornicators will have unwanted babies to give up for adoption.
It’s a win-win for fundamentalists.
Reasonable only in the sense that it can be offered as a reason. Unfortunately, there is also the implication that it’s always *commendable *to fight for for what you believe in, even when you are very, very wrong. To borrow from one of Ají de Gallina’s many excellent analogies, if I am one of 10 guys with machetes who believe that they are divinely inspired to kill an entire family, should I lay down my weapon and abandon my holy mission just because the family patriarch objects? Of course not.
On the contrary; I’m presently under the impression that you have not posted a coherent (let alone persuasive) explanation for your position that opposing SSM is right. I am comfortable with this impression, and have no stake in demonstrating that it is inaccurate.
You, on the other hand, would appear to have a stake in such a demonstration, particularly in light of the very great possibility that my impression is shared by most of the people reading this thread.
So it [providing the link] would be for your own good. 
Read them again.
I also offered the basketball one.
There is no hatred in my heart for gays.
I also agree that living in a free country means all of that. We disagree on the “actual harm” part.
By “reasonable” you mean “reasonable for me”.
I don’t know where the whole “to channel…” stuff came from.
This isn’t a debate about gay marriage. There have been plenty of those and I have participated in them. i won’t start another or derail this thred (even more) into one.
It’s not beneath my dignity, it’s beyond my desire to do something for the 47th time.
Thanks of sorts.
[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip;12814758Reasonable only in the sense that it can be offered as a reason. Unfortunately, there is also the implication that it’s always *commendable *to fight for for what you believe in, even when you are very, very wrong. To borrow from one of Ají de Gallina’s many excellent analogies, if I am one of 10 guys with machetes who believe that they are divinely inspired to kill an entire family, should I lay down my weapon and abandon my holy mission just because the family patriarch objects? Of course not.[/QUOTE]
It doesn’t make it “right” as an onbjective reality. It makes it right for you.
I won’t, but you’re right. I haven’t done it.
That you have declined to do so, in the face of multiple invitations to do so, is likely to result in a consensus opinion that you have, in fact, “ceded” the point.
I couldn’t care less if the consenus opinion was that I ceded any point by my refusal to start yet another SSM debate.
The shock is palpable.
And this entire meandering derailment of yours originated from an initial red herring mischaracterization of Revtim’s comment. He wasn’t asking “why people bother fighting for what they believe in,” he was asking “aren’t SSM opponents embarrassed that this idiotic argument is the *best *they can come up with?”
I have absolutely no misconceptions “why they fight” or “what they believe in,” although I frankly couldn’t give less of a shit. Anyone with a functioning brain knows they ain’t opposed to fags getting hitched because of the risk of planet-wide extinction.