That’s a circular argument. The dispute is about what argument is right, not reasonable. You can be wrong, and still be rational.
When it comes to deciding a policy, yes. When it comes to deciding whether someone’s view is rational or correct, never. Reasonable people can disagree.
This particular variety of infinite patience is hardly a virtue.
Ah, so you will win all arguments and decide every rational point, in your lifetime! Nothing more will be left to argue.
You’re so smart.
No, it is not circular to point out there there is no reasoning or reasonable argument on one side.
It is when you’ve already concluded that there’s no reasoning, before hearing the argument.
I will wait to hear from an individual what his or her argument is before declaring that it is irrational or bigoted. I don’t presume to think that I’ve heard every possible argument out there. Nobody can claim that.
“Before hearing the argument”, you say? *When *do we get to hear such an argument? We’ve been waiting for a long time. Got one for us?
Whenever someone says “I oppose gay marriage.”
That’s your cue to say “why?”
I’m sorry…I’m in the “everyone who opposes SSM is a bigot because they obviously think that homosexual relationships are inferior to heterosexual relationships” camp. I don’t really care whether you’re offended or hurt by that…maybe your offense and hurt can give you an insight into what I feel when I hear it. The heterosexual privilege involved in that kind of attitude is thick enough to cut with a knife…
And what have you ever heard in reply that you can fairly call “reasoned”? What reply can you even *imagine *that can be fairly called “reasoned”?
I feel like we’re just going around in circles here, but… I’m sure we all know that Bricker changed his position from opposing to supporting legal SSM due to arguments here on the SDMB. So one morning he woke up, had a position on SSM, and had arguments to support that position. That day he went and engaged in debate on the SDMB and decided that someone else had made a convincing case that his position was logically flawed, so he switched to a different position.
Was his position that fateful morning “reasoned”? The fact that he was willing to debate about it, and willing to change it without resorting to “but god says…” or “but it makes me feel gross to think about…” suggests to me that yes, in fact, it was reasoned… Flawed, but reasoned.
With regard to SSM? Yeah, pretty confident of that.
Why should I care?
That’s not an argument, it’s a statement that you already think you’re right. So you have nothing to discuss.
In fact, your attitude seems to qualify for the definition of “bigoted.”
Since I also support gay marriage, your comments about hetero privilege and offense are misplaced, so don’t try that crap with me please. In fact, you don’t even know if I’m gay or straight.
Wow.
You’re incredibly arrogant.
It’s one thing to think you are right - nothing wrong with that. To think there’s no possibility that you could be wrong is a whole other level. Have you never ever changed your mind about anything, ever?
So after several posts of ad hominem after ad hominem can you provided a non bigoted reason to be against the right of same sex couples to marry?
After seeing this same basic argument in several different threads (that people who do things that are, on the surface, bigoted, might not actually be bigoted) I think lance strongarm is one of those people who believe that all opinions are equally valid, as opinions.
I can’t go that route. To me, it’s morally stomach-turning to attempt to defend hateful opinions based on some sort of “all opinions are equal” type of reasoning. It’s like saying that the Nazis opinions about Jews were morally equivalent to whether or not someone likes butter or margarine on their toast.
No ad homenims.
Well, maybe techically. So I’ll change it to: your entire argument is based on nothing but arrogant statements.
No, but why would I?
I simply don’t assume that they can’t possibly exist. I wait for everyone to make their argument first.
That’s absurd. I don’t think that. One opinion can be wrong, dead wrong. If I thought that, I would never argue.
I simply think that you cannot judge an argument before you’ve actually heard it.
Do you disagree?
The Prop 8 argument, in court, weren’t bigoted. They tried to show some ill effects of gay marriage - and failed miserably. In fact, a few pages back I gave some non-bigoted possible arguments, usually stemming from the Bible. I also mentioned some of the arguments that Southern racists used, like those people are happier together rather than with us. But whether or not the argument is bigoted, the action is bigoted. And a person not noticing or not caring that he is doing something bigoted, no matter what the reason, is still bigoted.
Yes, I am, but that’s incidental. On this specific issue (indeed, any specific issue), one can ask “why do you believe as you do?” If one gets an irrational answer and demonstrates it as such, one can ask again, get another irrational answer, demonstrate it as such, ask again, get another irrational answer…
It is reasonable to conclude after several iterations that a rational answer isn’t coming.
Offhand, I can think of four or five pathways at justifying a ban on gay marriage that have been floated on this board. They all boil down to “gays are different and should be treated different.” A particular favourite of mine is about gays not being able to have children, in determined indifference to straight couples who can’t have (or don’t want) children. For me, the final nail in that coffin was discovering that in at least one state and under certain conditions, a fertile couple can be denied a marriage license. Not only is there no law having fertility as a requirement to legal marriage, there are cases where fertility is a barrier to legal marriage.
That line of discussion usually involves goalpost shifting, trying to define “potential” fertility as a key element (and in determined indifference to artificial insemination and surrogacy, which were developed for infertile straights and which gays can use), then something about the state has an interest in “encouraging” heterosexual reproduction (with no indication of how gay marriage impedes this), and so on.
At some point, it’s perfectly fair to conclude that the fertility issue is a dead end, that anyone using it to justify opposition to gay marriage is not doing so rationally. Subsequently, anyone who starts an argument against gay marriage by citing fertility can be written off by default, thus avoiding the waste of time of going down that path again.
Frankly, if you know of someone who has (or thinks he has) a good reason to oppose gay marriage, tell them to open with it. It’ll save time.
I think everyone is open to the idea one exists, the fact that in years no one has provided one shows it is rare.
Yetties and Unicorns may be real but it would be silly to life as if they were.