What if one points out how irrational this children argument is, and tell them that if they think that, they should also oppose the marriage of infertile people or post-menopausal women? And then they say “okay.” Then they are (a bit) logically consistent.
That means it really is about children and not just gays.
What then?
So, what is the difference between an irrational and wrong argument that is directed at a given group of people, and is intended to justify the denial of equal treatment to members of that group, and “bigotry?”
I’ll give you two choices:
When it happens, let us know.
Answer an infinite series of ridiculous and implausible hypotheticals that people throw at you that have nothing to do with what actually happens in the real world.
Seriously, this is why I tell my students in the first week that I don’t entertain “what if?” questions.
There was a poster around here who had a non-bigoted argument against SSM. As I recall, he wanted to ban all marriages, gay, straight, civil and religious for some libertarian / utopian ideal. At least he was internally consistent, despite being a looney.
You can’t use “intent.” Intent is not part of the argument. The intent may be bigotry, but that’s different.
It can be perfectly rational to target a group of people sometimes. For instance, children can’t marry, and that’s not bigotry.
The argument here is not irrational. It’s internally illogical, but not irrational.
Suppose we as a society declared that marriage, or something else we create, is just for children. We could do that if we wanted to. Then we could dole it out just to families with children. We do that with lots of things. You can’t get the child tax credit without having a child.
Marriage is not just for children any more, if it ever was, and even if it were the argument wouldn’t make sense. But that doesn’t make it irrational, just wrong in fact and wrong in logic.
I may change my mind about intent though - you can’t assume intent, but maybe it has to be there.
Nice dodge.
I don’t need to. They are the ones who are engaging in an act of oppression and need to justify it; they have been given chance after chance and always failed.
More word games.
Did everyone catch that?
Then we’re done.
Nope.
You may want to cut taxes because you’re rich. Your argument, though, is that cutting taxes is good for the economy. Entirely different things.
No; not when the latter claim is just a lie to push the former position.
The motivation for the argument isn’t the argument. It’s a logical fallacy to say it is - a circumstantial ad hominem.
The issue is whether tax cuts are good for the economy. That is true, or false, independent of who benefits from it personally.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html (even contains an example very similar to mine)
The argument purports to treat same-sex marriages different based on a characteristic that both same- and opposite-sex marriages share. There is no justification for treating same-sex marriages differently on that basis except that they are same-sex.
Now, if the argument were consistent and said that childless same- and opposite-sex couples could not marry, but same- and opposite-sex couples planning to have or adopt a child (or already have) could marry, then it’s not bigoted against gays. It’s arguably bigoted against childless couples, but at that point we’re into a new area that may or may not have solid evidence saying it’s bad to have childless marriages, or whatever.
Saying that gays shouldn’t marry because marriage is about children is as stereotypical and grounded in bigotry as saying gays shouldn’t marry because they’re incapable of truly loving their supposed partner, or saying American men shouldn’t marry Asian women because an American penis can’t fit the horizontal Asian vagina.
Of course, the whole argument is predicated on the assumption that gay people are allowed to adopt. This is where pseudo-science comes in, saying that gay homes are terrible for raising children in, when the real studies show that the split isn’t gay versus hetero but loving versus non-loving. Denying adoption to gays on the basis that they’re gay is also as groundless and bigoted in all respects as denying them marriage.
I agree. It’s a dumb argument. If marriage is about children, banning gay marriage is an inadequate response.
So if someone goes ahead and says gee, I didn’t think of that - okay? No more bigotry?
I don’t think so at all. It’s still wrong, but it’s a much more logical connection to marriage. It MAY be rooted in bigotry (probably is most of the time) but it’s not on its face an obviously bigoted idea.
Yes, and let’s also not forget that gays can have children from hetero marriages (someone who decides he’s gay later or finally comes out) and lesbians can get pregnant quite easily, one way or the other.
It is when the argument is a lie.
You’re sure spending a lot of time defending the views of people you don’t agree with to people who find your defense unconvincing, lancerino.
Yeah, we heard: there was a guy on the Dope who was opposed to vegetarians getting married, right? Or was it Libertarians getting married? Or Aquarians? Veterinarians?
Oh, right–it was EVERYBODY. So it has jack-all to do with your idea that someone who opposes SSM might not be a bigot, except in the most ridiculous, pedantic way possible. When we talk about how that position is bigoted, of course we’re talking about someone who opposes specifically SSM, ferchrissakes.
It’s the debate equivalent of a trivial case, like proving Fermat wrong by pointing out that there is a case where X[sup]n[/sup] + Y[sup]n[/sup] = Z[sup]n[/sup], where n > 2:
“0[sup]3[/sup] + 0[sup]3[/sup] = 0[sup]3[/sup]. Done! QED! Fields Medal, please!”
…What? So it has to be obviously bigoted now? Subtle and veiled bigotry is a-okay?
Feh. I laid it out. Have fun feeling morally superior.
Reminds me of some pre-law student practicing for a debate. Reducio ad exhaustion; repeat trivialities until your opponent gets tired and wanders off.
You read way too much into that word.