Is there a non-bigoted reason to be anti-same-sex-marriage?

[kevlaw]

@Mighty_Mouse

Either you have made the argument you claim people are putting in your mouth or you have dropped a turd in here that is completely irrelevant.

I can see how you would be confused by the many attempts to mischaracterise my argument. Fortunately, my argument is right there for you to read. I’ll summarize it for you if you like.

I made three arguments:

1. Around 2,500 years ago, the people who wrote the Bible asserted that marriage was between a man and a woman because God said so. At that time, same-sex marriage was not a thing (or if it was, they were not aware of it). Their claim was ontological. It was not designed to exclude anyone. It was not bigoted.

2. Around a billion Catholics still belong to a Church that teaches the marriage = man+woman rule. They are required by their church to follow the rule. Of course, this rule applies to religious marriage. I will cover civil marriage separately. They may or may not be individually bigoted but their obligation to follow the rule is not bigoted.

3. In 21st Century America, if civil marriage becomes the law of the land, it will result in negative consequences for the Church and its members. Many will lose their jobs and, eventually, churches and religious schools will face financial penalties. It is not bigoted to not want to lose your job or face financial penalties.

The terms of this debate were that “there are no non-bigoted reasons to oppose same-sex marriage”. I offered three. You don’t have to agree with the arguments; you just have to acknowledge that they are not bigoted.

[kevlaw]

@Mighty_Mouse

This is exactly the same as saying you have a great regard and affection for Black people as long as they don’t think they don’t try to vote, so you can’t be a racist.

I would love to have one of these magical translation devices that converts what I say into what you want to hear. Where can I get one?

[What_Exit]

It is called an Internet Browser, I’m pretty sure you already have one.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@kevlaw

1. Around 2,500 years ago, the people who wrote the Bible asserted that marriage was between a man and a woman because God said so. At that time, same-sex marriage was not a thing (or if it was, they were not aware of it). Their claim was ontological. It was not designed to exclude anyone. It was not bigoted.

2. Around a billion Catholics still belong to a Church that teaches the marriage = man+woman rule. They are required by their church to follow the rule. Of course, this rule applies to religious marriage. I will cover civil marriage separately. They may or may not be individually bigoted but their obligation to follow the rule is not bigoted.

3. In 21st Century America, if civil marriage becomes the law of the land, it will result in negative consequences for the Church and its members. Many will lose their jobs and, eventually, churches and religious schools will face financial penalties. It is not bigoted to not want to lose your job or face financial penalties.

Wait — why would people lose their jobs if civil marriage becomes the law of the land?

[Kron]

@Kron

@kevlaw

@Kron

To clarify further: Same-sex couples are not allowed to get married because God instituted marriage as an institution for one man and one woman .

I’m glad you clarified because I would never have made that leap. It’s daring!

So are you saying this is NOT an accurate summary of the argument you presented?

Trying again…

[kevlaw]

Furthermore, the premise of this discussion, from the other thread, was that if you determine that all your opponents’ arguments are bigoted ahead of time, you will find it easy to dismiss them without argument. Ultimately, you will find it difficult to understand your opponents’ arguments and will find it difficult to persuade them of the correctness of your own.

@kevlaw

Why engage the other half of the population to understand why they believe the things they do when it’s so much easier to just dismiss them as bigots? Perhaps this explains why Kron can’t think of any reason, except homophobia, to be anti-SSM.

I think this is bad in a democracy and it’s especially bad for the causes that I believe in — like same-sex marriage.

This thread is a microcosm for society at large. A small group of people have decided that certain arguments are beyond the pale and not worthy of discussion in polite society. They have become so isolated and insular that they are unable to recognize that their opinions are far outside the mainstream and they become unable to persuade their neighbours of the correctness of their arguments. They attempt to ban "invalid’ arguments or to slander their opponents as bigots instead.

This is disastrous in a democracy (THOWGT) and it makes for a very sterile debating forum. As I said in the other thread, rather than fighting ignorance, it serves to enshrine it.

[kevlaw]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Wait — why would people lose their jobs if civil marriage becomes the law of the land?

Because, inevitably, activists will attempt use the new law to rule certain commercial activities illegal.

It will happen. You mark my words!

[Mighty_Mouse]

No one is trying to ban your argument. We are literally pointing out why it is LOGICALLY invalid while you literally appeal to Divine Authority to say that it is logical.

[Oredigger77]

@kevlaw

It’s an odd debating strategy to discard a perfectly rational argument because someone else who might be unsavoury has the same argument.

This seems to be the only part directed at my post.

The problem occurs when the execution of a good idea can in practice only be terrible. I would happily vote to revoke all government involvement marriage (including my own) but there are very few people who agree with me. I wouldn’t vote to end all government involvement in gay marriage where there are plenty of support from unsavory types. While the second could be viewed as a step to the first without the second step is just as asshole move I want nothing to do with.

Sometimes it is important to look around at who your standing with and evaluate if their aims are similar to yours or if they are just using you to accomplish their own ends. I believe in states rights and would love to see the federal government way less powerful. In practice that argument is used by racist dbags who want to get as close to slavery as possible and would just use my vote to get their wish while increasing the involvement of the government in the lives of their citizens.

[kevlaw]

@What_Exit

It is called an Internet Browser, I’m pretty sure you already have one.

On second glance, perhaps you are right. It is almost word-for-word what I said in my argument. As Mighty_Mouse said, it “is exactly the same”.

[Babale]

@kevlaw

This thread is a microcosm for society at large. A small group of people have decided that certain arguments are beyond the pale and not worthy of discussion in polite society. They have become so isolated and insular that they are unable to recognize that their opinions are far outside the mainstream and they become unable to persuade their neighbours of the correctness of their arguments. They attempt to ban "invalid’ arguments or to slander their opponents as bigots instead.

Do you feel this way about all arguments, or just ones against SSM? If someone started posting the opinion that religious people, by virtue of being religious, are mentally ill, and therefore shouldn’t hold office - but they’re nice people other than that and he has no hate for them - would you be saying his speech needs to be protected?

[kevlaw]

@Mighty_Mouse

No one is trying to ban your argument. We are literally pointing out why it is LOGICALLY invalid while you literally appeal to Divine Authority to say that it is logical

Apparently, you did not read my argument. Shall I summarise it again?

[MrDibble]

Ignoring all the other arguments and addressing the actual question in the OP…

I have heard anti-SSM arguments advanced by some gays. These range from arguments against the heteronormativity and patriarchy of the current model to more generalized anti-marriage, free love arguments.

In person, I’ve mostly heard arguments like that from older “bathhouse culture” gay men, and even there, it’s a minority. All of the lesbians I know well are married.

[Mighty_Mouse]

I am not a child taking catechism. I do not need to accept your illogical conclusions just because you keep repeating them.

[Babale]

@kevlaw

@What_Exit

It is called an Internet Browser, I’m pretty sure you already have one.

On second glance, perhaps you are right. It is almost word-for-word what I said in my argument. As Mighty_Mouse said, it is exactly the same.

Oh good, I’m glad that finally clicked for you

[kevlaw]

@Oredigger77

Sometimes it is important to look around at who your standing with and evaluate if their aims are similar to yours or if they are just using you to accomplish their own ends.

I totally agree. Consequences are important.

I was referring to the idea that an argument might become invalid when an unsavoury third-party makes the same argument.

It’s possible that I misunderstood you and if that’s not what you intended to say then I apologise and withdraw. Is that what you intended?

Consequences aside, does the argument become invalid if an unsavoury person makes the same argument?

[kevlaw]

@Babale

If someone started posting the opinion that religious people, by virtue of being religious, are mentally ill, and therefore shouldn’t hold office - but they’re nice people other than that and he has no hate for them - would you be saying his speech needs to be protected?

Interesting hypothetical.

Does this someone make good arguments?

[kevlaw]

@Mighty_Mouse

I do not need to accept your illogical conclusions just because you keep repeating them.

I did not ask you to accept any conclusions - except that those arguments are not bigoted.

[Mighty_Mouse]

The debate is about whether your argument is bigoted.

[DavidNRockies]

@kevlaw

It will happen. You mark my words!

That’s really just a Slippery Slope argument, tantamount to those who ask whether or not they’ll be able to marry their dogs.