It’s not what I said but it’s a consequence of the original God-instituted rule.
I understand the point you are making and I disagree. I expect that you understand the point that I am making. I don’t expect us to converge any more than this.
Is it your position that people will not lose their jobs as a result of the Obergefell ruling? Do you think my speculation is reckless?
Is it tantamount to (Mighty_Mouse would say “exactly like”) saying that people will marry their dogs?
How about you actually answer the question instead of redirecting?
I’ll make it simpler than that, following suit by using definitions for clarity:
In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected because, with little or no evidence, one insists that it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends. The slippery slope involves an acceptance of a succession of events without direct evidence that this course of events will happen.
Saying that this thing “will happen,” and asking people to “mark your words” is simply doubling down on that Slippery Slope argument.
If this person makes good arguments, I would want to hear them. If they just repeat slander and innuendo, I would not. I would be reluctant to ban them before I knew what their arguments were.
Slippery slope arguments are not necessarily invalid. In this particular case, I can provide evidence.
People will lose their jobs as a consequence of the Obergefell ruling.
Ok, great - but nobody is advocating banning you for making your argument as you’ve been doing here.
Would you believe that a person making that argument about religious people all being mentally ill is a bigot?
I’m feeling deja vu.
Are these good arguments?
I summarized the arguments above. They believe things that are demonstrably false, therefore they are mentally ill.
I don’t think it’s a great argument, it’s about at the same level as “God said so”.
Is it bigoted?
The Powers That Be have decided that certain arguments are not permitted here whether they are good arguments or bad arguments. In the words of the judge, some arguments are “incompatible with human dignity” (Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe - Wikipedia, 2019). As I said above, I think this attitude is bad for a democracy and disastrous for a debating forum.
As the title of the pit thread would have it, it signals the beginning of the end.
I am grateful that you have permitted me to make my argument here. I would like you to go further and admit that all good arguments should be permitted.
Good arguments are permitted. Yours isn’t one. Fortunately bad arguments are permitted too.
I agree about the lack of convergence; what has me baffled is that you seem to be saying all you said is…
…and also that there is some amount of daylight between that and my summary; I don’t see how you can realistically believe that.
You are also claiming that your argument doesn’t discriminate against any particular group; another position that just makes no sense whatsoever.
If they are bad arguments, then they can be dismissed with good arguments.
If you find it cathartic to call them bigoted, then you do what you need to. I doubt it will help to persuade the other party. Quite the contrary.
‘You are required to live by my religion’s edicts’ isn’t a good argument.
You skipped a chain of causality, none of the steps of which were bigoted. That the rule had unforeseen consequences 2,500 years later is not the fault of the people who originally wrote the rule down.
Did someone make that argument? I missed it.
- 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.
I am not sure how that relates to your previous assertion.
I appreciate your consistency then, and the first real reply you’ve made in this thread (as opposed to a pithy response that doesn’t actually address the post you’re quoting). I appreciate that, let’s have more of this kind of discussion please.
The thing is, bad arguments pretty clearly can’t be dismissed with good arguments. Your argument, for example, about how catholic doctrine doesn’t allow gay marriage, doesn’t account for why Jewish,
Buddhist, Secular, or any other marriage in America should follow Catholic law. We have a separation of church and state in this country.
And aside from whether an argument is good or not, it can be bigoted. Not every argument that’s bad is bigoted, you could have an argument that fails on logical ground without being bigoted. But a bigoted argument is by its nature irrational and therefore bad.
The arguments against gay marriage presume that gay marriage is lesser than a straight marriage. Whether it’s because “they can’t raise a child as well” (opposition to gay couples adopting) or because “their marriage isn’t conducive to a cohesive social structure” or because “their marriage doesn’t please God”, you are saying gay marriages are lesser than straight marriages, and that’s both false (therefore a bad argument) and bigoted.
Has anyone anywhere said that the Catholic Church should be forced to perform religious same sex marriages?
Otherwise an argument against sane sex marriages in the basis that the Church teachings (or God’s Eternal Word) forbids it is exactly requiring people to live by your religion’s edicts.