Which is why I specified that I was talking about sacred marriages in my first two arguments. I addressed civil marriage separately.
The only marriages that actually count in America are civil marriages.
I certainly agree that arguments (good and bad) can be bigoted. In this case, I was making a consequentialist argument. If you reach for the bigot card as the first card you play, you are unlikely to persuade the other party. If it turns out that the other party (or their arguments) are bigoted, by all means, play the bigot card.
I didn’t make any arguments like this so I don’t know what to tell you.
This is a bizarre rope a dope tactic.
It’s like a five year old in the back of a car with his four year old brother.
5: Someone in the back seat is a poopyhead, and it’s not me
4: Mommy! He called me a poopyhead.
5: I didn’t call you anything. I didn’t say your name at all.
No one over the age of 5 would be impresssed.
Where I come from, we call that goal-post shifting. Do you call it the same thing in your country?
Who is who in your scenario?
Everyone knows. It’s not hard for anyone who is actually reading for comprehension.
The law has nothing to say about sacred marriages, you can do or not do whatever you want.
The only question on the table is civil marriage.
“Yeah, but this other stuff…” isn’t an indication of daylight between those two positions either; while I understand that on the specific issue of whether or not something is bigotry, using your self-selected definitions, I find the argument you presented to absolutely fit those definitions. I recognize that, again, using your definitions, our difference of opinion hinges on the world “reasonable”, and that neither of us is likely to be swayed from our belief of the “reasonableness” of the argument.
I do find this…
…to be absolutely disingenuous though.
I disagree, and as evidence I point to the fact that I used to hold opinions I now consider bigoted, and the way those opinions were dislodged is that other people called them bigoted, I got offended and self righteous, but then I did some honest self reflection and realized they were right.
Are you being purposefully disingenuous? Because you absolutely did and I struggle to see how you can possibly deny that.
By your argument, if the law says “all white men can vote”, this is not a racist or sexist law because it simply says that white men can vote. It says nothing about blacks and women, it says nothing about groups. It just defines a valid voter as a white man. That’s an ontological argument, not a racist or sexist one.
I don’t think this is correct. I think it hinges on whether or not the unreasonable argument is targeted at a person or group.
The rule is not targeted at a person or group. It is not bigoted.
I think so. If someone comes to me and says “Fuck those fags. This is how we’re going to get them: we’re going to use the separation of church and state to end their marriage and force them into civil unions”. I’m going to tell them they are wrong because that is discriminatory. While if someone comes to me and says “We need to get the government out of our lives. A fast way of doing this is eliminating marriage for everyone and instituting civil unions that are restricted to contractual rights.” I’m going to discuss the implications of the policy.
By being a bigoted jersey you have invalidated the argument.
The rule “a voter is a white male landowner 21 years of age or older” is equally “not targeted at a person or group” as the rule “marriage is between one man and one woman”. Is the first rule racist and/or sexist? And if so, what difference do you see between the two?
Perhaps you could start a different thread where that is the question on the table.
It certainly does seem to be targeted at a group and, by implication, it excludes another group or groups. It does seem to be an unreasonable or prejudiced argument too.
I would certainly say that this argument is bigoted.
How is that rule any different in that aspect than the rule “marriage is between a man and a woman”?
There is no marriage in America that is not civil, it is the question of this thread.
Who is the group it is targeted at?
Or, more germane to this discussion, who was it targeted at 2,500 years ago?
I tried. I can’t think of one. SSM is just so similar to Opposite sex marriage in all its ‘logistics’. Way way back in the past when I was more naive I could see someone trying to make a case about children and I might have given it some weight. However, growing up and getting experience in the world made me see what male bovine manure that logic was.
I could possible see a non bigoted reason against poly marriages (more than 2 people married). One might wonder about the logistics of child support for children not biologically yours if you leave the marriage plus other ‘logistic’ issues that SSM just doesn;t have. Personally, I think these could be legally resolved and a new legal culture/standards found but they are not in place yet. Also, societies with a ‘shortage’ of a gender available for marriage, if one gender is more likely to enter into such marriages, could end up with a shortage of a marriable gender which, historically, has resulted in a more violent society as people left out tend to take more risks in order to attract a mate or just a generally frustration/unhappiness of significant amounts of people left out.
Not sure how valid such arguments are, but I could see people making them.