Yeah, there are ‘rational’ (ie, not overtly based in homophobia or religion) reasons not to want SSM. They’re just all wrong, and demonstrably so.
I’m not shocked that he doesn’t want to come out with one just to have it shot down.
Is there really ANY argument anyone could make against SSM that anyone here would actually accept?
Would the answer of something along the lines of “the tenents of the religion I follow say that same sex marriage is wrong” even be acceptable, despite being a valid point of view?
Asking someone like raindog to defend their position is sort of pointless since I don’t see many people accepting any sort of religion based argument.
Still, seems dumb to me to stick your face in a thread if you’re not going to at least make the argument about relgious beliefs.
Don’t tase me, bro. I support same sex marriages.
Not if it were described as rational or reasonable instead of religion-based, no. Why should it?
It would also be followed by a comment about how often religion is used to mask or justify hatred and bigotry. Why shouldn’t it?
Huh, asking that is like going to a creationist message board and asking them if you could make any argument for evolution that they would accept. Even if there were some magical argument that was reasonable and thought out (even if ‘technically wrong’) it wouldn’t even be accepted as reasonable or thought out here.
I think when people talk about “reasonable” arguments against SSM, they’re trying to say that there can be non-homophobic arguments against it – that it’s at least conceptually possible to construct arguments that do not presume any moral judgements against homosexual relationships, but ostensibly focus on some other, unrelated, compelling public interest.
Guys like Bricker are not contending that these are good arguments, but that they can be formulated in such a way as to appear, on paper, to lack any bigoted motive.
I would personally argue that such attempts tend not only to be specious and unconvincing, but are, in my opinion, disingenuous as well. They are constructed to conceal real motives, not to further the ostensible public interest they claim to care about.
I think “reasonable” is the wrong word for these kinds of arguments, but I’m also reasonably sure that some people (Bricker, at least) aren’t trying to imply that the arguments are strong or convincing or even necessarily intellectually honest, only that they represent attempts to technically frame an argument which avoids any “moral,” religious or other prejudicial assumptions about homosexuality.
No. And no reason that has ‘God’ as part of the explanation is a valid point of view.
Why should RainDog post his reasons? You all already know what they are. If he says them, you’ll just call those irrational and unreasonable. So what’s the point of even posting them? Hell, you could do that with any debate:
raindog: “I think X”
SDMB liberal mafia: “I disagree. Therefore, you have not presented an argument. Please present one.”
raindog: “Y”
SDMB liberal mafia: “I disagree. Thus, it’s irrational and unreasonable.”
It doesn’t even matter what the topic is. If you’re just going to call everything your opponent says a non-argument, then it’s you that doesn’t belong in the debate.
No, and they announce this ahead of time and then get peevish when you accept that their minds are made up.
Regards,
Shodan
No religious argument can have any legal validity in the US.
No, Chessic Sense. We wouldn’t “call” it a wrong argument. We would post arguments and cites to SHOW it is a wrong argument.
It’s not: “I disagree. Thus, it’s irrational and unreasonable.”
It’s: “I disagree BECAUSE it’s irrational and unreasonable.”
I’d think very seriously about an argument that showed there were demonstrably negative effects on quality of living in countries where SSM has been legalized. Heck, even if divorce rates rose in correlation to the legalization of SSM. Proof that SSM is correlated to a rise in STI prevalence. People engaging in SSM being smote by lighting.
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
[quote=“Shodan, post:28, topic:517151”]
No, and they announce this ahead of time and then get peevish when you accept that their minds are made up.[/up]
We’ve already heard them all. If you’ve got something new, knock our socks off, but someone saying they’ve got a compelling argument against SSM is like someone saying they’ve got an argument against evolution. It’s pretty safe to assume they don’t.
Why do you disqualify moral judgments as valid reasons? That’s the most important arrow in the quiver of the anti-SSM side. You don’t just get to toss out strategies of your opponents by fiat. That’s not how debates work.
“Why is murder wrong?”
“Because someone ends up dead…”
“Yeah, but besides that?”
“Well, that’s pretty much it, really.”
“Aha! There is no rational or reasonable argument against murder.”
Because murder harms another person. Whatever moral or immoral choices I make, which don’t affect unwilling victims, are none of your business. Do you disagree?
Not worth it.
It’s not just that we asked. Nobody asked Raindog about the “reasonable arguments” he knew, until Raindog first posted in the thread to say he knew of such reasons. Nobody else made him do that. I would have great sympathy for Raindog if these demands came out of the blue–but they just didn’t.
These demands to tell us what the “reasonable” arguments were were responses to raindog’s assertion that he knew such arguments existed. Nobody made him make such an assertion–that he knew what those reasons were, or that (implicitly) in his opinion, they were reasonable.
Once he did so, however, it was not only fair to ask him what those reasons were–but to question whether he actually knew of such arguments, or believed them to be reasonable when he continually dodged the question.
Murder is illegal not because it’s “immoral” (a legally meaningless term), but because it violates someone else’s rights and because it has a destructive effect on the public.
Unless you can show that SSM violates someone else’s rights or has some kind of negative effect on the public, then you don’t have an argument. “Moral” arguments are subjective and meaningless, and, in fact, do NOT have anything to do with why other things are illegal.
Because the ones offered against SSM don’t hold up even on a moral basis, independent of reason.
Why is gayness wrong?
Because someone ends up, erm, … what?
A moral code that prohibits doing harm to others is certainly acceptable. But not if the harm that making a change cannot even be articulated, while the continued harm of *not *making the change is very real.
More smoke and mirrors suggesting there really are good reasons to oppose SSM but no one will bother saying what they are because the other side already has their minds made up.
If only the pro-SSM side would be open minded these sekkrit reasons could be shared. :rolleyes:
It’s not about if I disagree or not. It’s that I can disagree. This thread is attacking raindog because he said there are arguments that are reasonable, but didn’t present them. I’m saying it’s stupid to demand his reasons because they are already well-known. The liberal mafia on this board call them irrational and unreasonable, but they’re participating in the debate.
My point is that if you’re actually in the debate, you don’t get the priviledge of deciding which arguments are rational and which aren’t. I don’t care which side you’re on of whatever topic. SSM, healthcare, religion, ice cream flavors…you’re not allowed to reject the other’s arguments just by declaring them invalid.
That’s like a runner in baseball calling himself safe. It’s like being your own jury. It’s like grading your own test. Ridiculous.