raindog: are you fucking kidding me?

[Der_Trihs]

@VarlosZ

Second, yes, I’m well aware that you think all (or nearly all) instances of anti-SSM arguments that are not explicitly based in bigotry or religion are willful lies, crafted to disguise one’s true agenda. Because you are psychic, and therefore able to peer into the souls of men, and what you have generally found in those souls is the sort of cartoonish villainy with which we all have so much real-world experience.

Who needs to be psychic? Tell me, what were the nice, reasonable, moral arguments for segregation? None; just as there are none for opposing SSM. Just like segregation, opposition to SSM is purely an example of malice. It helps no one. It protects no one. It profits no one, save those who are using this hatred to take power. All it does is harm, and harm is the only motive it has.

We’ve done this before. We’ve dealt with these kind of people before. And lo and behold, it turned out that they really were just that awful. That they really didn’t have any good reasons for what they claimed; it really all was about hate and nothing else.

@VarlosZ

Your objection makes no sense unless you think that no position which is contrary to your own is reasonable.

On this issue, yes. There is one side that is well meaning and correct; and there is one side that is an example of unmitigated evil and stupidity. Not all issues have sides that are of equal plausibility, composed of people equally well meaning, however politically correct it may be to pretend there is. Sometimes, there are issues where there is a good side and a bad one; a correct side and a completely wrong side. This is one such issue.

[Voyager]

@Der_Trihs

On this issue, yes. There is one side that is well meaning and correct; and there is one side that is an example of unmitigated evil and stupidity. Not all issues have sides that are of equal plausibility, composed of people equally well meaning, however politically correct it may be to pretend there is. Sometimes, there are issues where there is a good side and a bad one; a correct side and a completely wrong side. This is one such issue.

Never been on a debate team, have you? Here’s a hint - the way to win is not to yell “you’re wrong” at the other side, but to understand why someone reasonably rational on the other side believes the way he or she does.
Maybe the root cause of someone being against SSM is homophobia, but I suspect a lot of these people are in denial about it, and don’t spend their evenings stabbing pictures of Harvey Milk. if someone says they have a problem with definitions, the way to address it is not to yell “you hate gays” but to point out that the man and woman clause is a tiny bit of any definition of marriage, most of which works just fine in the case of SSM. VarlosZ did a good job listing the rationalizations for being against SSM, which is more than raindog ever did.

[tacoloco]

You should read the Der Trihs pit thread. I think we’ve covered his attitude toward religion and religious thinking.

[Voyager]

@tacoloco

You should read the Der Trihs pit thread. I think we’ve covered his attitude toward religion and religious thinking.

In general I agree with his attitude to religion and religious thinking. I also agree with his attitude to SSM. I disagree with his debating style. Not that the fault is all his. Try explaining to theists sometime why the IPU is a valid analogy to god belief. Bring asbestos undies.

[Der_Trihs]

@Voyager

Never been on a debate team, have you? Here’s a hint - the way to win is not to yell “you’re wrong” at the other side, but to understand why someone reasonably rational on the other side believes the way he or she does.

You aren’t likely to convince any of these people. That’s why support for SSM goes up as the older people die; you don’t convince such people, you outlive them.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

ahem

DT has his own thread. Dozens of them, in fact. This one is for somebody else.