A compelling argument to be sure.
But that doesn’t reduce those who feel otherwise as “homophobes”. (although clearly some are)
People like me?!?
When have I ever said anything about SSM? For all you know I may be for SSM!
Yes, people like you.
To wit (bolding mine):
There is reasoned, rational arguments on both sides of this.
The fact that you can’t see them (which does not mean you have to agree with them) ------and need to demonize your opponents with labels like “homophobe”-----says more about your blindness than the quality of their argument.
Read it again!
“…For those who are against SSM (and ftr, I have never taken that position)…”
You keep making this assertion. Could you please back it up by pointing out a “reasoned, rational” argument on the anti-SSM side?
Thanks in advance.
Amusingly, when I read the thread title I assumed it would be about my right to risk not having health insurance, rather than be compelled by threat of fines and jail time to spend $15,000 per year on it.
I’ll be glad to, as soon as you point out a “reasoned, rational” argument on the anti plural marriage side.
It is a subject I feel strongly on, correct. But no one has given me a rational, reasoned argument against gay marriage. They all devolve down to “gays are icky” (homophobia) or “God doesn’t like it” (not a rational reasoned argument when it comes to the laws of a country with separation of Church and state).
The best we have seen so far is “it will affect straight marriage.” But nothing whatsoever about how and why it will do that. That ain’t rational, and it ain’t reasoned.
I know you say you aren’t against SSM, but, given that there are all these rational, reasoned arguments against it, can you please link me to one preferably in this thread. It shouldn’t be difficult.
Been there, done that, multiple times in this very thread. It might not be one you agree with, but I have listed two rational arguments against recognizing plural marriage; the links between plural marriage and abuse of children; and the fact that marriage law, in particular the benefits of marriage, would require fundamental change in order to recognize plural marriage, whereas to recognize SSM all that is required would be changing the word wife to spouse.
Now those arguments may not be unnassailable, but they are reasoned and rational. They aren’t based on “polygamy is icky” or “God doesn’t like polygamy.”
So?
Point is you are asserting a rational argument exists to oppose SSM. Please point it out to us.
Assuming you’re an adult I have to wonder where you have been. In any event, I have no intention of being drawn into the anti-SSM debate.
I do know, however, that there are reasonable, thoughtful, intelligent people on both sides of this—and both have reasonable arguments.
IME, it’s only the most visceral, partisan zealots that are so blind to their opponents that they have no approach but to demonize.
So???!!!
You posted that in the whole “people like me” nonsense.
Here’s the thing.
The absence of a reasoned argument against plural marriage doesn’t mean the SSM foes win. It means that we should allow both SSM and plural marriage.
That just does not affect whether there’s a reasoned argument against same-sex marriage or not. It affects whether there are other limitations to marriage that there isn’t a reasonable argument to support, and that’s it.
Hence, I’m going to jump in as well to say that if you have a reasoned argument against same-sex marriage (as your post suggests), please share it. I’ve participated in a bunch of these threads. I’d love to debate an internally consistent, and reasoned argument against same-sex marriage. I haven’t heard one yet.
raindog, ferchrissakes, what’s with all the tap-dancing. I’ve been trying to follow along with this thread as well as possible. You come with an assertion that there are “reasoned, rational arguments against SSM.” You’ve been asked to explain what one might be and you’re only responses have been, “No, not if you’re going to be mean to me.”
So, pretty please, raindog, with sugar on top, point to one reasoned, rational argument against SSM.
Such as?
Put up or retract your claim.
Either back this up or stop saying it. This is ridiculous.
Unnecessary, as I’m not the one making claims without a shred of support. Polygamy is a separate issue entirely, and only being used by SSM opponents in hopes of drawing SSM proponents in to a logical contradiction. It’s a red herring, completely irrelevant to this, or any, discussion about SSM.
Huh?
I pointed out that you asserted there were rational arguments against SSM. “People like you” referred to people who insist there are rational arguments against SSM.
You have since repeated there are rational arguments against SSM.
What is “nonsense” about what I said? Seriously…where did I misrepresent you?
I will also note you have re-asserted there are rational arguments against SSM and in almost the same breath refused to provide any of those arguments.
Would you accept that from me in some other discussion? Me asserting something is so, you asking for me to point that thing out and me refusing and just re-asserting it is so? Somehow I doubt it. You’ve been around here long enough to know better…or should…that such a tactic does not fly here.
Being able to explain a reasoned argument for something does not mean that you agree with it. I can give arguments for invading Iraq (not involving WMDs) while still being against it. I can understand and provide arguments for all sorts of economic positions, like a flat tax, which I disagree with. So, your being able to give a reasoned position against SSM in no way implies you are against it. So you can stop using that argument.
You have claimed that such positions exist - so give one.
If no one can give a reasonable argument against something, then we can state pretty confidently that the arguments against it are unreasonable.