Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
You describe an interesting hypothesis. A hypothesis that I don't hesitate to believe is sometimes - or even often - true.
You don't describe the thought process that took you from "this is true for anti-gay marriage opponents I've met" to "this is true for all people who use these arguments". Care to?
|
It's axiomatic. There is no process. It's no different than if someone were to try to explain to me why interracial marriage is wrong. I might listen to their argument, but my first assumption would be "this person is a bigot". Whether you think that is justified doesn't matter at all to me.
Quote:
But I've got to argue your conclusion for the scenario also. Try this: you grow up in an environment that isn't exactly intellectually diverse, and through the course of growing up, you're given six arguments in defense of a political position that sound like really good arguments to you. One day, you meet someone who thoroughly dismantles reason #1 in front of you. You switch to reason #2.
Preexisting disdain is the only explanation for the switch? Really? It must be hidden reason #7?
Call me crazy, but I suspect that a more cautious appraisal would reveal five other possible explanations: reasons #2-6. If you have multiple reasons for supporting an action, you don't just toss out your support when fault is found with a single reason. "But wait! What about this?" isn't a sign of underlying bigotry, it's a sign of intellectual caution.
|
Intellectual caution is one thing. Throwing out random, flailing, "oh yeah, but what about pedophiles" type arguements is intellectual dishonesty. See most of post #84
Quote:
|
People express multiple reasons for a belief does not necessarily signify a master, all-controlling hidden reason.
|
True, though in my opinion it most often does in the context of the homosexuality debate. Frankly i don't see why you care so much.
Quote:
|
Oh. Well, if other people make mistakes, then that makes yours okay.
|
Well, apparently just being "mistaken" is okay even if your mistake comes in the form of support for systematic discrimination.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
It seems that the argument for legalizing gay marriages boils down to "Heterosexuals can do it, so why can't I?"
|
Actually, that's not what i said.
Quote:
|
I'm pretty sure that there are people who would love to legalize-- Say-- Incest along the same grounds. Why shouldn't we do that? After all, one could argue for incest the same way one is arguing for gay marriage. We shouldn't deny two consenting adults "Basic civil rights", less be deemed as bigots.
|
Yeah, why not? I don't care. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is none of my business. Why do you think that it's yours?
Quote:
|
You call my perspective flawed because I happen to disagree? Well, I could call your perpespective flawed simply because you're relying on the assumption that everyone should have the same privileges as each other.
|
I called your perspective flawed because it is. If it wasn't you wouldn't need to try to make this discussion one about correcting all social inequalities as opposed to the specific one mentioned in this thread.
Quote:
|
I know I said this earlier, but on the same grounds as you want to legalize gay marriage, we coul also legalize a host of other less-favorable activities. That doesn't mean we should.
|
What, things like sodomy or fornication? Okay, so give me a good reason why we shouldn't legalize the other "less-favorable" activities.
Quote:
|
No, but do you know what you will find in nature? Social structures built around "Families", much like you find in humans. Do you know what you'll never find in nature? Two members of the same gender having sex for reasons other than procreation.
|
Okay, so marriage is out. Good to know.
Quote:
|
...And you accuse me of bringing up irrelevant points. When one says "Unnatural", I believe them to mean a deviance from the original function or purpose.
|
Demanding consistency on the arguement provided as the basis for the wholesale denigration of homosexuals is not irrelevant.
Even with your newly minted definition of natural, you still presume to know the original function or purpose of things that occur completely through chance. You know what fingers are for? Certainly not for typing on a keyboard. You know what ears are for? Certainly not listening to headphones. Neither headphones nor keyboards existed when fingers and ears evolved. By your definition anything that isn't strictly biologically necessary for survival and reproduction is unnatural in the same sense that homosexuality is unnatural. Which is a completely meaningless distinction on which to base social policy.
Quote:
|
I do remember that earlier you asserted that homosexuality was a natural and frequent occurance in nature, which you later backed off of. I suppose I should just come right out and say it, but it's my opinion that homosexuality isn't as "Natural" as you would assert.
|
I never backed off. Homosexual behavior is natural. The fact that two male chimpanzees don't have anal sex doesn't mean that homosexuality in nature doesn't exist.
Quote:
|
In nature, homosexuality only occurs in oragnisms which have both reproductive organs. In humans, homosexuality occurs erm... Well, I couldn't really tell you why it occurs, but what I can tell you is that it's not for the same reasons as it occurs in nature. Doesn't a deviance from the original purpose of homosexuality classify as "Unnatural". In my book it does.
|
In your book dancing is unnatural because it doesn't fall under the umbrella of original intent.
Quote:
|
Are you meaning that divorce has slowly been on the increase or that less and less people are being married each year?
|
Both.