Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frosstbyte
If all you've got for me is, "Gays can't be married because they're gay and that's wrong" then I have no problem labeling you a bigot and giving you no benefit of the doubt. That's not even a reason. It's some sort of aborted circular logic whose fundamental premise is hatred of another person simply for being who they are. Discrimination against gays isn't any different than racism or sexism and should be treated with the same degree of scorn. Stop making excuses for people who can't get beyond such insignificant differences.
|
Calling anyone who disagrees with gay marriage a bigot, therefore trying to discredit their argument, is nothing more than ad hominem at it's worse. Simply because you don't agree with my reasoning as to why I feel gay marriage is wrong, doesn't mean I'm a bigot nor does it mean that I'm wrong in my assertion nor does it mean that any of my reasonings are false. I find it funny that you accuse others of circular logic, when you're the one using it. It seems as if your stance is that "Anyone who disagrees with gay marriage is a bigot. The fact that Infinite is against gay marriage prooves that he is a bigot." If that's not circular logic, then I don't know what is.
Furthermore, who are you tell me that my reasoning for opposing gay marriage stems from the hatred of another person (A false statement, another logical fallacy)? Did it ever occur to you that maybe I'm arguing from the standpoint of keeping marriage between a male and a female, rather than simply assuming I hate all gays? Or is it simply easier to label us as you choose, making it easier for you to argue your position?
Quote:
|
Infinite, my only response, which I've already said once, is you'd have a solid argument for the sanctity of marriage being violated by letting gays get married if 1) marriage was still in any way sacred and 2) if marriage had no associated legal consequences. The decline of marriage as a sacred institution (you can get married without going to a church, didn't you know?) and the heaping loads of divorces people get (I've served drinks at a marriage where it was the woman's 5th and the man's 4th) have totally destroyed any concept of the first. And you're blind if you can't see the enormous LEGAL-not spiritual-impact that getting married has on both people. There's a reason divorce lawyers make so much money and that's because it's a shitstorm when people have to extricate themselves from the tangle of legal responsibilities they created when they got married.
|
Regarding point number one, whether you agree or not, marriage is still sacred in our society. You say marriage isn't sacred, then I ask you why is there an enormous social structure built around it? While you might not think so, marriages are a big deal. If they weren't, then so much planning wouldn't go into them. To see this as true, the only thing in which you need to do is to look around you. Why would people waste so much time on something which wasn't considered sacred? The fact is, that they wouldn't.
Concerning your second point, the legal benefits of marriage were instituted as a way to encourage people to marry. If you would remember, marriage has been the basis of social structure moreso than anything else. This makes me wonder, though... Are homosexuals trying to be married on the basis on "Love" or on the basis of "Reaping the legal benefits of marriage"? If it's the first option, then marriage shouldn't be an issue. If it's the second option, then that would undercut the entire premise of gay marriage (It seems that many people who favor gay marriage love to use the phrase, "If two people love one another, why shouldn't they be allowed to marry?").
I saw you mention it, so I thought I would address it. The only thing a high divorce rate proves is that the concept of "Love" isn't as strong a reason for marriage as one might think (Ironically enough, arranged marriages have much lower divorce rates than marriages based on love, but that's another topic for another day).