Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
That was just one part of my point, though, that a simple prohibition in the Bible != bigotry.
Another part of that post, reiterated: then who in politics ISN'T a bigot? Who HASN'T said "you can't do that" to a group of people? Could you refine your concept a little more?
---------- Post added at 11:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:12 AM ----------
Slippery slope arguments certainly are poor arguments, but they're not uniformly bigoted. It's usually said that gay marriage will lead to worse things, not equally worse things. While these arguments often mention pedophilia or bestiality, they seldom put them on the same moral level.
What exactly do you mean when you call those arguments bigoted? How do they show bigotry?
You're guessing.
While I'll by no means claim that there's any good argument against gay marriage, a reminder seems warranted that slippery slope isn't the only argument out there.
Which wouldn't necessarily involve bigotry, no?
|
I never said that slippery slope arguments are universally bigoted, and I never said that the slippery slope argument is the only one.
But, so far, it is the only one that has been made in this thread, and is the one that is most prevalent out there. And that is the point. If anyone is making the slippery slope argument exclusively (which, again, is a fallacy), there are two positions we can infer: either the person is relying on the slippery slope argument exclusively because they don't have a problem with gay marriage, only what it might lead to; or they are relying on it exclusively because they have a problem with gay marriage, but don't want to say why in public. I think most people who rely on the slippery slope argument fit in the second category, and I think they do so because they are aware of the consequences if they display their thinking regarding homosexuality publicly.
So, once again, people who rely on the slippery slope fallacy while avoiding giving their opinion on gay marriage itself, as opposed to some improbable slippery slope, are generally just trying to cover up their bigotry with false logic. If that is not the case, they are invited and have had ample opportunity to make a non bigoted case against gay marriage, one that doesn't include a well known type of faulty logic.
---------- Post added at 01:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:31 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
Oh, I get it now. No, that's not what my question meant.
I'm not saying "I hate your political positions" = "I hate your orientation". I'm saying "I want to outlaw your marriage" =, for instance, "I want to outlaw smoking in your bar". Virtually all those involved in politics seek to use the law to prevent groups of people from doing something they want to do. So far, under what you've shown me of your working 'bigotry' concept, the politcally active fit. That's why you need to refine it.
Your distinction isn't much of a distinction, anyway. Homosexuals and smokers alike are perfectly capable of changing their smoking behavior and it's the behavior, rather than the preference, that is potentially affected by such legislation.
Are you saying that it only counts as bigotry if the target can't be changed to better suit the bigots?
|
That is very faulty logic. Smoking bans are restricted to a few places, and smoke use has harmful effects on people around the user. I disagree with them strongly, because I don't think the state should regulate it, but they are nothing like a ban on gay marriage, which harms absolutely no one and affects all parts of one life, and not just when it is at a bar or other place.