Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
(I don't deny that smoking bans are bigoted against smokers. But "bigot" is a loaded word, in my opinion.)
|
Which is effectively why I
would deny it. You don't have to be a bigot to advocate for private property smoking laws. It's enough of an impetus to see medical harm in smoking.
And to get right down to an eventual point, you don't have to be a bigot to advocate against even homosexual relationships, let alone gay marriage. It's enough of an impetus to see spiritual harm in them. You don't need "I'm better than that" or "I hate those guys" to make the jump from 'looks harmful' to 'let's make it illegal'.
Granted, for both parts of this comparison, you
do have to be overly paternalistic and, well, wrong.
---------- Post added at 10:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:34 AM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin
So what you are saying is that there is a large segment of people who have a good type of argument against gay marriage that doesn't involve a slippery slope, but refuse to make that argument publicly? I never said that all people who are anti gay marriage are bigots, and not even that all who use the slippery slope are bigots. Just that I suspect that the reason so many people cling so fervently to slippery slope arguments without saying a single thing about gay marriage do so because they can't come up with a justifiable, rational reason to oppose it.
|
Well, no, I never said 'good' argument. I don't actually think there is a 'good' argument.
It's fine to suspect a majority and you may even be right. I just didn't like the phrasings that seemed to suggest a wealth of evidence for your guess.
I'll push again the alternate possibility that what
some slippery slopers are hiding is some argument that's theocratic in nature. And frequently such arguments are useless when the others in the conversation are secular or strident believers in complete separation of church and state. If such an argument is presented, it'll likely be rejected without much discussion and tones might even turn hostile or condescending. Thus, people would rather prefer sticking with the belief that doesn't invoke religious doctrine and might sound pretty sturdy on its superficial face. It's even possibly an amicable attempt to find common debating ground.
There's lots of wrong in that, but not necessarily any bigotry.