Gay Marriage, yet again.

[thaiboxerken]

So now, I'm arguing with a fella at Court TV who is trying to say that the moral majority has a right and duty to legislate against behavior that they percieve as a threat to their way of life. If anyone is interested in joining the fray, check it out.

http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=4096944#post4096944

Any advice would be appreciated as well. This guy is pretty good with giving a semantic argument.

 

[Berlusconi]

i'm not gay, but i'm in favour of gay rights. In this i disagree with Bush and with Berlusconi. I must admit when they are wrong.

 

[Mycroft]

So now, I'm arguing with a fella at Court TV who is trying to say that the moral majority has a right and duty to legislate against behavior that they percieve as a threat to their way of life. If anyone is interested in joining the fray, check it out.

http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=4096944#post4096944

Any advice would be appreciated as well. This guy is pretty good with giving a semantic argument.

Are you Kingtiger?

Edited to add: So I don't have to read through ten pages of text to figure this out, do you see OneSmartDude as being your primary opponent?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

So now, I'm arguing with a fella at Court TV who is trying to say that the moral majority has a right and duty to legislate against behavior that they percieve as a threat to their way of life.

For a moment, I thought you were arguing with someone representing Court TV, as in a reporter or producer. Didn't know they had a discussion board.

I'd enjoy jumping in to the fray, but have no time at present. Bottom line, there is no "harm" in respect to the issue except that which is a result of withholding freedoms and benefits to members of society.

A person has to know by now that homosexuality exists in numbers too plentiful to ignore or closet, therefore their hat is hung on unverifiable illusions of societal harm. That, and Biblical rationales.

It's the same as with drug laws. If we (that is, the government) make certain practices acceptable by constructing or removing appropriate laws, the behavior is seen as legitimized. Can't have that! Trouble is, any review of history indicates that the majority are notoriously unreliable when it comes to issues such as these. See also: women's suffrage, slavery, inter-racial marriage, etc.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Ya, I'm kingtiger. I think the discussion is pretty much over between "OneSmartDude" and me, because he continues to argue over the semantics of words.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Anyone have examples of marriage concepts before the Hebrew ones came about?

 

[Mycroft]

Ya, I'm kingtiger. I think the discussion is pretty much over between "OneSmartDude" and me, because he continues to argue over the semantics of words.

He wants you to define "harm", and I don't think that's unreasonable. Actually, it works in your favor as it lets you set the tone for the future debate.

Why not go with a standard dictionary definition? Physical, psychological or financial injury or damage.

From there you know his next step will be to try to prove "harm" by one or more of these criteria. Knowing this, you can anticipate what his arguments are likely to be, and prepare responses.

How does gay marriage harm people in a physical way? He may argue AIDS, and you will counter that marriage promotes monogamy, and monogamy hinders the spread of STD's.

How does gay marriage harm people in a psychological way? He may argue about the social condemnation society has towards gays, and you would counter that legal gay marriage would go a long way towards making gays acceptable to society.

How is gay marriage harmful in a financial way? He may bring up health care costs, employee insurance plans, etc. and you would counter that the reverse is also true, that a person may decline one health care plan because he now qualifies for his spouses plan, and so forth.

Go get him. As it is, he's cleaning your clock.

 

[Dogwood]

I think OneSmartDude's request for clarification is reasonable. Define your terms and there'll be no wiggle room.

 

[thaiboxerken]

He wants you to define "harm", and I don't think that's unreasonable. Actually, it works in your favor as it lets you set the tone for the future debate.

Yes, but he's already asked me to define several terms. It's tiresome.

Why not go with a standard dictionary definition? Physical, psychological or financial injury or damage.

I can, but then he might well ask me to define "injury" or "damage".

I guess I'll go there and define harm, but if he asks me to define any words within my definition of harm, that'll be it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

http://www.shakinandshinin.org/HomosexualParenting.html

It's amazing what garbage people post. Oh wait, I guess I'm just as guilty now.

 

[epepke]

So now, I'm arguing with a fella at Court TV who is trying to say that the moral majority has a right and duty to legislate against behavior that they percieve as a threat to their way of life. If anyone is interested in joining the fray, check it out.

http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=4096944#post4096944

Any advice would be appreciated as well. This guy is pretty good with giving a semantic argument.

I have to deal with enough idiots here to want to expand my circle, but here are some comments about what you wrote.

First of all, the "moral majority" doesn't have a right to legislate anything, but whoever they are, they do have a right to petition for legislations. As to their duty, there seems no clear civic duty here, but maybe they imagine a duty.

However, with respect to the morality question, it gets really ludicrous. For years, homophobes have been pointing to the high rates of promiscuity amongst homosexuals (which do exist) as evidence of their immorality.

When homosexuals got the ability in many places to register their relationships in order to get benefits, the cry changed. I remember clearly a Rush Limbaugh show (he was on teevee for a while) showing a gay couple going to the courthouse and saying, "Aww, isn't that sweet? All of the benefits of marriage, with none of the commitment."

Now, homosexuals want to have all the commitment, or at least the paltry amount of commitment that heterosexuals do (is it not a wonder that what Man has joined together can only be separated by teams of lawyers at a cost of thousands), and surprise, surprise, that's bad and immoral, too.

It's as clear as rainwater. To these people, homosexuality is just plain bad, and it is justifiable to make legislation hurt them for no other reason than to hurt them. The particular justifications for legislation are all purely ad hoc, and this is obvious because there is a set of justifications no matter what. With the question of gay marriage, the possibilities of what homosexuals can do (other than pretending to be heterosexual) are completely exhausted.

This, of course, is well within people's rights. You have the right to hate anyone you don't like. Unless prohibited by law, you have the right to try to make their lives as miserable as you can (making people miserable is the primary functional use of morality). Homosexuality, along with many other attributes such as being fat or being a geek, is not a protected attribute under US law.

However, those who bleat about their own morality would be well served to have some honor and decency first and simply admit that all of these particular rationalizations are ad hoc, and the truth is that they just want to hurt homosexuals and will just come up with a way to justify doing so no matter what. Even though I disagree strongly with the idea that hurting homosexuals is good, I would at least have some respect for the honesty of people who are willing to admit that this is what they want. Without that, there's no respect deserved, and the morality of the moral majority serves exactly the same function as a carnival barker's top hat.