Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Imaginary Conversations
I say: Listen, I don't hate homosexuals, the ones I know are nearly uniformly great people, and I don't believe I discriminate in any way against them.
The Left responds: But you are a Republican and by that very association you are being anti-gay.
I say: So you have a bias against Republicans?
The Left responds: Not at all, we are just seeing things as they are.
I say: So I am anti-gay because I am not a Progressive or a Democrat, and my actual beliefs, actions and feelings about gay people doesn't matter at all.
The Left responds: Yes. That is correct.
I say: I want gays to have all the rights, privileges and responsibilities associated with marriage I just don't want them to call it marriage because traditionally marriage is one man and one woman and procreation is the underlying reason.
The Left responds: If you don't support gay marriage, you are anti-gay. There is no rational reason not to include gays in the definition of marriage and if you don't then your only reason is hatred towards gays. The Supreme Court just said just that.
I say: I admit that slippery slope is not much of a reason, but it is a rational reason none the less, no matter how thin. I don't think marriage of gays will do any serious damage to the society (although I worry that children generally do better with both sexes involved in their upbringing). What I'm seriously concerned about is this: If you reject the time tested reason for marriage (procreation of the species by one man with one woman) and replace it with the new definition of the underlying reason "you really love the other," then you have no rational argument in opposition if, under the new definition, someone wants to marry a child, two spouses, an animal or something else; and allowing those things will do real damage to society.
The Left responds: You're comparing gay marriage to pedophilia or bestiality or polygamy, etc.. See what a hater you are.
I say: I'm not comparing; I'm talking about the natural consequences of replacing the traditional definition of marriage with the new one.
The Left responds: The new definition is two consenting humans of legal age who love each other. There is no child marriage, no bestiality, no polygamy, etc., no marriage to a house allowed.
I say: But then you are discriminating against someone who truly loves a child, for example, and wants to live, just as married straights and gays live together, with him or her. How can you deny someone else the rights you have?
The Left responds: The new definition is two consenting humans of legal age who love each other. There is no child marriage, no bestiality, no polygamy, etc., no marriage to a house allowed.
I say: But the traditional definition was different too and you argued that it was morally wrong because it did not allow two gay people to enjoy the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as straight people.
The Left responds: That's right.
I say: So you cannot imagine someone using your arguments to expand marriage to child marriage or multiple spouses or anything else a minority of humans truly love and want?
The Left responds: No. The change was just for gay people. That's all. And if you compare it to things outside the new definition, you're a hater.
I say: OK, I won't try to open your eyes to the ramifications of changing the traditional definition of marriage, but I do not hate gays.
The Left responds: Of course you do, or you could not have these thoughts.
I say: I am completely tolerant of homosexuals.
The Left responds: It is not enough to be tolerant, you have to celebrate homosexuals and the more enthusiastically the better.
I say: So toleration is insufficient?
The Left responds: Yes, you have to think what we think or you are evil.
The Left responds: But you are a Republican and by that very association you are being anti-gay.
I say: So you have a bias against Republicans?
The Left responds: Not at all, we are just seeing things as they are.
I say: So I am anti-gay because I am not a Progressive or a Democrat, and my actual beliefs, actions and feelings about gay people doesn't matter at all.
The Left responds: Yes. That is correct.
I say: I want gays to have all the rights, privileges and responsibilities associated with marriage I just don't want them to call it marriage because traditionally marriage is one man and one woman and procreation is the underlying reason.
The Left responds: If you don't support gay marriage, you are anti-gay. There is no rational reason not to include gays in the definition of marriage and if you don't then your only reason is hatred towards gays. The Supreme Court just said just that.
I say: I admit that slippery slope is not much of a reason, but it is a rational reason none the less, no matter how thin. I don't think marriage of gays will do any serious damage to the society (although I worry that children generally do better with both sexes involved in their upbringing). What I'm seriously concerned about is this: If you reject the time tested reason for marriage (procreation of the species by one man with one woman) and replace it with the new definition of the underlying reason "you really love the other," then you have no rational argument in opposition if, under the new definition, someone wants to marry a child, two spouses, an animal or something else; and allowing those things will do real damage to society.
The Left responds: You're comparing gay marriage to pedophilia or bestiality or polygamy, etc.. See what a hater you are.
I say: I'm not comparing; I'm talking about the natural consequences of replacing the traditional definition of marriage with the new one.
The Left responds: The new definition is two consenting humans of legal age who love each other. There is no child marriage, no bestiality, no polygamy, etc., no marriage to a house allowed.
I say: But then you are discriminating against someone who truly loves a child, for example, and wants to live, just as married straights and gays live together, with him or her. How can you deny someone else the rights you have?
The Left responds: The new definition is two consenting humans of legal age who love each other. There is no child marriage, no bestiality, no polygamy, etc., no marriage to a house allowed.
I say: But the traditional definition was different too and you argued that it was morally wrong because it did not allow two gay people to enjoy the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as straight people.
The Left responds: That's right.
I say: So you cannot imagine someone using your arguments to expand marriage to child marriage or multiple spouses or anything else a minority of humans truly love and want?
The Left responds: No. The change was just for gay people. That's all. And if you compare it to things outside the new definition, you're a hater.
I say: OK, I won't try to open your eyes to the ramifications of changing the traditional definition of marriage, but I do not hate gays.
The Left responds: Of course you do, or you could not have these thoughts.
I say: I am completely tolerant of homosexuals.
The Left responds: It is not enough to be tolerant, you have to celebrate homosexuals and the more enthusiastically the better.
I say: So toleration is insufficient?
The Left responds: Yes, you have to think what we think or you are evil.
Labels: Imaginary Conversations: Gay Marriage
