What, I said, precisely, was that the arguments were identical in form to those used against interracial marriage. I find it difficult to believe that you don't understand the importance of "in form" to that statement.
So, which claim do you think did not appear in the same form? Certainly, people claimed that interracial marriages couldn't produce fruitful progeny, couldn't raise children correctly or at all, were more likely to get divorced, were against God's word, were against human nature, would cause moral havoc and decay, could marry someone of their own race (opposite sex) but not anyone they want, led to pedophilia/bestiality, etc. All those arguments were used in the 1950s and 60s.
I appreciate that you recognize arguments in that form are not sound arguments against interracial marriage. I think one day, you'll realize that arguments in that form are no more sound against homosexual marriage.
You made two attempts at providing this, both in your first post in this thread, from what I can tell. One was factually inaccurate (many gay couple are indeed very interested in raising children), the other had no real functional or practical application (divorces can be had for any numbers of reasons besides the ones you listed; how often are heterosexual couples refused a divorce after all?).
I'm glad you think so. You might be surprised how many people say heterosexual marriage will be affected by homosexual marriage.
No, no, and no. However, there are certainly situations where both are appropriate descriptions.
Your turn: does being bigoted mean you have to act like Archie Bunker? Can you be a bigot and still be a warm, caring person who only wishes well for people?
What would the difference be between your position on gay marriage and the position of a bigot?
Last edited:
I agree. I think the depiction is accurate in this case, but the argument is fallacious.
Really, setting an age limit of 55 for the woman requires some additional government resources? What would those be?
During the time that you are making/believing a bigoted statement, you are a bigot. During the time you are not making/believing such statements, you are not. If "bigot" was a label that, once applied, became permanent, then every person on earth is a bigot, and the word has to value to distinguish.
He's just toying with you.
How about religions just start calling their members "covenanted", so the US doesn't have to use a different word for the government recognition than every other English-speaking country?
We don't recognize the right to remain unhurt when oppressing other people is required for that lack of hurt.
If a couple aged 55 or older loses government benefits when they get married do you think there might be some that try and fudge numbers and say they are younger than 55? Who monitors this?
Also, who monitors a marriage so that when the couple both hit 55 they lose said benefits?
Who monitors every marriage to see whether or not one of the participants is infertile?
What happens if a couple doesn't want kids but lie so they get benefits? And how long are they allowed to not have kids before they are deemed ineligible?
Lastly, do you really think that changing the status of what we currently consider marriage is not going to create opportunities for government to grow? Whether gay marriage is made legal, we take away benefits from those that are infertile, old or simply don't children, there will be a growth in government and subsequent spending. If you even try to argue otherwise I've got a nice toy factory at the North Pole I'd like to sell you.
margodydek
Well-Known Member
Can someone more educated than I explain why the gov't just doesn't appease both sides and get out of the whole marriage game?