I wish this dumb culture-war over redefining marriage would either end or be fought more wisely and logically by both sides, but since you dummies can’t seem to think straight and I have a peeve about rampant illogic, here I am again to remind you what should be obvious.
On the pro-redefinition side (ie: the winning side), the dumb argument goes something like “if you’re so outraged over homosexuals destroying the sanctity of marriage then why aren’t you equally outraged over divorce??”. This takes many forms, often with specific examples of celebrities like Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian’s super short marriages. The argument goes: if THEY can get married and divorced so easily, why shouldn’t people of the same gender get legal marriage rights? Adultery is brought into the mix too sometimes and neither makes any sense at all.
Bringing up divorce in the redefinition of marriage is like bringing up car accidents as evidence that cars should be redefined to include boats. The response should be a resounding: WTF?
What do car accidents have to do with anything? Yes, some cars get into accident. The relation of that to redefining what a car is, is nothing.
Yes. Some marriages similarly don’t work out. No one is celebrating that. So what is making you dummies think you have a good point there? (rhetorical question. the answer is that its a strictly emotional appeal that no one bothers to examine logically to understand what they’re actually saying the way i’m doing right now).
And no, it’s not “half of all marriages” that divorce as the myth goes (check the data yourself), but that’s a tangent anyway since same sex break-ups are no less frequent, so all you’re arguing on THAT front is to…er…add more divorce… Your point is supposedly “redefining marriage makes sense because there is so much divorce so lets add more divorce by redefining marriage”… you’re unmaking your point, bro.
But even though opposite-sex divorce isn’t an argument for same-sex marriage: why are people protesting against same-sex marriage and not protesting against divorce or adultery?…
Because there aren’t advocacy groups, parades, and entire political movements arguing for adultery and divorce to legally and socially change the definition and practice of marriage from what its always been (divorce and adultery aren’t new in the institution but redefining it from opposite sex unions is).
The “what about divorce” fallacy is used to say “why are you unfairly picking on us homos, you bigot jerks??” but outside of the tiny percentage of actual-bigot-jerks (the dozen or so people in the Westoboro cult) the whole “sanctity of marriage” thing has been entirely a reaction to an assault on said sanctity of marriage in the ways I listed.
So… that’s why… You’re on a side assaulting something large groups of people care about and…they’re resisting that assault on that thing they care about…
If there were advocacy groups and attempts to change laws to redefine marriage to include non-committed relationships, are you claiming that there wouldn’t be exactly the same push-back? Come on, people… THINK a little.
Except exactly that kind of critical thinking is prohibitive to the argument since the premise is claiming victimhood and thus doesn’t work if the pushback is legitimate.
The crappy thing that I am upset at the gay-activists over is the dishonesty and dirty trickery in making this otherwise neat-o societal and governmental change. It could have been a glorious thing if you used logic, reason, understanding and leading-by-example to advocate for such a shift. Instead, the dominant voices on the issue are bigoted hatemongers that claim there is no possible legitimate argument against their position other than being (ironically) a hatemongering bigot.
Back to the boats and cars analogy: This really annoys me as someone who thinks it would be an interesting societal change to include boats as “cars” because you are forcing me to endorse falsehoods for a good cause and doing so totally needlessly. I find it wildly distasteful that the immediate argument so often trends to hating on the traditional-car people for unprovoked and unreasonable reasons. I don’t care if you want to redefine cars to include boats but could we not be total jerks to the millions of people who are car enthusiasts and want to keep calling cars cars and boats, boats? Why do we need to call those car-lovers people anti-boat just because they love cars? How do you not see that it’s not hypocritical for them to even have enjoyed or currently enjoy boating while still thinking it is a better societal idea for the words to refer to distinct vehicles? Especially when they are for full legal privileges to both vehicles – wtf are you doing by needlessly hating on people who don’t hate you? You’re dividing America and being a jerk is what. Their position of not wanting the word “car” to refer to boats doesn’t ban boats or boating or water sports or anything at all. It just makes a separation with verbiage by using different words for things that are, derr, different. Why can’t we just logically argue with these car enthusiasts that it won’t be the culture shock or motorized-travel disaster that they think it will be if we redefine the word? Why do emotional appeals need to be used to smear the side resisting an arbitrary change that you just decided was important within the last 10 years (out of 100% of the existence of both boats and cars living harmoniously throughout history)?
Personally, I don’t give a crap about the word-opening cuz it pushes the culture and society closer to accepting and legally endorsing polygamy which is what I want for myself when I’m ready to settle down with my herem, but wanting something to happen doesn’t mean we need to be stupid about it.
