Blog on Same-Sex "Marriage," Atheism, and More

[Alceste]

Comes off as though he is unsure who he is trying to convince, himself, or others.

Yeah, or that the content itself is nothing more than a vehicle for the writer to indulge in a stream of pejoratives against those he perceives as his political enemy.

 

[McBell]

Yeah, or that the content itself is nothing more than a vehicle for the writer to indulge in a stream of pejoratives against those he perceives as his political enemy.

I do find it interesting how the blogger thus far completely ignores the fact that marriage is a legal contract.

Instead, the blogger goes on and on and on about all the fluff, window dressing, icing concerning marriage without even mentioning that marriage being a legal contract that they will need to have a legitimate legal reason to ban same sex marriage.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hey guys,

I made a blog in which I examine critically same-sex "marriage," atheism, and a host of other topics. I'd appreciate any feedback.

Sovereign Dream

What's your intended audience? Like-minded people? People you're trying to convince? I'm not sure your blog entries work that well for either group.

Also, I'd suggest that you stop using your quote key altogether. Excessive use of scare quotes makes a person come across as very ranty.

"Quotation marks are often used to alert readers that a term is used in a nonstandard, ironic, or other special sense [...] They imply 'This is not my term' or 'This is not how the term is usually applied.' Like any such device, scare quotes lose their force and irritate readers if overused."

 

[Me Myself]

It takes you far too much words to make your point.

I point I behemently disagree with

 

[Me Myself]

I do find it interesting how the blogger thus far completely ignores the fact that marriage is a legal contract.

Instead, the blogger goes on and on and on about all the fluff, window dressing, icing concerning marriage without even mentioning that marriage being a legal contract that they will need to have a legitimate legal reason to ban same sex marriage.

Point indeed.

 

[Me Myself]

You may want to scale back the tone of your rhetoric, unless you intend to merely preach to the choir. Also, referring to WLC as a "philosophical juggernaut" certainly isn't going to help your credibility. Lastly, your arguments against SSM are terrible- no offense- but I suppose that can hardly be helped, since there are no good arguments against SSM.

Since when do we ever need reasons not to deny whole categories people equal rights and freedoms to the rest of us?

We need reasons to restrict and oppress the freedoms of others. We don't need any reason to live and let live.

Exactly.

There may not exists good arguments for jumping three times, shouting "my ellegible cake line" and eating 300 lollypops in a row, but that certainly does not make it immoral nor should it make it ilegal.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Actually, I think just the opposite is the case; there are no good arguments for SSM.

For one thing, I'm not sure that's the most pertinent question, given the political basis for this country's government, and second, it is not true. There's a pretty knockdown argument for SSM, as it happens; legalizing SSM is a win-win scenario- we allow a segment of the population to pursue their own ideal of happiness in the same manner everyone else can, and stand to lose nothing in the bargain. And of course, the whole "losing nothing in the bargain" part is related to the lack of any , in any way cogent, argument against SSM.

 

[averageJOE]

The phrase "traditional marriage -- whose public purpose is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another" in this blog got me thinking that I've heard it before. It ends up he took all his "arguments" from this debate: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-consistency-contra-same-sex-marriage-13.html and made it a blog.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Since when do we ever need reasons not to deny whole categories people equal rights and freedoms to the rest of us?

We need reasons to restrict and oppress the freedoms of others. We don't need any reason to live and let live.

But see, if you had read the "Building A Case Against SSM, Part 1" post, you'd realize that this is either simply question-begging or false. To assume that we are treating individuals "unjustly" by disallowing them to marry someone of the same sex is to assume that two men or two women "marrying" is not in conceptual contention when it is, in fact, in contention. And to assume as much is just to assume that marriage just is, say, individuals "lovingly committing" to one another or something akin to this. But, of course, the opponent of SSM disagrees with that assumption in the first place. So this is just to beg the question and to talk past the opponent of SSM.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

I don't know if you have noticed yet, but the argument is pretty much over now. Your side lost.

Your choice now is either to accept the loss gracefully, or to continue to fume in impotent rage. Doesn't matter either way.

That's a pretty pointless comment. Should we tell all those opposed to abortion the same thing? "The argument is over now. Your side lost. Stop campaigning to end abortion. You can choose to either accept abortion gracefully or to continue to fume in impotent rage."

Or perhaps to those opposed to apartheid? "The argument is over now. Your side lost. Stop campaigning to end apartheid. You can either choose to accept apartheid gracefully or to continue to fume in impotent rage."

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Fun fact: men who describe themselves as least comfortable with homosexuality are the most likely to be sexually aroused by watching gay porn.

Sorry to disappoint, then, by not conforming to that prediction.

You might want to think twice about maintaining an anti gay blog. That's a heck of a lot of work you're putting into contemplating homosexuality for somebody who isn't into it. What will people think?

I wouldn't have to write about it if individuals weren't so obsessed with trying to implement it, would I?

 

[Sovereign Dream]

What's your intended audience? Like-minded people? People you're trying to convince? I'm not sure your blog entries work that well for either group.

Also, I'd suggest that you stop using your quote key altogether. Excessive use of scare quotes makes a person come across as very ranty.

I use so-called "scare quotes" (see, I'm doing it again) when speaking of same-sex "marriage" because to yield that a same-sex "marriage" is something that is legitimate and that is not in conceptual contention is simply to concede the point and render my argument moot.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That's a pretty pointless comment. Should we tell all those opposed to abortion the same thing? "The argument is over now. Your side lost. Stop campaigning to end abortion. You can choose to either accept abortion gracefully or to continue to fume in impotent rage."

Or perhaps to those opposed to apartheid? "The argument is over now. Your side lost. Stop campaigning to end apartheid. You can either choose to accept apartheid gracefully or to continue to fume in impotent rage."

Wow. Lol. Comparing SSM to apartheid= epic fail.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Also, I've noticed that I've received many accusations of straw-manning. I haven't seen any examples as to how I am doing that, however. Is it not the case that the most popular argument for SSM is that we are "treating individuals unjustly by not allowing them to marry someone of the same-sex"? Or that "not letting two men or two women get marriedlike how a man and a woman can is unequal and unjust"?

 

[fantome profane]

That's a pretty pointless comment.

Just trying to save you some time. But continue on with your pointless blog. No skin off my nose.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Finally, if you guys are convinced that I am wrong about something that I have written, or that I have reasoned invalidly, etc., I invite you to write on the comment section of my blog so that we may have a productive conversation on the matter.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I'd imagine he'll do just that; after all, having his argument ripped to shreds on his "Argument from Consistency" thread didn't stop him from creating a blog merely rehashing the same nonsense.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Finally, if you guys are convinced that I am wrong about something that I have written, or that I have reasoned invalidly, etc., I invite you to write on the comment section of my blog so that we may have a productive conversation on the matter.

That's what an internet forum is for.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Just trying to save you some time. But continue on with your pointless blog. No skin off my nose.

Well, do you have anything substantive to respond to my earlier response to you? Because this just seems as if you are conceding the point and accepting that the comment you made earlier was rather pointless. No skin off my nose, I guess.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

I'd imagine he'll do just that; after all, having his argument ripped to shreds on his "Argument from Consistency" thread didn't stop him from creating a blog merely rehashing the same nonsense.

"Ripped to shreds"? I'm not sure I remember it like that. As is widely accepted in philosophy, one can show an argument to be defective by either demonstrating that it is not deductively valid such that its premises do not deductively guarantee the entailment of the conclusion or otherwise showing that (at least) one of the premises is false. Imagine my surprise, then, when people brilliantly "defeated" my argument by launching volleys of "bigot" and "fascist" at me.