Interesting response...but where are the arguments?
The Real Deal said:
Well first of all, I'm a memebr of the voting public with an opinion.
What if I was of the "opinion" that black people should sit at the back of the bus, Asians should not be allowed into Canadian Universities, Jews should be forced to wear yellow armbands, and Moslems should be locked up to prevent terrorism? True, I would have the right to express my views but, when push came to shove, I could not possibly provide a valid justification for any of these "opinions".
The same applies to "The Real Deal"'s position against same sex marriages. Certainly, he is very outspoken in his objection to the concept; there is no doubt as to where he stands. I guess he should be admired for being willing to state his beliefs, the more so since they are a minority position. However, nowhere in his posts is there any response to the reasoned questions that have been asked of him.
It has been stated by several contributors that there are good reasons FOR same sex marriages and that there are no valid reasons AGAINST the proposed legislation.
"Zog" (and others above) has shown how allowing same sex marriages would provide positive benefits to members of the Gay community and their families. These qualify as valid and reasoned arguments in favour of the same sex marriage proposition.
In contrast, the posts that have been against the proposition have not produced any valid reasons why the proposition would be harmful.
To assist those who wish to make a reasoned argument for the negative, I will ask the questions that have been implied by many before me:
- What is wrong with same-sex mariages?
- What is the negative impact to you or society to allowing Gays to marry?
- What justification is there for denying Homosexual couples the right to marry?
Since we are talking about CIVIL marriage, religious arguments would not be valid responses to these questions.
Though my position in favour of allowing Gays to marry (if they so choose) is obviously quite clear from the content of my post, I do respect the rights of others to hold dissenting opinions. However, my respect is reserved for those who can make clear, cogent, and non-attacking arguments to support their position. I don't see the value of posting a passionate diatribe that attacks other members of TERB, implies that they are playing the race card, but fails to raise any valid points in support of the argument.
It's all well and good to be outspoken against a proposition; it's actually quite easy to do if you have some time on your hands. It's a great deal more difficult to make a reasoned argument in support of a position.
"The Real Deal" has accomplished the first part: we all know where he stands. However, he has completely avoided the second, more difficult, component: he has made no attempt to give us valid reasons why he opposes the proposition and supports the
status quo.
In our free society (at least we claim to have one) laws should serve to protect and benefit the public, not oppress them. I have not yet seen a single argument that shows how banning same sex marriages will protect or benefit this society.
I understand that many people are opposed to Homosexuality in all forms on religious or (personal) ethics grounds. These people have a right to hold those views but they DO NOT have the right to attempt to impose them on others. Just because you don't agree with someone's lifestyle choices or preferences is NO REASON to stop them form following their chosen path. Only if there is a good and valid reason why that choice is somehow harmful to others is there justification for restricting the activiity under the law.
Here's an example. I believe that pedophiles should not be permitted to practice their proclivities with underage children. I find pedophilia to be vile and disgusting behaviour; however, my personal opinion alone (however strongly held) IS NOT SUFFICIENT GROUNDS for making pedophilia illegal. On the other hand, it can be shown quite clearly, without a shadow of a doubt, that pedophiles produce real (and often irreversable) damage to their victims. Now THAT is a valid argument against the practice. If this was a thread about pedophilia, I would list a number of proofs in support of this argument but, since I'm already well off on a tangent, I'll trust that you all get the idea.
What I would like to see here is SOME KIND of real and logical reasoning for why it is harmfull or otherwise undesireable to allow same sex couples to have their commitment to each other recognised by the law.
Who knows, if there ARE valid reasons, perhaps I will come to change my perspective. I can promise you one thing, though:
You'll never change my mind when you subtract from your credibility by attacking the other posters and do not add to your credibilitty by introducing worthwhile arguments in your favour.
Pyro.