A) It's the internet, you can find anything. The website you linked to is 4-years old, has almost no comments, links to a video that was removed, links to Twitter handle with 41 followers... you can probably find more people who believe the Earth is flat.
B) No group of people is 100% homogeneous; you could find blacks in favor of slavery before/after it became illegal.
C) The anti-SSM arguments that gays themselves make are purely against marriage in general. AGAIN, there is no way to support a law that specifies the gender of the people involved. It does not matter who's making the argument...
And btw, you asked about other much more profound and meaningful things, such as the origin of matter/energy, but you won't reply to that and instead write more about that topic of SSM... why? It's your blog, your preferences of course, but as a philosopher you seem to care very little about starting some discussion and actually leading it to something meaningful. Seems strange to me...
I started off a couple years back as a SSM supporter, based on the distinction between moral concepts and legal concepts of marriage. Given the fact that we don't make straight couples pass moral tests to be marriage, even though many marriages would fail to even pass the most secular of moral test, it has always seemed to me that making the government a moral guardian on same-sex relationships seems a tad hypocritical. I think that's what I still think, but the issue is far more complex and has more moving parts than I had thought previously.
VR said...: "... it has always seemed to me that making the government a moral guardian on same-sex relationships seems a tad hypocritical. I think that's what I still think, but the issue is far more complex and has more moving parts than I had thought previously."
Interesting, I took the exact opposite approach. I have never been against SSM and remember being kind of surprised (10+ years ago btw...) when it came up on the news that it was not already legal in Quebec, where I am originally from and was living at the time. It just seemed to me that it was a moral imperative that anyone should be allowed to marry who they want, that they should be recognized as a family, or a couple at least, and that it was very insensitive to target such couples.
It's only recently, and because of strong emotional arguments from the American Christian Right, that I realized that better arguments are actually found in the purely legal approach. This allows to remove ourselves completely from any judgement regarding sexual orientation and focus solely on the fact that we have laws that affect 2 individuals who decide to enter into this contract, which the government sanction and recognizes.
From another thread: "Well, is there a contradiction in the idea that the universe does not exist? If not, why assume that the universe is not contingent?" Why assume either way? It's not the 3rd I am asking exactly the same question, but with different words this time..
3 comments:
A) It's the internet, you can find anything. The website you linked to is 4-years old, has almost no comments, links to a video that was removed, links to Twitter handle with 41 followers... you can probably find more people who believe the Earth is flat.
B) No group of people is 100% homogeneous; you could find blacks in favor of slavery before/after it became illegal.
C) The anti-SSM arguments that gays themselves make are purely against marriage in general. AGAIN, there is no way to support a law that specifies the gender of the people involved. It does not matter who's making the argument...
And btw, you asked about other much more profound and meaningful things, such as the origin of matter/energy, but you won't reply to that and instead write more about that topic of SSM... why? It's your blog, your preferences of course, but as a philosopher you seem to care very little about starting some discussion and actually leading it to something meaningful. Seems strange to me...
I started off a couple years back as a SSM supporter, based on the distinction between moral concepts and legal concepts of marriage. Given the fact that we don't make straight couples pass moral tests to be marriage, even though many marriages would fail to even pass the most secular of moral test, it has always seemed to me that making the government a moral guardian on same-sex relationships seems a tad hypocritical. I think that's what I still think, but the issue is far more complex and has more moving parts than I had thought previously.
VR said...:
"... it has always seemed to me that making the government a moral guardian on same-sex relationships seems a tad hypocritical. I think that's what I still think, but the issue is far more complex and has more moving parts than I had thought previously."
Interesting, I took the exact opposite approach. I have never been against SSM and remember being kind of surprised (10+ years ago btw...) when it came up on the news that it was not already legal in Quebec, where I am originally from and was living at the time. It just seemed to me that it was a moral imperative that anyone should be allowed to marry who they want, that they should be recognized as a family, or a couple at least, and that it was very insensitive to target such couples.
It's only recently, and because of strong emotional arguments from the American Christian Right, that I realized that better arguments are actually found in the purely legal approach. This allows to remove ourselves completely from any judgement regarding sexual orientation and focus solely on the fact that we have laws that affect 2 individuals who decide to enter into this contract, which the government sanction and recognizes.
From another thread:
"Well, is there a contradiction in the idea that the universe does not exist? If not, why assume that the universe is not contingent?"
Why assume either way? It's not the 3rd I am asking exactly the same question, but with different words this time..
Post a Comment