A really, really, really long post about gay marriage
afleitch:
I think Jane Galt is circling round the issue. To be honest her rationale is lax and her argument is pretty poor, based on hypotheticals. If I was a lecturer I wouldn't grade this particularly well if a student handed it in
Bono:
Quote from: afleitch on February 01, 2008, 04:33:39 PM
I think Jane Galt is circling round the issue. To be honest her rationale is lax and her argument is pretty poor, based on hypotheticals. If I was a lecturer I wouldn't grade this particularly well if a student handed it in
Which hypotethical does she give? She uses three historical examples, not hypothetical ones.
afleitch:
Quote from: Bono on February 01, 2008, 04:46:14 PM
Quote from: afleitch on February 01, 2008, 04:33:39 PM
I think Jane Galt is circling round the issue. To be honest her rationale is lax and her argument is pretty poor, based on hypotheticals. If I was a lecturer I wouldn't grade this particularly well if a student handed it in
Which hypotethical does she give? She uses three historical examples, not hypothetical ones.
My only request is that people try to be a leeetle more humble about their ability to imagine the subtle results of big policy changes. The argument that gay marriage will not change the institution of marriage because you can't imagine it changing your personal reaction is pretty arrogant.
That's the biggest hypothetical in the argument. And, to use her words, an arrogant at that. She should take a look at the marriage statistics in countries and states with civil unions/gay marriage.
Tetro Kornbluth:
Some of the facts used are extremely dubious\downright wrong such as:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Clearly she is unfamiliar with many African or Polynesian societies. (Or the lords and Masters of many a universe.)
Actually her whole arguement is too american-centric; for example she posits a link between the decline in Marriage and the rise in crime in the Inner cities - BUT while does two things do have a correlation (from the 60s to the 80s anyway; though how related they are is another thing.) in the United States it does not focus on many other countries, such as Europe, where no such relationship seems to exist.
In addition, and coming from someone who lives in a country which still had illegal divorce in my lifetime, this sort of the arguement can be used against legal divorce and actually was (in a more direct way) or for that matter, against abolishing arranged marriages.
Person Man:
A very good article. Then again, I wonder how things would be if these things never occured. What I noticed throughout the articles was that no problems actually were invented. In each one of these circumstances that was illustrated, not one of them showed a new problem, they just showed a problem becoming more visible. The main difference I saw, however, is that society was finally able to stop dusting real problems underneath the rug.
Unwed mothers? We just started dealing with them like they were people instead of paying more money to have them jailed, spayed and forcing them into illegal abortion or adoption. We haven't actually solved the problem yet, but what we have done is shown that you can't just abandon people to jails and insane asylums.
High Divorce Rates? All we really did here is destroy marriages that were destroying themselves. We didn't actually do anything. All we did was recognize that there were in fact problems that none of us could have seen before.
Therefore, when it comes to homosexuality, all we are dealing with is how we deal with other people. Do we just pretend that the problem doesn't exist? Do we just pay taxes to have them thrown in jailed or whatever? Or do we do the most ethical thing even though we may turn over a problem that we might not be able to deal with?
Though I do commend this thread for showing that there are other people in the world who we need to pay attention to in order to make important decisions. However, when doing this, we should be mindful that we shouldn't take it as a call that "This is the Will of God in this Universe", rather we should understand that we are confronting a problem that is simply in the form that it is in because of our current policy and is hiding underneath our rug. I would say that we must expose social problems in order to fix them, not hide them underneath our rug for them to forment into the fall of civilization.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page