(no subject)
Jul. 31st, 2012 09:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mcityThere was a post on Tumblr about how opposing gay marriage = homophobia.
The logic ran that since people who opposed gay marriage wanted to deny gay people of their rights, that meant they hated gays.
Of course, by that logic, the officer who arrests a suspect, depriving them of their freedom, must also hate the suspect, right? How about banning smoking? What about tresspassing?
But all of those things are illegal, you say?
Not exactly; an officer does not need to have a guilty suspect to arrest them, just probable cause. The original premise did not say it was okay to deny people their rights when it was legal, only that wanting to do so necessarily indicates that one is doing so out of hate.
Not to mention the sheer tautology of the idea; people who oppose gay marriage must hate gays, or else they wouldn't oppose gay marriage. Most of the arguments I've heard in favor of gay marriage aren't actually very logical; they mostly consist of declaring the opposition bigots and homophobes. For some reason, such arguments aren't convincing to the people on the other side.
I have heard that gay marriages will stimulate the economy, and it occurs to me that so wserill gay divorces. Think about medical insurance; premiums spiked rapidly once the lawyers got involved.
In the interests of fairness, the idea that "traditional" marriage is inherently "better" is just as flawed. In fact, Appeal to Tradition is a recognized fallacy. Ultimately, both sides' positions are almost entirely subjective.
The logic ran that since people who opposed gay marriage wanted to deny gay people of their rights, that meant they hated gays.
Of course, by that logic, the officer who arrests a suspect, depriving them of their freedom, must also hate the suspect, right? How about banning smoking? What about tresspassing?
But all of those things are illegal, you say?
Not exactly; an officer does not need to have a guilty suspect to arrest them, just probable cause. The original premise did not say it was okay to deny people their rights when it was legal, only that wanting to do so necessarily indicates that one is doing so out of hate.
Not to mention the sheer tautology of the idea; people who oppose gay marriage must hate gays, or else they wouldn't oppose gay marriage. Most of the arguments I've heard in favor of gay marriage aren't actually very logical; they mostly consist of declaring the opposition bigots and homophobes. For some reason, such arguments aren't convincing to the people on the other side.
I have heard that gay marriages will stimulate the economy, and it occurs to me that so wserill gay divorces. Think about medical insurance; premiums spiked rapidly once the lawyers got involved.
In the interests of fairness, the idea that "traditional" marriage is inherently "better" is just as flawed. In fact, Appeal to Tradition is a recognized fallacy. Ultimately, both sides' positions are almost entirely subjective.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-08-01 09:15 am (UTC)Of course, this is a very narrow-minded argument that ignores the fact that the alternative - no gay marriage at all - would make no difference because gays wouldn't be making babies anyway. And there is the possibility of adoption, modern surrogacy techniques, etcetera etcetera.
All of which ignores the most practical reason for gays wanting legitimised marriages/civil unions/whatever you want to call it: legally recognised spousal power of attorney and wills.
Is that really so hard to express?
no subject
Date: 2012-08-01 02:00 pm (UTC)I'm technically a conservative, but if people in the Bahamas voted for gay marriage, I'd just shrug and go "whatever". Same if I lived in the States. Same if I lived in the UK. I'd probably even attend one or two, because, hey, free food.