Black is a skin color. It is wrong to discriminate against someone because of the color of their skin.
Jewish is a religion. It is wrong to discriminate against someone because of their religion.
Gay is a sexual preference. (Regardless of whether it is a choice or how someone was born.) Therefore, gay needs to be put in the same category with all other sexual preferences: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pedophile, bestiality-o-phile or whatever you call it, and whatever else exists that I don't really want to know about anyway.
If by "discriminate" you mean deny housing, medical care, due process of law, etc. then I agree, it is wrong to discriminate against people because of their sexual preference.
There are a few notable exceptions, however. I think we'd both agree there is a need to discriminate against people whose sexual preference includes preying on children, by not letting those people live near playgrounds or work in daycares. So you can't make the statement that it is ALWAYS WRONG to discriminate against someone because of their sexual preference. In fact, you would probably say it is sometimes RIGHT to discriminate against someone because of their sexual preference. Correct?
The phrase "sexual preference" means the same as "sexual attraction", I thought. I didn't mean it to infer "choice", which is why I added "regardless of whether it is a choice or how someone was born". That's a separate issue. Follow my logic using the phrase "sexual attraction" instead.
Love it. On my FB, a relative deceided she wanted to get her voice out there - after I published something about Marriage Equality. She was about to spout off something from that fictitious novel, but said she'd have to look it up. I told her not to waste her time - it was all a matter of interpretation.
She then proceeded to lambast me for not being as religious as the family. Excuse me, I wasn't raised in that family, I was adopted by others, and managed to educate myself - resulting in an atheist viewpoint. these are the types of people that believe being gay is a learned experience. Need I say more?
Yes, you do. :) You can't solve the question of gay marriage with an ad hominem argument. Not logically, anyway. But my friend Lemmy does it all the time, so maybe it's kosher in these parts.
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."
9 comments:
great one.
Some people are opposed to gay marriage. Get over it
Some people are opposed to gay marriage. Get over itHmmmm....
Now replace "gay" with "jewish" or "black" in your statement and see how just plain WRONG that is.
Apples and oranges.
Black is a skin color. It is wrong to discriminate against someone because of the color of their skin.
Jewish is a religion. It is wrong to discriminate against someone because of their religion.
Gay is a sexual preference. (Regardless of whether it is a choice or how someone was born.) Therefore, gay needs to be put in the same category with all other sexual preferences: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pedophile, bestiality-o-phile or whatever you call it, and whatever else exists that I don't really want to know about anyway.
If by "discriminate" you mean deny housing, medical care, due process of law, etc. then I agree, it is wrong to discriminate against people because of their sexual preference.
There are a few notable exceptions, however. I think we'd both agree there is a need to discriminate against people whose sexual preference includes preying on children, by not letting those people live near playgrounds or work in daycares. So you can't make the statement that it is ALWAYS WRONG to discriminate against someone because of their sexual preference. In fact, you would probably say it is sometimes RIGHT to discriminate against someone because of their sexual preference. Correct?
Wrong.
YOU are labeling it a preference.
Logic and common sense tells us they are born that way.
So it is discrimination. Period.
The governent cannot deny someone rights because of how they were born.
Nice try, though.
The phrase "sexual preference" means the same as "sexual attraction", I thought. I didn't mean it to infer "choice", which is why I added "regardless of whether it is a choice or how someone was born". That's a separate issue. Follow my logic using the phrase "sexual attraction" instead.
Religion is a choice, once you are a certain age. I didn't put sexual attraction in the same category with things that are choices.
Love it. On my FB, a relative deceided she wanted to get her voice out there - after I published something about Marriage Equality. She was about to spout off something from that fictitious novel, but said she'd have to look it up. I told her not to waste her time - it was all a matter of interpretation.
She then proceeded to lambast me for not being as religious as the family. Excuse me, I wasn't raised in that family, I was adopted by others, and managed to educate myself - resulting in an atheist viewpoint. these are the types of people that believe being gay is a learned experience. Need I say more?
Yes, you do. :) You can't solve the question of gay marriage with an ad hominem argument. Not logically, anyway. But my friend Lemmy does it all the time, so maybe it's kosher in these parts.
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."
Post a Comment