Hey everyone, so in the spirit of equality and supporting homosexual marriage I recently shared this picture on facebook:
Sorry I don't know how to re-size this.
Anyway, my brother had this to say:
"This really is a strawman falacy becuase (most of) those who are against homosexual marriage are also against infidelity, pornography, "no-fault" divorce (or irreconcilable differences), and excessive spending. So really, (most of) the people who are against homosexual marriage would also be against the actions listed above.
Also, (most of, or maybe just many of) the people against homosexual marriage realize that it is not homosexual marriage that destroys the institution of marriage, but it is immoral (sinful) lives that destroy marriage. To many of these people, marriage is not a government or civil institution, it is a physical representation of a spiritual truth. Marriage is the symbol of God's love and desired relationship with humans. Since God ordained marriage, many people expect marriage to be congruent to what God deems correct.
There are other politcal, sociological, scientific, and philosophical reasons to disfavor homosexual marriage, but ultimately they take a back seat to the spiritual reason." (Oh and then his wife "liked" the comment he left)
As you can guess I really want respond to this but I have no idea what to say without sounding like an asshole (don't know why I bother considering) and I don't want to just delete the comment or ignore it because I feel like that would be somehow admitting defeat or something. So what do you think?
Here we have to make the distinction between how you define your personal relationships and what the institution of marriage is. The institution of marriage is, historically and presently, legal/ contractual at its foundation. It's totally cool that people decorate* it with other things, but that doesn't alter the fundamental nature of the institution, even in religious traditions.
I'm not sure I agree with that simile, but the the courts would be going beyond their charter to consider ineffables like spirituality.
So in short he didn't have anything to say.
"Marriage is spiritual" makes him sound like a child.
He might want to look up the history of marriage in different cultures.
Your last post would take some time to debate, and I have no intention of carrying on such a long discussion here.
Hah, admission of defeat. As I told you in the chat, the funny thing to do would be to just continue posting random goody shit that makes fun of his homophobic ass and not even respond to him. You're going the right way!
You could upload some of the pictures here.
This really is a strawman falacy becuase (most of) those who are against homosexual marriage are also against infidelity, pornography, "no-fault" divorce (or irreconcilable differences), and excessive spending. So really, (most of) the people who are against homosexual marriage would also be against the actions listed above.
Let us weigh "are" vs. "would be". Currently there are multitudinous laws, protests and lobby groups concerning same-sex marriage which is not legal in the majority of states. Is the same true for any of those other things? No, not really. In principle, he may have a bit of a point, but in practice he really doesn't. In practice same-sex marriage is discriminately and disproportionately attacked while the other issues are let slide. Is inconsistent moralizing really a good defence?
"To many of these people, marriage is not a government or civil institution, it is a physical representation of a spiritual truth. Since God ordained marriage, many people expect marriage to be congruent to what God deems correct. There are other politcal, sociological, scientific, and philosophical reasons to disfavor homosexual marriage, but ultimately they take a back seat to the spiritual reason."
The United States Government Accountability Office lists 1138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. None of them mention God. That's because the framers of the Constitution not only disallowed "the spiritual reason" a front seat, they evicted him from the vehicle entirely. He was left behind and was last seen standing by the roadside with a big frownie face back in 1787.
Is your brother slow?
Marriage has absolutely no foundation without the spiritual meaning. Why do humans have the institution of marriage? There is no scientific, sociological, or philosophical demand for marriage. Sure science, sociology, and philosophy can give good reasons for marriage, but there is no necessary need for marriage. Only the spiritual reason can make marriage necessary. If we were to only use science, sociology, or philosophy, then marriage could break down at any time and be defined in any way one would like. [...] However, it is not "love" that makes the difference. It is God's defining of love, and what we should love, that makes the difference."
So according to your brother, the foundation, necessity, and definition of marriage is beyond the ken of science, sociology, and philosophy. A supernatural being with magical powers makes all the difference and is providing supernatural backing for your brother's position. On this, we are all wrong and he is right, but he is unwilling or unable to elaborate to support his point so he merely restates it.
You would think supernatural backing would be a little more robust.
"Wilhelmus van Nassauwe, ben ik van Duytsen Bloed, Homo's en Lesbos doen het bij ons best wel goed!"
Sorry, couldn't help myself.... misplaced patriotism I guess. I do love the idea that people can overcome the hatred and bigotry within society and proof to the world what they are, regardless of the incessant bitching and complaining about "the gays".
Honestly Amanda? Anyone can throw a tantrum or have a hissy fit. It takes a lot more maturity to put together thoughtful and concise arguments the way you are doing. Insults are two a penny. Debating with factual rather than emotional perspective is clearly a skill you possess and it is a pleasure to have you share that here :)
It is worse than talking to a brick wall because at I feel like a wall would be more responsive.
Actually the brick wall is less responsive but your evaluation is correct; the brick wall is better because at least it's not rewarding your efforts to communicate with a gigantic crock of fresh steaming bullshit. Some types of responsiveness are worse than nothing.