How to respond to this:
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?
Tags: Xian, assholes, homosexuality
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Amanda Mrakovich on -
Nice link, very funny!
-
Permalink Reply by Dale Headley on -
You might use Justice Kagan's tactic and ask your brother to specify just what those "political, sociological, scientific, and philosophical" reasons are. For that matter, just what is the "spiritual reason"? A respected lawyer could only sputter and blather in response to Kagan's question before admitting that he couldn't think of any reasons. Two California courts struck down Prop 8 for that same reason: none of the plaintiffs could come up with a single negative effect of gay marriage that they were willing to put forth, since it would have made them look like ignorant bigots. Speaking of which, Maybe your brother should have been the one to argue before the Supreme Court.
And your brother speciously equates homosexuality with those things (infidelity, pornography, etc.) he professes being against without providing any rationale for making that moral equivalency.
Incidentally, Rush Limbaugh is on his fourth childless marriage, which helps render the specious "procreation" argument N/A.
-
Permalink Reply by Amanda Mrakovich on
-
Edit: Yeah that is an awesome idea. Thanks a lot.
-
Permalink Reply by Amanda Mrakovich on
-
He responded to the pictures by saying:
"Sam, that is funny. I still think that the Supreme Court will choose to not make a decision. We will see though.
I do not mind intelligent arguments in support of your ideas. However, Amanda, none of your posts have anything to do with my statement. I never said the Constitution says homosexual marriage is a sin. In fact, if you ask me, I do not think that in the United States that the state should recognize heterosexual marriage. As I said earlier, marriage is a spiritual issue at its core, certainly not political.
Your second post is just kind of humorus, but does not really have any point.
Your last post would take some time to debate, and I have no intention of carrying on such a long discussion here. Suffice to say that the post does not fully explain the texts cited, and it does not understand what happend. It also does not understand that just because something happened in the Bible, it does not mean that God wanted it to happen (endorsed it). Many things happened in Scripture that God did not endorse."Oh, Sam is my husband and he posted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-5_Nw0tFXE&feature=youtu.be and then some witty comment about watching the shit storm that is about to unfold. And just FYI I posted (in order):
http://weknowawesome.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/wonka-gay-marri...
https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/safe_image.php?d=AQD2DygPEgtskqTl...
https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/safe_image.php?d=AQBYZac48RfzHOBq...
(Props to kOrsan for all of those, thanks man)
-
Permalink Reply by kris feenstra on -
Is I said earlier, marriage is a spiritual issue at its core, certainly not political.
It is legal and financial at its core. Reducing it to a spiritual matter is like reducing cola to just the air bubbles and still trying to call it a drink.
-
Permalink Reply by Amanda Mrakovich on
-
I agree with you for the most part. But I would say that personally my marriage is at it's core based on the love my husband and I share (cheesy but true nonetheless).
-
Permalink Reply by Unseen on -
You need to distinguish between marriage as the law views it and any other sense of the term. The law doesn't give a flying f*ck about cheesy lovey-doveyness. It doesn't even require that people actually love each other to get married. To the law, marriage is a contractual arrangement with a variety of implications involving tax liabilities, what happens in case of dissolution (division of property, guardianship of children), or the death of one of the marital partners.
-
Permalink Reply by kris feenstra on
-
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.
-
Permalink Reply by Amanda Mrakovich on
-
Yeah I suppose that you are both right. I guess I should have said personally I feel... XD in all seriousness, I get what you are saying and I agree.
-
Permalink Reply by Unseen on
-
I'm not sure I agree with that simile, but the the courts would be going beyond their charter to consider ineffables like spirituality.
-
Permalink Reply by kOrsan on -
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.
What's new today
Events
Forum
Origins of Life?
Started by RobertPiano in Biology and Medicine. Last reply by James Cox 16 minutes ago. 77 Replies 1 Like
Blog Posts
Litany of Folly
Posted by Owen Hayes on December 10, 2013 at 12:20am 5 Comments 0 Likes
Videos
The Latest on Giz Gad
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
