I know from your words that you do not respect my ideas, and that's fair enough. I am still quite happy and willing to engage in conversation with you!
I don't respect some
of your ideas, but I don't think it's all "verbal vomit". I said that mainly because I found you repeating yourself in that long post and I often come across people who write a lot to mask a lack of a point.
Okay, some ideas. It's an improvement, and I'll take it! As for the repetition, yes, I agree on that point! Not that there's no point, but I do tend to repeat sometims.
Not to say there was nothing valid in there. I generally agree with the idea that it's better to discuss ideas than to shut them down. I generally agree that the way to combat what you see as a bad argument is with a good argument, not with insults, threats, or silencing.
Common ground there!
Keep in mind that I think it's possible to respect a person and not respect all their opinions (which is what I mean when I say I don't respect every opinion).
I see. I tend to respect the person and the opinion. Disagreeing with an opinion doesn't mean I don't respect it; especially when it's well stated or I know it comes through long internal struggle.
I'm sure you could find some examples of egregious opinions you don't respect.
Actually, no, I don't think I honestly can. I have always been one who abide by: "I may despise whát you say, but will always respect your opinion and uphold your right to speak your mind".
This doesn't mean I have never come across egregious opinions!
People can agree to be civil while fully admitting that they find another opinion to be terrible. This is, after all, just another opinion. One that can be taken with a grain of salt.
Of course! When it's done with respect for the other person, real ground can be covered.
I also think we may not necessarily be using "respect an opinion" to mean the exact same thing. I'd be curious to know what it means to you.
That is possible. For me, when I say I "respect your opinion" it derives from the fundamental of total respect for the person: what I am saying to you is that, regardless of what it is you have to say, whether I agree with it or not, I will consider it, think about it, study it, research what you mean, talk with you about it, try to understand what you are saying and the mindset you're in. I will offer my own take on it (and I will try not to be overly-snarky about it); will try to answer each point, will try to explore areas of commonality and difference.
We may or may not ever end up agreeing, but I at least will consider myself the richer for having engaged in the exercise.
I am sorry they're disappointed. It happens to be spot on. It's human nature to use the victory of one group to advance the cause of its own. We see this in the school yard as well as in broader society. Sometimes, as with sufferage, this led to two key and just victories (the sufferage of blacks followed by the sufferage of women). Other times, as with legalised marijuana use, it's right down the slope. Again, what's next?
There may be nothing next, exactly the point.
That is often the hope! Human nature rarely rests comfortable with "nothing next". Following on with sufferage: we're at the point now in many states where the voting age is continually lowered (I know many young people think it's not low enough! When I was that age, I was just aware enough to realise boys my age are nothing like mature enough to be voting on critical social and political issues.) We're also at the point where it's just not a big deal for many folks that illegal aliens are voting. So, what's next? We open up our polls to everyone in the world? (Oh wait, the Russians are already queued up!?)
A slope is not a necessary result. But I think you said that also.
Correct. The "slippery slope" is not the necessary result. I think it is in this case a valid argument, but is not always.
The point is, when confronted with that argument, I would try to present an argument against it (i.e. citing suffrage, as you said), and citing the fundamental differences between a relationship between consenting adults and pedophiles.
This is why I brought in the idea that there áre other valid forms of love & legal relationship, apart from marriage, that can and should be made available to MM / FF couples. The nature of marriage is basically a girl and a guy. This is the foundation of your basic human family. Girl and boy shag each other silly until new human beings are made. Apart from the basic biological function, and this I think Ahzoh may have missed, is that there are legal and social benefits that attach to marriage. As I said, matters of inheritance, speaking for an incapacitated partner, automatic powers of attorney, and the like. These are things that same sex couples MUST be granted admittance to. While they can't be actually "married" --- and no, Micamo, none of us have a basic human right to be married (that's a priviledge granted by the State through the marriage license, or else through the Church) --- there must be some solution to the problem that allows same sex couples access to the social and legal benefits of marriage while not running afoul of matters of natural and Divine law, culture and so forth.
The minority overturning all of culture and society for its own benefit is tyranny and no better than the majority oppressing the minority. It is a solution made in bad faith and will, I think, be ever a point of contention until properly dealt with.
Some of the knee-jerk reaction is probably due to the fact that comparing homosexuality with pedophilia is often considered offensive (same goes for, say, comparing God to Santa Claus).
Oh, I get that! (And believe me, I've written the latter satire as well!) That's part and parcel of engaging in satire. Some will respond by thinking; others by visceral reaction. The point is, will the people who react viscerally eventually begin to engage the mind, or will they continue to engage the knee?
It doesn't mean that there isn't some way that it could be valid, but it often is used by hateful people.
Which is what makes a satire powerful. I mean really, I could have made a satire about brands of mac & cheese. What would be the point?
Since I didn't assume you were hateful,
I appreciate that! I don't get into my personal life here, but I think I may break that general rule in this instance. This is actually a very important topic for me. You're just going to have to take my word for it: hate is the farthest thing from my mind as far as this topic goes!
I was surprised that you might have been using that argument seriously (in which case I would rather have debated it than expressed surprise). And as I said before, I truly do have trouble detecting sarcasm. I won't blame everything on my Aspberger's, but it's part of it.
I get the whole Asperger's thing. I have run afoul of it going both ways --- both in detecting sarcasm and in inflicting sarcasm upon those who have difficulty detecting it.
But no, I am not "using that argument seriously" although the underlying issue is a very serious one and one that I have considered rather deeply for a very long time, and continue to struggle with it. I used that particular line as a deliberately inflammatory introduction. That's the basis of satire! Inflame in order to point out some folly or failing in society. In order to get people thinking and talking. I'm happy that happened! This is the Majestic Conversation Thread, after all!
Quite so! That's rather the point of coming into a forum like this. To be exposed to the ideas of others, and perhaps be changed by them. I know I have changed my mind on many things due to exposure to ideas proposed here. But this goes both ways. If I can come in here and be open to the relatively Left leaning prevailing opinion of this forum, then I have every expectation that differing opinions will also be aired, respected and be openly welcomed. Perhaps it might be the case that others here will think and moderate their own views.
Right, and as long as people are not insulting or shutting others down, I think anything goes as far as discussing opinions. Any time I post an opinion online, I know people might not like it, people might debate me, or point out why my argument is fallacious. I welcome the chance to strengthen my arguments.
Great! The satire worked its magic. Blisters were raised, cockroaches were sent scuttling. And once the dust settles, people can get on with the discussion.
Not at all! It ìs wrong to make up your mind in the absence of considering all points of view. It ìs wrong to make up your mind so tightly that you refuse to even consider the validity of another perspective. It ìs wrong to make up your mind such that you reject all others who do not share your narrow perspective.
And that's the thing--you can't necessarily tell if someone has considered all points of view.
Good point! This is where the proverbial cigarette after comes into play. Once the initial broohaha is blown over, those people still willing to talk can learn about each others' perspectives. They can find out how much consideration went into their ideas and their arguments.
For example, I've argued against the homosexuality/pedophilia connection before several times to the point where I'm fairly tired of it. So sometimes I may react negatively to seeing it brought up again. But it doesn't mean that I haven't engaged in a debate and seen other points of view. But seeing other points of view means that I will necessarily see some as invalid (for me).
I'm happy to lay it to rest here. For me, the connexion is, as I indicated earlier, a biological one. There is no moral or social equivalence (I find that particular line of reasoning to be abhorrent), so I'm not even going to go down that road. The common thread is one of (biological) sterility of the unions listed. That being the case, there is no good reason to entertain the notion of "marriage" in these cases, because they can not do what married couples do.
We therefore need a different solution. One that respects that respects the nature of marriage while also respecting the nature of the same sex couples who desire a similar kind of relationship. Just redefining "marriage" is a poor solution. It is fundamentally insulting to Nature and the Divine. It belittles and ostracises the majority. In short, it does not help the position of people who have been suffering under some kind of oppression. Do two wrongs make a right? No. Are there people on the Right who, generally speaking, are sympathetic with this plight? Yes! Do the Left seriously think they're going to win people over by trampling all over basic cultural, religious and social norms? Obviously, but they're going about it the wrong way.
What we need is an actual mode of relationship --- a new way of thinking about relationship --- that exists morally and legally and also that respects both majority and minority. A truly inclusive situation that respects marriage for what it is but also allows other people "into the club".
Whatever you may think of what I've said, I do appreciate the interchange of ideas with you!
Same. As a young person in Trump's America, I know all too well what becoming extremist and refusing to see other points of view leads to. I do have opinions and an ideology of my own, but it's never completely set in stone.
Awesome! So long as you keep your mind open and the ideology doesn't run us down a slippery slope, or into a brick wall or over a cliff, you might just get my wheelchair bound vote!
Unless by then the radical euthenasia folks decide that I shall have been made redundant...
(I'll mark that one as explicit sarcasm!)
Oh, also: it's OUR America. Not Trump's America. He just gets to sit in the captain's chair for a little while. Do not forget that even the president answers to the People, and the People are sovereign!