This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Marriage - two viewpoints

some asshole's Avatar Jump to comment 75 by some asshole

Comment 64 by Schrodinger's Cat :

It seems to me that the whole argument about re-defining 'marriage' is decidedly ass backwards. Indeed, I can put my finger on exactly where the logical error lies.....and where the rationality of the argument falls over.....

If you need to re-define a word to include you, then you cannot simultaneously argue that it's definition already includes you.

That is to can a person be discriminatorily 'left out' of something whose definition never included them in the first place ? There'd be no need to argue for inclusion if one was already included.

You can argue that marriage 'ought' to incorporate gays....but it doesn't, and the only way it can do is to re-define the word.

But....if you re-define the word.....then it is by definition no longer the very thing you wanted to get into in the first place !

1) I want to join group X.

2) Group X by definition excludes me

3) I get the definition of group X changed

4) Group X is no longer the group X that I wanted to join in the first place.

A bit of a pyrrhic victory.

Who gets to do the defining? Who are you to say that "marriage" is prima facie defined as the joining of a heterosexual couple? It's more accurate to simply say that marriage is a legal right that has historically been extended only to heterosexual couples.

When marriage became a legal institution, how safe was it to be openly homosexual? What you're essentially saying is that since homophobia used to be even more rampant and institutionalized than it now is, we should continue extending or denying legal rights based on sexual orientation.

Are you saying that since in the United States, a "voter" was originally defined as a white man, African Americans and women should have shut up and not gone for the "Pyrrhic victory" of being extended the legal right to vote?

Nazis defined wide classes of people as sub-human ("untermensch"). Does the definition stick?

Who gets to decide?

What a red herring that shit argument was!

None of you homophobes (yes, homophobes) can defend denying a legal right based on sexual orientation. You dance around "definitions", talk about what's "natural", pat each other on the back, and make no sense whatsoever.

Fri, 16 Mar 2012 02:42:24 UTC | #927694