Matthew:
Part One: Bigots all over America are rejoicing at the decision of Maine voters to join thirty other states in denying the right to marry to its gay citizens. To these individuals, I respond with a quote from William Penn: "Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it."
Joseph:
You know what the sad part about it is? They'll turn that quote right around and use it to claim that their position is right and your position is wrong. :-(
Matthew:
One step ahead of you, my friend. I address that in Part Two of my post.
Matthew:
Part Two: America was founded on the principle that "all men are created equal" and are endowed by their Creator with the "inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". No one can honestly argue that homosexuals endanger any of these rights by wishing to marry; as such, the state should never be able to prevent them from doing so. To believe otherwise is, in the most profound sense, un-American.
Bob:
If america lets the gays marry, what's to stop the weirdo's from using the same logic to say they should be allowed to marry animals, or more than one person, or even animals and humans?!!! judging by your profile pic, i think i already know where you stand on on that one ;)
Matthew:
Ignoring your inability to appreciate references to Shakespearean theater, arguing that allowing gays to marry would somehow promote bestiality is so logically absurd it gives me ulcers. The whole point here is that people should be able to choose their own lifestyles so long as they don't harm others. An animal is no more capable of making a decision as to whether he/she/it marries a human being than a child, and therefore the situation is simply not analogous. Now if you don't mind, I'm going to pop out the Prilosec.
David:
Your assumption that gay marriage would somehow inadvertently lead to inter-species love affairs is a slippery slope so steep that it barely warrants a response. An animal is incapable of representing itself logically and morally, therefore your analogy holds no water. I am sick of people using this ludicrous argument, not only does it show a complete lack of logical thought, but it also represents an extremely detrimental attitude towards gays and lesbians. Do you honestly place the intellectual existence of gays and lesbians on the same footing as animals? If so you are not only misguided, but also a horribly immoral person.
Bob:
!!!! could my response have been any more absurd? come on guys. matt, ignoring your inability to appreciate references to your own profile pic to make a joke gives me ulcers.
David:
If your post was a joke I apologize, but you have to admit it is quite difficult to tell sarcasm through text.
Matthew:
Bob, I understood that you were telling a joke; I simply found the premise on which the joke was being told to be extremely offensive. As I said before, our nation was founded on the principle that people should be able to live their lives exactly as they please so long as they don't harm others in the process. Your response - that this right doesn't encompass gay marriage because that might lead to people wedding animals, which ignored that animals lack the capacity to consent to such a union and thus don't have that legal standing - deserved ridicule. This is why David and I responded as we did.
Matthew:
PS: David is a much more magnanimous human being than myself. He is willing to give you the benefit of the doubt when you shift gears by claiming that you had intended for your original argument to be taken as a joke. I have no problem being perceived as gauche by asserting that, while your remark about my profile picture was no doubt in jest, you were obviously quite serious about your anti-gay marriage reasoning.
There is a question that you must ask yourself: By what standard should the government base its laws? Liberals believe that our laws and policies should guarantee every man, woman, and child all of the rights articulated in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Economic Bill of Rights (see FDR - January 11, 1944), while in every other respect staying entirely out of their lives. Clearly these are not the principles upon which you think our laws should be based, since if you did you would not oppose the right of homosexual couples to marry. What do you believe should exist in their stead?
Bob
no, i wasnt serious about any of it. i just like to get you going
Matthew:
The context of your initial comments simply do not make sense if they were intended as a joke; this is why I am inclined to believe that you meant for them to be taken seriously, realized that David and I had called you out on their logical and moral flaws, and are now attempting to furiously backpedal. Since you've been proven wrong, it would be nice to hear you admit it. Barring that, you should at least have the integrity to stand by your initial position and attempt to counter what we say with an argument of your own. Either way, I remain very interested in hearing about the philosophical foundations for your own political thought.
Matthew:
PS: We live in a time where it is considered highly rude to not accept it when someone tries to get off the hook after making an objectionable statement by saying that it was "just a joke". Insisting that they remain accountable for their genuine opinions, regardless of their protestations to the contrary, is viewed a bit like refusing to acknowledge an "excuse me" after a hapless chum has let out a particularly obnoxious fart. Unfortunately, your bigotry is far more odious to me than any mere flatulence, and I am tired of people being allowed to rip that kind of hatred out and then weasel out of being held responsible. I expect better of human beings, and am willing to be thought of as a dick for holding them accountable.
At this point, I think I should show you the picture to which Bob was alluding. It was taken of myself and my lovely girlfriend, Regina, during a Halloween party held this weekend. Next to it is my reaction to Bob's argument (for an earlier, lengthier discourse between myself and Bob, feel free to check out this article: http://riskinghemlock.blogspot.com/2009/09/letter-from-concerned-citizen.html) For those who want to better understand the three documents that comprise the essence of American liberal philosophy, check out a blog post I dedicated to the subject on March 18, 2009: (http://riskinghemlock.blogspot.com/2009/03/economic-bill-of-rights.html)
1 comment:
Way to go Matt! I still can't believe that we have people who considere themselves "moral" for opposing gay marriage. I consider this hatred for gays to be immoral and unchristian.
Post a Comment