--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcg...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> wrote: > > > > > > I'm for gay marriage, polygamous marriage, gay polygamous marriage, > > > bestiality marriage, and incest marriage in equal measure. > > > > > > Aren't you? > > > > This is the "box turtle argument." > > > > "Interpreting the statement literally: it is clear that legally recognizing > > gay marriage does not entail doing so for polygamy, incestuous marriage, or > > marrying animals; these are all separate propositions. The legal > > determination of what a marriage is can be specified so as to allow gay > > marriage but not extend to marrying a box turtle. In the same way that > > certain states have provisions in their constitutions defining marriage as > > "between a man and a woman," it could also be specified that marriage > > rights extend to same-sex couples but if one is really so worried about > > people marrying box turtles and the rest not to (1) more than two people; > > those who are (2) blood related; and (3) animals. > > > > The "box turtle" statement above is really making the case against gay > > marriage by not making the case: It is not telling you what is wrong with > > gay marriage, but rather saying that if you allow gay marriage then you > > will have to allow something else you might not like." > > > > Read more... > > http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/01/29/8452 > > http://tinyurl.com/brsdvm > > > > > That's one way of looking at it; another way is to say that those that > support gay marriage and not other kinds of marriage are hypocrites. >
It's hypocritical to pose a question sarcastically equating a man marrying a box turtle with gay marriage, an absurd non sequitur argument, and pretend the high ground that you support all marriages equally when you don't. If someone wants to argue in favor of polygamy, that is a separate battle. I imagine Shemp, that you abhor gay marriage so much that the thought of it drives you nutty, triggering a flood of pornographic images of men having anal sex in your consciousness. Are you so repulsed by gay marriage that you feel compelled to share your prurient interest with a link so that we can feel as repulsed as you? You have missed the point completely if you think that such images have anything to do with gay marriage. Focusing your argument against gay marriage on the ordinary living of everyday life that couples in a committed relationship share, rather than the drama of pornography, would be just too much to ask of a wingnut. Wingnuts need outrage. It feeds their limbic, reptilian brain responsible for perpetuating hatred, bigotry and the oppression of people in the world for religion, gender, color and sexual identity. Keep your outrage, fan the flames of it. Such an argument is weak in the face of honorable treatment of people.
