Same Sex Marriage Now Legal Nationwide in USA

it always surprises me how saturated with hatred people can be. people can come to know me as a person, see into my mind, and find that the contents of my mind are basically clear, coherent, decent, considerate. certain people could see me as perhaps altruistic, educated, intelligent. but when it comes to my ability to love someone, to have access to participation in legal and cultural institutions that will recognise the validity of my love, they reject this. they see me as a human being, yet they refuse to validate my ability to truly love and respect another person. the hatred that fills them is more important to them than whether or not they recognise me as a complete human being. it is so saddening and it causes me sadness that anyone could see the outcome that is described in the OP as being an undesirable outcome. i am always trying to be respectful of the beliefs of others, but i am not sure of how i should relate to such a person who can disqualify the validity of my personhood in such a rejecting way. this is a great challenge for me in life. i think that it is always best to try to be kind and understanding and to embrace people for who they are, the good parts, just as far as you can, and this is what i should try to do. and maybe that is the approach that those people attempt to take towards me too.
 
Okey, I will air some of my thoughts anyways... be gentle.
There might be someone allready shared a similar thought, but I haven't heard it.

I think the real question actualy isn't about what your thoughts are on gay marriage, but how you look at marriage in the first place.
There is two story lines about the origin of marriage, one that claims it was "invented" by the state or the society (secular history),
and one that claims it was given by God as a covenant between man and woman (religious history).

If you believe marriage is nothing more than a human right, a law of the state, where two person can show their love for eachother, then gay marriage seems resonable.
If you believe marriage first and foremost has nothing to do about human right to express your love for eachother, but a covenant between man, woman and God, gay marriage becomes more difficult to address. This is not a question about homosexual marriage - this is a question about heterosexual marriage! Both groups have differens opinions right from the start, and one believes the other has hijacked "their marriage".

Secular people accuse religious people for infecting the state, but religious people feels as if the state has taken what's theirs all together. "WHY would anyone who doesn't believe in God get married in the first place?!" But as long as they (secular people) follow the custom, religious people haven't made such a fuss about it, even though they are doing it wrong (since they are taking part of a covenant with God without thinking about it). Now the limit is reached, as the state and secular people have decided that marriage is allowed even for gay people - that cannot take part in any covenant between man and woman and God. It's not that gay people aren't allowed to show love, really, it's about gay people cannot possibly get married for real.

That's what religious (christians) think, their side of perspective.
Secular people don't understand why some love (heterosexual) are allowed in marriage, but not another (homosexual) love. They think it's just unlogical and stupid, as marriage is just about a human right to exspress your love for eachother, and get certain benefits in the eyes of the law. And as religious people tries to steer the development towards a certain direction that infects the state with religious beliefs - noone should be allowed to force their own belief system upon another. "Well, the state has stolen ours", says religious people.

The solution, as I see it, would be to make it clear that marriage in the eyes of the state are nothing but a secular agreement between two persons, and that's that - no covenant with God! Then religious people should be allowed to have their versions of this marriage, as an extension to the secular marriage. Otherwise the country may get unstable, as it seems...


The real question is what marriage really is.
 
Last edited:
[MENTION=1814]invisible[/MENTION]

I only brought it up because it was written to protect the human rights that people squabble over continuously. Many Americans don't even know the constitution at all and take so many of their freedoms for granted. My point was that the ruling of the Supreme Court should be protected under this document, just as people's religious rights are.
 
Free2be said:
[MENTION=1814]invisible[/MENTION]

I only brought it up because it was written to protect the human rights that people squabble over continuously. Many Americans don't even know the constitution at all and take so many of their freedoms for granted. My point was that the ruling of the Supreme Court should be protected under this document, just as people's religious rights are.
Click to expand...

i know - i liked the responses you wrote.
 
tumblr_nqktbeWomY1qd3eigo1_400.jpg


And the state vs. government argument is irrelevant to me too. Why should it even be a decision? Why should you have any say in what two consenting adults decide to do? It doesn't have anything to do with you. It's not your business. Carry on.

I mean, I suppose such ignorance and hatred can be expected in a nation where interracial marriage has only been legal since 1967. But it still deeply saddens me. This country still has a long way to go.

Such hatred, when presented with love. I wonder what it looks like inside the hearts and minds of bigots, and what drove them to be as they are.

The only thing on my mind when I heard the news about this was celebration, for something that in my mind should never have been a question (granted, it's only one step along the way, there's still much progress to be made). Unfortunately, I was unsurprised to be greeted by a torrent of hateful vitriol in regards to the SCOTUS' ruling.

It's a choice, between fear and hatred, and love. The choice is pretty clear to me.
 
Oscillation said:
"WHY would anyone who doesn't believe in God get married in the first place?!"
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing your thoughts Oscillation. Let me try to explain. I'll use myself as an example. I am near atheist (with some shades of agnosticism) in my belief system. You could say I don't believe in God on most days. But there are lots of married atheists! If I weren't allowed to marry my husband, I would not be allowed to receive his social security or survivor's benefits if he died. As a housewife, that would really suck. I'd be left with nothing fast. That is a payment system regulated by the federal government. It is not a contractual benefit that can be set up by say a palimony agreement, see? If those legal, government bestowed rights weren't attached to marriage, I wouldn't see the hoopla about who can and can't get married because it would just be another contract. But it's not. That's why some people who are gay or who are atheists or who are both care a lot.
 
hush said:
tumblr_nqktbeWomY1qd3eigo1_400.jpg


And the state vs. government argument is irrelevant to me too. Why should it even be a decision? Why should you have any say in what two consenting adults decide to do? It doesn't have anything to do with you. It's not your business. Carry on.

I mean, I suppose such ignorance and hatred can be expected in a nation where interracial marriage has only been legal since 1967. But it still deeply saddens me. This country still has a long way to go.

Such hatred, when presented with love. I wonder what it looks like inside the hearts and minds of bigots, and what drove them to be as they are.

The only thing on my mind when I heard the news about this was celebration, for something that in my mind should never have been a question (granted, it's only one step along the way, there's still much progress to be made). Unfortunately, I was unsurprised to be greeted by a torrent of hateful vitriol in regards to the SCOTUS' ruling.

It's a choice, between fear and hatred, and love. The choice is pretty clear to me.
Click to expand...

The answer is Religion.

Religions based upon a vengeful god with teachings stating if you act in any way other than a straight heterosexual - you will go to Hell. Therefore in their minds any act - including a country that sanctions such evil-ness - will go to hell too. They are deeply entrenched in their Fear of this due to Religion.

One time I was talking with a good friend of mine about people and he got around to talking about one guy he knew and respected. I watched his face turn from love and acceptance to hatred and revulsion when he found out the guy was gay. Just like that. Instant Fear took over his mind and from then on no matter how I tried to get him to talk about it he clammed up and refused. I challenged him to think about what he had just done...but it was like there was this automatic response programmed into him where he could not - would not - think about his reaction. It was like talking to a robot... At first I was amazed - then shocked - then saddened he could not even talk about it.

So you see - attacking people's religious beliefs will get you no where because they are deeply conditioned into them and they are based upon Fear. I mean when you look at Dante's Inferno and see what Hell is like....well...you can imagine what lengths people will go to to avoid a place like that.
Thing is...they don't know Hell is in their mind...and it's called Fear....and it's being created right now....right here.
 
PintoBean said:
Thank you for sharing your thoughts Oscillation. Let me try to explain. I'll use myself as an example. I am near atheist (with some shades of agnosticism) in my belief system. You could say I don't believe in God on most days. But there are lots of married atheists! If I weren't allowed to marry my husband, I would not be allowed to receive his social security or survivor's benefits if he died. As a housewife, that would really suck. I'd be left with nothing fast. That is a payment system regulated by the federal government. It is not a contractual benefit that can be set up by say a palimony agreement, see? If those legal, government bestowed rights weren't attached to marriage, I wouldn't see the hoopla about who can and can't get married because it would just be another contract. But it's not. That's why some people who are gay or who are atheists or who are both care a lot.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly my point! But you seem to think I thought differently :w:
Thank you for putting it down in words - better word than mine!

What I wrote about was how religious people may think why others want to marry before God. I tried to show that there really are two natures of marriage: one religious and one secular. The religious one is the covenant, and the secular is what you just so well explained above. When the other person complains about the others opinion it's because they (probably/most likely) are talking about different marriages, to be precise.

Then there are these who doesn't talk about a different marriage, but still holds wierd opinions, but I'm not talking about these in particular.
 
Oscillation said:
Yes, exactly my point! But you seem to think I thought differently :w:
Thank you for putting it down in words - better word than mine!

What I wrote about was how religious people may think why others want to marry before God. I tried to show that there really are two natures of marriage: one religious and one secular. The religious one is the covenant, and the secular is what you just so well explained above. When the other person complains about the others opinion it's because they (probably/most likely) are talking about different marriages, to be precise.

Then there are these who doesn't talk about a different marriage, but still holds wierd opinions, but I'm not talking about these in particular.
Click to expand...

Sorry, thanks. I realized after rereading your post that you were making a devils advocate argument. Thanks for clarifying.
 
invisible said:
such a day will never come, because an inanimate object is not able to formulate or express any level of consent to a legal contract.
Click to expand...

In the end I think that anything people feel strongly enough about will come to pass.
 
Judicial review

See also: Judicial review in the United States, Judicial review and Appeal § Appellate review
The way the Constitution is understood is influenced by court decisions, especially those of the Supreme Court. These decisions are referred to as precedents. Judicial review is the power of the Court to examine federal legislation, federal executive, and all state branches of government, to decide their constitutionality, and to strike them down if found unconstitutional.
Judicial review includes the power of the Court to explain the meaning of the Constitution as it applies to particular cases. Over the years, Court decisions on issues ranging from governmental regulation of radio and television to the rights of the accused in criminal cases have changed the way many constitutional clauses are interpreted, without amendment to the actual text of the Constitution.
Legislation passed to implement the Constitution, or to adapt those implementations to changing conditions, broadens and, in subtle ways, changes the meanings given to the words of the Constitution. Up to a point, the rules and regulations of the many federal executive agencies have a similar effect. If an action of Congress or the agencies is challenged, however, it is the court system that ultimately decides whether these actions are permissible under the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has indicated that once the Constitution has been extended to an area (by Congress or the Courts), its coverage is irrevocable. To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this Court, say "what the law is."[SUP][h][/SUP]
Scope and theory

Courts established by the Constitution can regulate government under the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. First, they have jurisdiction over actions by an officer of government and state law. Second, federal courts may rule on whether coordinate branches of national government conform to the Constitution. Until the twentieth century, the Supreme Court of the United States may have been the only high tribunal in the world to use a court for constitutional interpretation of fundamental law, others generally depending on their national legislature.[SUP][83][/SUP]
[TABLE="align: right"]
[TR]
[TD]Early Court roots in the founding[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
The basic theory of American Judicial review is summarized by constitutional legal scholars and historians as follows: the written Constitution is fundamental law. It can change only by extraordinary legislative process of national proposal, then state ratification.
 
[h=2]Unratified amendments[/h]Collectively, members of the House and Senate typically propose around 200 amendments during each two-year term of Congress.[SUP][79][/SUP] Most however, never get out of the Congressional committees in which they were proposed, and only a fraction of those that do receive enough support to win Congressional approval to actually go through the constitutional ratification process.
Six amendments approved by Congress and proposed to the states for consideration have not been ratified by the required number of states to become part of the Constitution. Four of these are technically still pending, as Congress did not set a time limit (see alsoColeman v. Miller) for their ratification. The other two are no longer pending, as both had a time limit attached and in both cases the time period set for their ratification expired.
[h=3]Still pending[/h]
  • The Congressional Apportionment Amendment (proposed 1789) would, if ratified, establish a formula for determining the appropriate size of the House of Representatives and the appropriate apportionment of representatives among the states following each constitutionally mandated decennial census. At the time it was sent to the states for ratification, an affirmative vote by ten states would have made this amendment operational. That number rose to eleven on March 4, 1791, when Vermont joined the Union. By the end of 1791, the amendment was only one state short of the mark. However, when Kentucky attained statehood on June 1, 1792, the number climbed to twelve. Thus, even though Kentucky ratified it that summer (along with the other eleven amendments), the amendment remained one state shy of the number needed for it to become part of the Constitution. No additional states have ratified this amendment since. To become part of the Constitution today, ratification by an additional twenty-seven would be required. The Apportionment Act of 1792 apportioned the House of Representatives at 33,000 persons per representative in consequence of the 1790 census. Reapportionment has since been effected by statute.

  • The Titles of Nobility Amendment (proposed 1810) would, if ratified, strip United States citizenship from any citizen who accepted a title of nobility from a foreign country. When submitted to the states, ratification by thirteen states was required for it to become part of the Constitution; eleven had done so by early 1812. However, with the addition of Louisiana into the Union that year (April 30, 1812), the ratification threshold rose to fourteen. Thus, when New Hampshire ratified it in December 1812, the amendment again came within two states of being ratified. No additional states ratified this amendment since. To become part of the Constitution today, ratification by an additional twenty-six would be required.

  • The Corwin Amendment (proposed 1861) would, if ratified, shield "domestic institutions" of the states (which in 1861 included slavery) from the constitutional amendment process and from abolition or interference by Congress. This proposal was one of several measures considered by Congress in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to attract the seceding states back into the Union and to entice border slave states to stay.[SUP][80][/SUP] Three states ratified the amendment in the early 1860s, but none have since. To become part of the Constitution today, ratification by an additional thirty-five states would be required. The subject of this proposal was subsequently addressed by the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment which abolished slavery.

  • The Child Labor Amendment, (proposed 1924) would, if ratified, specifically authorize Congress to limit, regulate and prohibit labor of persons less than eighteen years of age. The amendment was proposed in response to Supreme Court rulings in Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) and Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (1922) that found federal laws regulating and taxing goods produced by employees under the ages of 14 and 16 unconstitutional. When submitted to the states, ratification by 36 states was required for it to become part of the Constitution, as there were forty-eight states. Twenty-eight had ratified the amendment by early 1937, but none have done so since. To become part of the Constitution today, ratification by an additional ten would be required.[SUP][81][/SUP] A federal statute approved June 25, 1938, regulated the employment of those under 16 or 18 years of age. The Supreme Court, by unanimous vote in United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941), found this law constitutional, effectively overturning Hammer v. Dagenhart. As a result of this development, the movement pushing for the amendment concluded.[SUP][82][/SUP]
[h=3]No longer pending[/h]
  • The Equal Rights Amendment (proposed 1972) would have prohibited deprivation of equality of rights (discrimination) by the federal or state governments on account of sex. A seven-year ratification time limit was initially placed on the amendment, but as the deadline approached, Congress granted an extension. Thirty-five states had ratified the amendment, three short of the number required for it to be implemented, prior to the original deadline and none did so during the extension period, thus the amendment failed to be adopted.

  • The District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment (proposed 1978) would have granted the District of Columbia full representation in the United States Congress as if it were a state, repealed the 23rd Amendment, granted the District unconditional Electoral College voting rights, and allowed its participation in the process by which the Constitution is amended. A seven-year ratification time limit was placed on the amendment. Sixteen states ratified the amendment (twenty-two short of the number required for it to be implemented) prior to the deadline, thus the amendment failed to be adopted.
 
invisible said:
it is so confusing to listen to americans talk about their constitution. obviously i understand that the constitution exists to protect people and to promote order in society, but often it seems as though the preservation of the document in the form in which it was composed is seen as more important than those reasons for why it was composed. in argument, appeals are made to it as though its statements should continue to be upheld for no reason other than that they are in it. "but it's in the constitution!" is the same thing as saying "but we have always done things this way, so therefore we must continue to do them this way!" it is a fallacious argument style. but i hear this kind of thing being said all the time. im not saying that everyone approaches the document in this way. but for some reason it is very annoying to me to hear this fallacious argument.
Click to expand...

It's not that we uphold the constitution for the sake of upholding it, it's more that random people cannot be trusted to make changes to it. As a consequence it stays the same, and so people point to it as a non human arbiter of sorts, as a way to seek stability and stop arguments that would go on forever.

If we ignore it once, every fringe wacko will want to ignore it, and we'll have lost any objective defense due to precedent which would make the Constitution a meaningless piece of paper.
 
[MENTION=1814]invisible[/MENTION]
Also it's kind of the last defense for people who aren't eloquent against people who refuse to reason.

In practical terms we cannot depend on people's ability to reason, especially not in this country - nothing would get done, or worse than nothing would get done. Some times we just need a blunt instrument because the most well formed arguments will not work on people who can't or won't reason, so it's a waste of time to even try. Just whack them with the Constitution and get it out of the way.
 

This year, I was invited to attend my first ever Pride parade.
Our friend Robin invited us to join her church on their "float" and march the hour-long parade route together.

Robin's church has been nothing but inclusive of us these past four months.
You see, our 1-year-old new church plant was kicked out of our parent denomination because of our convictions regarding including the LGBTQ community.

I have long affirmed an inclusive theology, believing that our gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer friends, their families and allies should be fully welcomed in our churches.

I affirmed their role in leadership, whether it was volunteering at events, teaching Bible study, staffing our children's ministry or helping to serve communion.
I have affirmed the LGBTQ community at the highest levels and most mundane levels of church participation, for two reasons:
1) I am convinced beyond a doubt God loves each and every part of us as we are created, including our sexual identities, and
2) we're a new church  -- it requires all hands on deck.

You want to come out on an incredible summer day and help make lemonade and stack chairs?
You're in.

What I did not realize, however, was the overwhelming sense of inclusion I would experience along Portland's downtown streets and waterfront.
My friend and ministry colleague, Rev. Amy Piatt, handed me a poster right before we joined Robin and First Christian Church in the parade staging area on the North Park Blocks.

The poster read:



​
"As a Christian I AM SORRY for the narrow-minded, judgmental, deceptive, manipulative actions of those who denied rights & equality to so many in the name of God."

I had long since admired that poster, seeing it in Amy's office.
But I couldn't believe I was actually going to parade around with it.

You see, for the longest time, I would not be allowed to communicate such sentiment, for fear of the picture being posted on social media.
That's how intense the fear was for me in my former denomination, and for so many of my friends and colleagues who remain.

"Better to let these things lie unsaid," church leaders would tell us.
We were not allowed to preside over same-sex weddings, for one, even though many of us either affirmed or secretly presided over them for years.

You wouldn't want a photo of you attending such a gay-affirming event to pop up on Facebook for fear of losing your job.
Marching around with an apology on my chest at the Pride Parade?

Well, that was the most unfathomable thing of all.
But those fears were meaningless to me now.

We had already lost everything: two years of funding, friends, our 'faith family' support system.
Best to move forward, step by step, and see what this brave new world had to offer.

It's so incredible to take those steps.
Walking down Burnside Avenue, I realized this was not your typical Sunday stroll.

I wore my red church pastoral stole (symbolizing the season of Pentecost) and carried that poster in front of me for everyone to see.
And I meant it: I am sorry for the legions of people who have said, done and prayed unimaginable, exclusionary and degrading things in the name of God.

I am.
Were these hateful (and not so hateful -- some good folks are just stuck in outdated, callous theologies) people my responsibility?

I believe, in some ways, yes.
As a pastor, I am incredibly concerned with the flourishing and full potential of everyone.

And when someone speaks or does things to denigrate others in the name of God, we must try harder.
No matter one's professed faith or disinterest in faith.

Because, as a Christian pastor, I believe the good news of Jesus is that everyone is fearfully and wonderfully made, and that we are invited to join in a life of love for the common good.

Heady ideas, I know.
But I think that in these days of division, derision and despair, people are looking for better ways and better possibilities.

Anyways, I walked down Burnside and the first parade on-lookers squinted and began to read my placard.
I did not know what to expect at first.

Did they think I was protesting Pride?
Would they accept my apology?

I was overwhelmed by the response.
People began to cheer.

Many asked me to slow down so they could take a picture.
Some wiped away tears and simply mouthed "thank you," or "I accept [your apology]."

For the next few miles, cheers and cameras and tears greeted us everywhere we went.
I was grateful I was wearing sunglasses, because there were a few moments when I simply welled up with tears and couldn't handle it anymore.

I couldn't handle the acceptance.
I couldn't handle the forgiveness.

I couldn't handle the small glimpses I witnessed of healing unfathomably deep hurts.
There was only one feeling I had: Pride.

And I think that is the point of Pride, at least for me.
People joining together in solidarity to say that "love wins," to quote Rob Bell.

Love has the final and enduring word.
Our little float was one of only a handful of church groups out to march for Pride this past Sunday.

We were far outnumbered by non-profit groups and corporations.
Companies like Nike, Intel, Adidas, Comcast and Chipotle spoke much louder than us.

The church is following the lead of others, unfortunately.
But I was proud to walk with fellow Christians, apologizing to my fellow citizens, for the ways in which people of God have fallen far too short.

As I shared above, for years, I have affirmed the full inclusion of LGBTQ folks at all levels of the church.
But what I did not realize is the full potential of what might happen if LGBTQ folks were not just included (as they are beginning to be in so many churches), but helping us co-create better communities of faith and practice.

For one, there is better music.
But jokes aside, inclusion is not enough.

What I learned yesterday is that if we truly welcome and include, we will be changed.
We will be transformed.

Because that's what happens when people are vulnerable enough to step out in faith, show up and share with one another.
And have conversations.

And take photos with each other.
And ask for forgiveness.

And build bridges.
And seek healing.

Our little 1-year old new church continues to press forward in faith.
We're growing bit by bit and rolling up our sleeves for faith and justice.

I'm so grateful for the hospitality of established, faithful congregations like First Christian Church, who have included us in their physical space and much of their life together.

I hope some of my sisters and brothers in church leadership who remain silent or on the sidelines can muster up the courage to step forward and join the growing communities of faith for inclusion.

But most importantly, I hope to meet some of the folks we encountered along the parade route for a cup of coffee and further conversation.
I cannot wait to see what might be in store for all of us, yes, everyone one of us, between now and Pride 2016.


​

I'd love to hear your stories and connect.

Shoot me a reply below, or:


This piece originally appeared on Medium.
 
11219729_1497014670386231_3790777947024318807_n.jpg
 
11666127_10152841972072261_1010710305880834008_n.jpg


10443441_10152842081627261_8634166293175736535_n.jpg
 
PintoBean said:
It crossed my mind that according to the last gallup poll, less than 4% of the US population is gay, so relatively speaking as far as the entire US population goes, that's not really lots of people. But yes, there are many people who've shown their solidarity to gays, and their disdain for mistreatment and stigmatization they have historically suffered here and elsewhere. So I understand that is a point of celebration for some people across the board, regardless of sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

4% of the U.S. population is almost 12.8 million people. That's a lot! And I think there are serious limitations to such studies (& the researchers acknowledge these limitations) - many people aren't ready to disclose their sexual orientation to researchers or are still questioning, and many identify on a scale rather than the options given (like I might label myself as "straight" even though I'm not completely straight, ha).

If this opens the door to polyamorous people trying to get married, so be it, in my opinion - better than suppressing gay people's right to marry. Although it should be mentioned that the same argument was made, and later abandoned, when interracial marriage was legalized. I don't think it's likely and even if it is I personally don't feel it's a threat to everyone else's monogamous marriages.
 
sprinkles said:
It's not that we uphold the constitution for the sake of upholding it, it's more that random people cannot be trusted to make changes to it. As a consequence it stays the same, and so people point to it as a non human arbiter of sorts, as a way to seek stability and stop arguments that would go on forever.

If we ignore it once, every fringe wacko will want to ignore it, and we'll have lost any objective defense due to precedent which would make the Constitution a meaningless piece of paper.
Click to expand...

arguing with the contemporary value or validity of certain things that are in it is not the same thing as ignoring it completely or causing it to be changed randomly. changing it does not mean that changes would be random or conducted by one wacko, like as a scribbling child. the thing that gives the document power is its observation by legal bodies, not its preservation in an identical form, or its protection from amendment.

maybe the arguments would go on forever, im not sure. but arguing in a fallacious way definitely does not help to resolve the arguments, or to prevent the arguments from going on forever. on the contrary it maintains the arguments, but in a fallacious form that is preventative of reasonable resolution.

i am struggling a bit to grasp the value of legal precedent, but i can grasp it. but i struggle much harder to connect the value of legal precedent to the argument that "but its in the constitution!" im not sure that these are the same thing.

sprinkles said:
@invisible
Also it's kind of the last defense for people who aren't eloquent against people who refuse to reason.

In practical terms we cannot depend on people's ability to reason, especially not in this country - nothing would get done, or worse than nothing would get done. Some times we just need a blunt instrument because the most well formed arguments will not work on people who can't or won't reason, so it's a waste of time to even try. Just whack them with the Constitution and get it out of the way.
Click to expand...

well i guess that is very sad. my idealist nature causes me to say that refusing to argue reasonably is disrespectful to those positions we are arguing against, because it assumes that those positions are not able to defend themselves, and it deprives them of an opportunity to defend themselves. i think that if people are willing to argue about something, they should try to be reasonable about it, out of respect to the other arguments, rather than to perform "dirty trick" fallacious style arguments as a sort of "shut up" type method. i think that presenting fallacious arguments to people who are not accustomed to arguing reasonably does not actually help them in their abilities to learn to argue reasonably, but rather reinforces their difficulties with reason. but i guess i cannot argue with practicality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top