Hypothetical conversation with someone vehemently against gay marriage

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2012 5:16 PM GMT
    AGM - person against gay marriage

    GAY - gay person

    AGM: Marriage is a privilege not a right and to uphold family values can only be between a man and a woman.

    GAY: How can you call it a privilege like driving a car? Voting is a right if you're not a criminal, and marriage is consistent with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    AGM: That's all different. I still say it is a privilege.

    GAY: You can't justify that position, but let's move on. Do you realize that all evidence indicates sexual orientation is not a choice, and behavior can only be modified for some bisexuals in the middle?

    AGM: What difference does that make?

    GAY: You previously argued that if you allow gay marriage, how can you not also allow polygamy and even marriage with animals. You even suggested that if gay marriage were to be legal in all states, the next step would be legalizing marriage with giraffes.

    AGM: That's very true. That is exactly where it would lead to.

    GAY: The difference is those other situations do result from behavior preferences, while a marriage between two people, straight or gay is driven by who they are.

    AGM: It still doesn't matter to me. I believe in tradition, and tradition is between a man and a woman.

    GAY: But that tradition arose out of ignorance, when people considered gayness to be a choice and generally associated it with flamboyant behavior. You could by the same token have supported slavery out of tradition and also out of ignorance that some people were fundamentally inferior to others. Tradition is a weak argument when it results from past ignorance.

    AGM: Well I don't care, it's still tradition. And besides, I'm all about defending the family, defending family values. I think the best environment for a child to grow up in is with a father and a mother.

    GAY: Let's assume a child is straight, and based on the odds, that is probably a reasonable assumption. Also let's not forget there are many dysfunctional families with a father and a mother. But even if I agree that for most children, a father and mother is best, how does gay marriage impact that?

    AGM: I don't know what you mean.

    GAY: Simple. Gay couples will not give birth to children, so they would primarily have them by adoption or through custody battles. There are already procedures at the state level to look out for what is best for children. The only other case would be if a heterosexual couple has a child and one partner abandons the other partner and child. If a partner found a another partner of either gender, being married or not would not impact the situation for the child. So your point that gay marriage impacts children is a very weak point.

    AGM: It still is against family values. I believe in protecting the family institution.

    GAY: OK, let's get away from the slogans. Can you tell me how any family that includes children you know of has been adversely impacted by gay marriage, or even gay couples living together. Specifics, please.

    AGM: I don't know of any.

    GAY: Then can you clearly provide a logical hypothesis how a family that includes children could be adversely impacted?

    AGM: Well not off hand, but I am sure it would happen.

    GAY: Then without any logic or rationale to support your strong position, you must be protecting something. Could it be you are a closeted gay person, whether or not you have practiced anything, and your vehement position is just a cover? What other reason could there be?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2012 5:32 PM GMT

    "GAY: Then can you clearly provide a logical hypothesis how a family that includes children could be adversely impacted?

    AGM: Well not off hand, but I am sure it would happen."

    ...and there's the rub. For him, his theory trumps logic.

    However,

    GAY: Well you have a point there. Children of gay parents have been witness to or the victims of harrassment from people that feel the way you do.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 1:07 AM GMT
    meninlove said
    "GAY: Then can you clearly provide a logical hypothesis how a family that includes children could be adversely impacted?

    AGM: Well not off hand, but I am sure it would happen."

    ...and there's the rub. For him, his theory trumps logic.

    However,

    GAY: Well you have a point there. Children of gay parents have been witness to or the victims of harrassment from people that feel the way you do.


    True.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Jan 09, 2012 1:14 AM GMT
    Tradition used to be that a marriage was arranged for the financial/political/social benefit of two families and usually man - and more often the woman - didn't have a say.

    Tradition used to be that women didn't work outside the home, especially if they had children.

    Tradition used to be that women didn't vote, and if they went to college if was to find a husband.


  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jan 09, 2012 2:22 AM GMT
    AGM = REPUBLICAN
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 3:02 AM GMT
    Webster666 saidAGM = REPUBLICAN

    The social conservatives, evangelicals, fundamentalists do tend to be within the right-wing of the Republican party.

    Purpose of the conversation was to present talking points to refute the anti-gay marriage arguments.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 3:06 AM GMT
    My response to a religious type who wrote a letter to the Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald against same-sex marriage was published the next day (yes, I'm one of those people who writes in to the Editor of a newspaper....and it's usually about topics I don't much care about):

    "Chris Meney sees marriage as a pillar of society holding up all moral fabric, so sacred that to allow same-sex couples to enter would belittle its meaning. I would be interested to hear him argue how Britney Spears's first marriage (which lasted 55 hours) or Elizabeth Taylor's eight marriages make a positive contribution."


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 3:09 AM GMT
    that's how a good one will happen here's how most people attack this

    AGM: WTF NO THEY SHOULDNT BE ALLOWED IT'S GROSS

    Gay: So what everyone should be allowed the same rights.

    AGM: Being gay is wrong dude you're sick

    Gay: whatever you are just an asshole you f'er

    AGM: F u fag!!!

    That's how most convo's go for people who don't like gay marriage icon_biggrin.gif
  • LaxJock16

    Posts: 784

    Jan 09, 2012 3:10 AM GMT
    Here is how I respond to them... If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one.. simple as that...
  • slimnmuscly

    Posts: 541

    Jan 09, 2012 3:19 AM GMT
    Any chance this is a test drive for an actual conversation you're planning on having? If so, expect AGM to say something to the effect that his/her faith trumps evidence, which is biased against God's will, etc. -- maybe even to bring up Satan.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 3:31 AM GMT
    slimnmuscly saidAny chance this is a test drive for an actual conversation you're planning on having? If so, expect AGM to say something to the effect that his/her faith trumps evidence, which is biased against God's will, etc. -- maybe even to bring up Satan.

    Not a test drive but in response to some of the things I hear said, especially by some folks in the news. I was imagining myself interviewed and responding.

    In response to the comment that faith/God's will trumps evidence, I would point out that could be used to justify any policy. Someone like our AGM, with or without the faith argument, wouldn't be convinced anyway, so having this conversation as a 1-on-1 might give some satisfaction, but not much more. I think the logical arguments are more designed to discredit the AGM with the large mainstream.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 8:59 AM GMT
    Defenseon has it right. Just cut to the chase and acknowledge the elephant in the room:

    GAY: So, you think homosexuality is wrong?
    AGM: Yes, of course.

    If this is what AGM really thinks, whether he'll admit it or not, then there's no point in continuing a logical argument about marriage.

    I would be curious to know how many of those who are against gay marriage are against gays, period. (And in polls about gay marriage, why isn't that question asked, in some form or another?)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 9:10 AM GMT
    If there is anyone with a rational, logical argument against gay marriage....one that can pass the giggle test....let me know right away. I'd love to hear what the fool has to say.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 9:24 AM GMT
    I don't know why you're excited to have a hypothetical conversation.
    Don't you have some conservative friends who will join you in an actual conversation about gay marriage.

    Usually the argument boils down to tradition.
    They tend to forget that tradition dictated that marriage was essentially a business agreement. Traditionally, people were not joined in marriage because they were in love. That was a somewhat more recent development.
    Also, under traditional marriage, you would not be with someone of a different race, a different culture, or a different socioeconomic status.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 9:47 AM GMT
    I read all of those "arguments" against gay marriage back in law school. They made as much sense as a jock with a brain. No need to recite them here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2012 2:41 PM GMT
    Ermine saidI don't know why you're excited to have a hypothetical conversation.
    Don't you have some conservative friends who will join you in an actual conversation about gay marriage.

    Usually the argument boils down to tradition.
    They tend to forget that tradition dictated that marriage was essentially a business agreement. Traditionally, people were not joined in marriage because they were in love. That was a somewhat more recent development.
    Also, under traditional marriage, you would not be with someone of a different race, a different culture, or a different socioeconomic status.

    Who says I'm excited because I created a thread, and who needs your snide comment about me having friends? I created a conversation as a technique to present arguments to moderates to blunt influence of those who hold rigid anti-gay marriage positions. To moderates who could be swayed either way, the intent was to show how the others don't have a leg to stand on. I also agree with some of the other comments that those hard over would not be swayed by any logic.