Monday, November 16, 2009

Who to blame when you lose an argument you got to define?

In response to rocknog on 11/09/2009
I don't understand why religion keeps being brought into the gay marriage debate. If marriage is a religious thing, then government shouldn't be involved in any marriage. I don't understand how opponents of gay marriage can get around that contradiction.
Maybe they oppose States hijacking marriage and despite the fact that it won't change, they don't want the state further redefining marriage while in their trust. Remember, if you oppose federal control (support state rights / 10 amendment), you are a racist, and if you support individuality, personal responsibility, or anything theoretically covered by the 9th amendment (and I say theory because as far as I know, nothing has ever been supported on 9th amendment ground), then you must be a devil worshiping anarchist.

I think marriage means too many different things to too many different people and that the only people that have much any understanding of what marriage means with regard to the "state definition" is divorce lawyers. I think there should be no such thing as marriage as defined by the state because it is a loaded word. I bet if they could only call it domestic partnership that more people would actually take the time to read the contract.

People tend to ignore conservative arguments against states hijacking things for their own purposes and are generally written off as paranoid wackos, but for once "gay marriage" turned a lot of heads. And as with all the other issues they try to get attention, things such as facts makes most peoples brains go numb such that the debate evolved into who could make the most emotionally compelling argument.

One side came forward with the beautiful and happy peace loving argument of "Hate is not a Family Value". Simple, and perfect... one might think, until one rebukes with "Your tax dollars are going to be spent to teach preschoolers about anal sex". Both have nothing to do with the law, but at the point that this hit, coming back with "Civil rights... something... I think" just couldn't work.

Once you pull a Godwin/Alinsky and you let it define the fight, you just can't ever go back to a rational argument, and further, you can't cry when your opponent ends up with the bigger, more impressive tower of bullshit.

So, three cheers for Big Government democracy? Where are all the gays thrilled that the system works? Hmm...