tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152584185487706890.post2086330128836412990..comments2024-03-13T03:17:56.423-07:00Comments on Full Marriage Equality: Now is the Time - Solidarity is BestFull Marriage Equalityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03029782688617414753noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152584185487706890.post-31000872396536258112015-06-04T17:23:11.247-07:002015-06-04T17:23:11.247-07:00Hi Keith, can you please do an blog entries about...Hi Keith, can you please do an blog entries about sex positive. And what it means to different people? <br /><br />(Definition wise, I meant) Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152584185487706890.post-92175313660231464372013-07-17T04:38:32.527-07:002013-07-17T04:38:32.527-07:00Thank you, Anonymous! What a great and insightful ...Thank you, Anonymous! What a great and insightful comment.<br /><br />Yes, appealing to the illegality is flawed for many reason, first being that it is arguing in a circle. The very thing we are usually talking about the is the law. These relationships should not be illegal nor denied marriage. Arguing that they should "because" they are illegal is not offering a position. It is stating the status quo. If we just accepted laws as they were, African-Americans would be still forced to sit at the back of the bus in many places, still forced to go to segregated schools that got less funding, etc. And yes, gay relationships would still be illegal. The whole point is that we're trying to make out laws better.<br /><br />Also, there are places in the US and many other countries where the relationships are NOT illegal.Full Marriage Equalityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03029782688617414753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152584185487706890.post-41034961644106005582013-07-17T03:39:47.501-07:002013-07-17T03:39:47.501-07:00I agree, solidarity is the best. With solidarity, ...I agree, solidarity is the best. With solidarity, the arguments we use are simple, easy to get across, and air tight. But the second we start throwing others under the bus out of fear, we create vulnerabilities. Not to long ago, I had an argument with somebody over incestuous rights. And the person said "Laws are there for a reason, they help us, and protect us." This person was a supporter of gay rights. By his logic, when homosexuality was banned, it was to help us and to protect us. He didn't even realize that he undermined his very own position just so he could attack my mine. I've done debates in highschool and was recommended to join the debate team even, and a slip-up like that could have been very harmful to his cause.<br /><br />Other things is that they have to rely on misinformation, and yet what if they were found out? If I was a viewer in such a debate, I would ask "What else is he lying about?" or "What else did he get wrong?" Producing lies whether it be because of intentions or misinformation can be fatal for an argument. More than that though, it shows a lack of real research. I've heard the slippery slope argument and everytime I hear someone defend the lgbt while throwing consanguinamory under the bus with this line "unlike same-sex relationships, incest has rational arguments against it." I know then that the person has done absolutely no actual research on the subject, it's just a face value blurb. Of course it's biased, in that they don't care about consanguinamorous couples, and by extension, marriage equality. Same thing for polyamory. When they show the only knowledge on the subject being of mormons or of a cult or whatever situation with forced marriages, when they think it always ends up in arranged marriages with children, then I know they haven't done any research at all. And if they're knowledge of the things they oppose is so low, why should I trust them on the things they support? I would be disappointed if they were my apologetic for I know they would be full of holes.<br /><br />When debating, you always need to know more about what you oppose than even the supporters. And who knows, you may even change your opinion, closing yourself to the possibility is a fallacy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com