>I’m beginning to believe that half of all arguments in good faith are based off of folks not meaning the same thing when they say something.
Example: most of my friends here on the ship believe that most of the US is homophobic. I bristle at that based on the use of a psudo-psychiatric word to describe a point of view, since they consider evidence of this “opposition to gay marriage.”
Ok, then we’re also Mormon-a-phobes for not letting THEM marry anyone(s) they want, we’re incest-a-phobes for not letting lecher fathers marry their daughters, andwe’re Islama-phobes for not letting extremist Muslims blow up anybody they wish.
Or, perhaps, there are other reasons for these reactions besides “an irrational fear or hatred.”
(I do try not to assign evil intents to those who disagree with me. For example, I prefer to think that pro-abortion folks really don’t realize, at a gut level, that they are killing a human being. That’s straight science, for anybody who just bristled– but I’ve got sympathy for your reaction, as much as I abhor your view. If I wasn’t a ranch kid I’d probably agree with you.)
Perhaps, in the case of gay marriage, the fact that the original reason for marriage is to religiously join a man and a woman to have children? Traditionally, marriage didn’t even have to involve love– it usually developed, I’d like to believe, but it was a social contract between families.
Government is involved because most religions don’t talk to each other, so you need someone to keep track for legal problems. (This is a major simplification. Down, boy.)
At least in the Catholic Rites, it’s not required that you be able to have children to be married, just that you be able to have natural sex that, if all was well, would result in children. (check http://www.jimmyakin.org, he’s got posts on it and explains better than I do.)
There is no tradition of homosexual marriage. It wasn’t even thought of until very, very recently, and there is no real purpose to it. The best argument I’ve seen is “to make it easier for their partner to inherit/see them in the hospital.” So make a will or change the laws about who gets to see who when deathly ill. Don’t monkey around with a tradition as old as civilization.
Well, that was a tangent. Back to the point! They swear that the cities are “vast boiling cauldrons of anti-homosexual hatred.” (My words, after listening to them for about ten minutes. All five thought a moment, then nodded their heads and said “yeah, most cities. There’s a few that aren’t. Like San Fran.”)
They then proceeded to tell me that I didn’t know this because I grew up in the country, and country people are a lot friendlier. This is odd, because I grew up around a lot of homosexuals, and most of them griped a great deal about how terrible the country was for gay folks as compared to the city. Notably, they didn’t move back to the city full-time.
The main examples my friends came up with to prove how terrible the cities were tended to be stories about a homosexual guy walking into a bar and getting beat up and tossed out. It’s assumed it’s because he’s gay. What if he was just a drunk jerk? Here’s a story: two long-haired guys walk into a cowboy bar. A half hour later, one of them runs out, but the other is caught and beaten so badly that by the time the other comes back, he’s on the porch with his eye in a cup.
Is it because they were a couple?
No, it’s because my quasi-hippy uncle has a life-long bestest-buddy who started insulting the cowboys.
(Uncle won’t say what he said, so it was probably an insult to a female in the bar) That best-buddy is why I call that uncle my “one-eyed crazy uncle.” (It’s fitting, really, although his kids may or may not agree. Not sure about his wife—I love her because she’s family, but he must love her like life itself, because she’ kinda hard to get along with. First thing she ever said to me, as an individual: “do you know that you have the thin, bloodless lips of a natural born killer?”)
For those of you gearing up to say they’re a couple: my mom really didn’t like this guy. She would have mentioned if he was Unk’s boyfriend, and you can’t hide that from a pest of a little sister. Not to mention that Granny would have had a heart attack.
Back to the topic: so, nobody is using the same words to mean the same thing, then they fight over what they THINK they said.
What triggered this post? The example one of the guys came up with to my arguing back: “it’s like trying to convince a Christian that God didn’t create the Earth.”
How much do you want to bet that he meant that he doesn’t believe in a 24-hours to the day week of creation? (Which very few folks believe in anyways.)
Personally, I don’t really care how He made the Earth, or how He made people. I just care that he DID it.
Although I do rather like to poke holes if I think folks are being smug about a false theory…. (Nope, not convinced by classic evolution. I can see the whole fins-to-arms-sometimes-back-to-fins-sometimes-wings stuff, but where do you get extra legs showing up? Or the first fin-thing? I don’t disbelieve in it—but you know, I don’t disbelieve in elves, either.)