"You’ve clearly made a bad comparison."
Well, I don't think I was clear. I was not comparing tax cuts to homosexuality (by the way, I believe a tariff *is* a form of tax, but let's pop out of that rabbit hole). Merely, pointing out that the style of 'domino' argument is inherently flawed.
In essence, I was saying that any good idea, taken to an extreme, can become a bad idea. The domino argument does just that; taking any idea, seemingly good, and extending it to a bad conclusion.
That is what the homosexuality/beastiality/child abuse argument goes. Rather than argue the relative pluses or minuses of the particular subject (homosexuality), the argument is pushed into something that really has no direct connection to the original argument. That is, there is no connection between homosexuality and beastiality and child abuse.
Pedophiles may or may not be homosexuality, and vice versa. One does not connotate the other, so there is no link, and no 'domino'. Ditto with beastialites (?) There is no connection, and the argument is a non sequitur.
I could argue that, for example, all organized religion is bad, because it can (and has) been abused. Based on the domino argument, churches and religions should be outlawed because, taken to the extreme, you have the Inquisition and the Taliban.
"Adulthood is arbitrarily chosen. That is why in some cultures 40 year old men can and do marry 12 year-old girls, while in other cultures doing such a thing is criminal."
Here is where we get into the crux of the dilemma. Should there be a law preventing marriage of 12 year olds, as is the custom in some cultures?
Some would say yes, others no. To the ones who say yes, the question becomes: should we allow 10 year olds to marry? 8? 2? At birth?
The reality is that we sometimes choose arbitrary metrics and limits based on cultural background. The problem in the US is that we are a melting pot, and find more and more that we face these decisions in the context of many cultural backgrounds.
So, who makes the 'choice' in what is acceptable and what is not? Can it be the majority? Would that not result in oppression of minority cultures? Is it theology? How can that be in a secular, mixed-theology nation? Is it science (like the 'biology argument' you used)? Where would humanity fit?
I think we fall back on a sense of right and wrong, which must be fair, secular, and human. The way I look at it, knowing same sex couples with kids, is that these people are what you would call 'solid citizens'; they are active in the community, morally strong, know right from wrong, contribute to the well-being of our society, and do no harm to others. They are, in a word or two, ideal Americans. In my opinion, their rights must be protected against discrimination, and they must be afforded equal protection under the law.
"Hehe. You don’t advocate it, but reason demands you affirm it because you’ve already affirmed that which is objectively foreign to your fundamental structure and character in nature."
The difference between advocating something and tolerating it. There are many things that fall into the category for me. It is what I am most proud of as an American. |
