You must log in or # to comment.
Regarding the state, marriage should be all or nothing. Consenting adults should be able to marry whomever and however many they wish or no one can get married. Personally, I don’t think the government should be involved in marriage at all. I would rather see some other options or protections put in place (if they don’t exist already) for couples who choose to become serious but do not wish to “make it legal.”
IMO “marriage” shouldn’t be a legal thing at all. It’s between you and your marriage partner/s. The legal/government aspect should be limited to forming legal partnerships with whomever you want to do so for taxes/healthcare/property/etc.
I mean, that’s just fining a different word to describe what the government already does.
I don’t know that I need the government to use a different word than the rest of society for an arrangement just because some people have a special ritual around it.
A government marriage is required for recognition by the government, and a (whatever religion or group) marriage is required for recognition by (whatever religion or group).
It’s not that one should stop using the word or the other has a more legitimate claim, it’s just different things in the same category.It’s not what the government already does at all. I can’t get a government “marriage” to my 3 housemates so we can all enjoy tax advantages and share medical benefits with each other and whatever else married people do that for. 2 of us could pair up but there’d be an odd man out.
I meant more the legal partnerships aspect than the specifics of who it grants it to. Also, in some areas you can get a marriage between multiple people.
Marriage is the word for the non-business personal binding that you speak of.
You’re saying they should open the doors to that to everyone in whatever organization they see fit, which I agree with.
You’re also saying they should use a different word for it, which I don’t. Religion doesn’t own the concept of marriage.
May as well say that we’re deciding that religion can’t perform marriages anymore. You can have the same party and ceremony, but it’s just a Catholic/Jewish/Hindu/etc union. If you want to get married you need to go down to the courthouse.Personally I don’t give a shit what it’s called. Calling the legal aspect something else would shut down the resistance from the religious whackjobs that are hung up on the word marriage and the fact that it doesn’t fit whatever their religions definition of it is.
Eh, they don’t get to win. I care what it’s called because that’s the word for it in English. Letting them win means that they’ll just advance to saying that the government shouldn’t be encouraging what they disagree with.
When people proposed “civil unions” as the alternative to gay marriage it shut up exactly zero of the nut jobs. When gay marriage was legalized they started arguing about how you can’t force them to make cakes.Appeasement doesn’t work. Get petty and make the nutters defend everything they’ve got twisted around in their heads. Care about the word if for no other reason than it makes them pissy.
This is known as a Tu Quoque fallacy.
I’m not speaking to the in/validity of her underlying whatever. I’m speaking to this form of logical fallacy.
If we’re being pedantic, you’re approaching the fallacy fallacy, which is when you dismiss a point for being argued with a fallacy instead of addressing the point, and this isn’t saying anything about the argument she’s making. It’s just pointing out hypocrisy. So no fallacy fallacy and no ad hominem.
No one has said gay marriage should be legal because this woman’s a hypocrite, or that she’s wrong because of that.
At best this is an insult. It’s not even libel because it’s just the truth.
Further, questioning the character of the person making the argument isn’t always invalid. It’s not a solid argument in it’s entirety but “I find her argument uncompelling because her behavior is inconsistent with a belief in her own argument, and furthermore her behavior casts doubt as to her credibility and reliability as a good faith participant in this discussion”.
It’s not that her argument is wrong because of her past, it’s that it’s not worth consideration.This would have been a fine place to say oh okay I didn’t know that and just shut up.
I don’t know how much more clear I could have made it that I was trying to inform people about this type of fallacy, and I’m not commenting on her position or how anybody feels about it.
Honestly, your comment is just another fallacy because it’s attacking what you believe to be the motivations for my comment, which were not the motivations.
No, it looked like you were bringing up a fallacy for no good reason. First, no one asked you to teach them about fallacies. Second, if you’re past middle school and found yourself on a niche platform you probably already know. Third, if you actually read what I wrote or what the image says: this isn’t that fallacy.
Criticizing someone for hypocrisy isn’t invalid. Bringing up unrelated fallacies when someone criticizes someone is at best pointless noise.
There’s something funny about you assuming you know why I made my reply in the very sentence you get upset with me for supposedly doing that.
For clarity, I understood why you made your comment. I just thought it was silly, so I took it upon myself to inform you of a fallacy you weren’t making, as well as some nuance to the one you seemed to be so keen to talk about.
