(no subject)

[tahnan]

Anyone interested in playing "count the number of fallacies" should watch the video created by the Coalition for Marriage.

Anyone interested in playing "count the number of phalluses" should watch gay porn. (For our children.)

Comments

[jadelennox]

...want to change civilisation's most fundamental and enduring institution

Prostitution?

discriminate against the poor and needy

Oh god. Replace "homosexual" with "Jew" in this section. Most homosexuals are affluent so they shouldn't get marriage rights.

This will effect the rights of your children -- because the constitution will deny your children the right to have two parents. Whaaah? Also it will make your kids gay, and you'll get called homophobic if you disown 'em for it.

Lawmakers should not discriminate by creating a special civil union benefit for homosexual couples and exclude so many needy people in the state who want those same benefits. [Over picture of old lady in hospital bed] Wait, so you are in favor of giving that grandma and her caregiving grandson those legal rights? Um, no, because you say in horror that brothers might choose to marry for the benefits.

Also, take away Adobe Illustrator from those untrained people.

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

But oh there's so much more. The number of children born out of wedlock was already on the rise in Sweden before gay marriage was legalized; in America, almost 1/3 of all children are born out of wedlock.

Also: little children will be encouraged to explore homosexuality? Nonsense. Little children right now aren't being encouraged to explore sexuality of any sort; it's a sort of paranoid "homosexual agenda" slant to suggest that gays want to brainwash children.

And so much more...

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

Define 'little' children.
I really think that children are definitely being encouraged to explore sexuality. Barbie dolls. Real life Barbies like Brittney Spears.

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

Six year olds? The two girls running hand-in-hand through the meadow in the image on the screen when the voiceover was talking about exploring sexuality were about six.

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

Haven't been able to see the thing yet--I'm on the iLap in the living room. But I say that I'm still probably not too far off.

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

Trust me, people try to give Barbies to six-year olds.

[lilisonna.livejournal.com]

I'm refusing to watch it on the grounds that I will likely explode messily all over the computer. However, I am reminded yet again that this is a debate that can not really and truly be solved as the two sides are standing on two sides of an enormous canyon. Little girls will explore homosexuality as an option? Fine! Go them.

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

There were certainly points in the video where, when the reasonable female announcer asked, "Is this what you want?", the answer was clearly supposed to be "no," but my answer was an unqualified "yes." But in some cases, it wasn't just "X will happen, and from our premises, X is bad," and we disagreed with the second half of the assertion; it was "X will happen, and we all know X is bad," and indeed, X is bad, it's just that there's no reason to believe X will happen. At that point it's just logical fallacy, not merely different of opinion.

leighjen's opinion was that she wished the Catholic Church would stop trying to use logic and instead just say "Look, we think homosexuality is wrong, for religious reasons." Better to admit the different premises than to try to sway the other side with spurious logic.