rhetorical skill like this cannot be faked
"This reminds me of a circumstance that many of us parents have faced with our children. Sometimes we have a child who believes that their personal rights are more important than any of the other members of the family. As parents we have the choice of caving in to the demands of that single child just to avoid the emotional confrontation that will inevitably occur or we can choose to be behave like parents and explain that sometimes rights overlap and that one child’s rights can’t always take precedence."Try to guess the context before you check your guess.
posted by Chris Bray @ 9:55 AM
10 Comments:
I don't know how to counter this argument because I just don't get it: how can expanding marriage rights violate the rights of those people whose rights aren't being taken away? Rights are not like stock holdings or fiat money, whose value is diluted when more is issued.... How do people end up in this logical blind alley, and how do we get them out?
I think argument is, "you're taking away my right to make sure you don't have certain rights."
I once heard Eugen Weber lecture on Malthus. His point, left implicit, was that people who come to believe in the concept of a finite amount of good in the world are more vulnerable to facism. They seek government that will guarantee protections for their little slice of safety, against all comers.
Soo...in that context, you can see how people would see the world as a place where civil rights exist for the few, while the many clamor for them. And protecting *my* right to marry against *your* right to do the same maintains the fiction that I'm getting what others want.
I'm not trying to excuse the author - if anything this link makes his view more frightening. But it makes sense to me as a world-view, and explains why the same people who fear terrorism (and will sacrifice the Constitution for that fear) and socialism (don't give poor children food!!) oppose gay marriage and prefer authoritarianism.
"I once heard Eugen Weber lecture on Malthus."
Oh whatever, elitist. Sarah Palin hates your blog comments.
Bite me, jealous one.
You *wish* Eugen Weber had kissed you on both cheeks twice-weekly for a quarter. You WISH.
Eugen Weber would have liked me more, dude.
What does marriage have to do with the state? It's a religious sacrament.
I don't really disagree with that.
Well, the state has a well-founded interest in stability within family relationships. That touches the state in a variety of areas (property title, parenting, taxation).
But that's nothing to do with exactly *who* is in the relationship. It's all about having predictable and legally defined partnerships so that things like contracts and rights are clear in the law.
Makes no difference if it's you and your brother or you and your boyfriend or what. The rest is all religion.
Don't remember if I linked to this before, but it's amusing.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home