tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post113831539677595028..comments2023-12-21T06:35:36.624-05:00Comments on Recursivity: Local Bigot Headed for OttawaUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1140093251386072732006-02-16T07:34:00.000-05:002006-02-16T07:34:00.000-05:00Ok, Calvin, you've convinced me that it is possibl...Ok, Calvin, you've convinced me that it is possible to make arguments against gay marriage that are not exclusively based on religion. I don't think they're very good arguments, but I concede your point.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1140038208331662272006-02-15T16:16:00.000-05:002006-02-15T16:16:00.000-05:00If you read the exhange between me and Enthymeme, ...If you read the exhange between me and Enthymeme, you will see that I have already brought up arguments similar to those you bring up here, and that he has responded to them, without basing his argument in any religious appeal. I think his responses fail in the end although the thread was closed before he could reply to me. (We also have that according to you, this argument is only "ultimately" based in a "more subtle" way on religion, and not "clearly" based on it).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1140002859724944022006-02-15T06:27:00.000-05:002006-02-15T06:27:00.000-05:00Dear Calvin:I don't really have the time right now...Dear Calvin:<BR/><BR/>I don't really have the time right now to get involved with discussions on other blogs. But I'll answer briefly here. You are welcome to respond here.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I think the "stable environment for children" argument ultimately derives from religious dogma, although the connection is perhaps more subtle than the other arguments.<BR/><BR/>First, it assumes that there is a single purpose to marriage, an untenable proposition that clearly is based on the idea that marriage is ordained by God. Marriage serves purposes other than providing a "stable environment for children" -- for example, it publicly acknowledges a sexual union, as a way to stave off contention for mates.<BR/><BR/>Second, it somehow misses the possibility of gay couples having children. The last time I looked at statistics, there were hundreds of thousands of gay couples living together with children in North America. If the goal of those making the argument were really about a stable environment for children, they should be advocating marriage for these couples.<BR/><BR/>Third, it treats the case of gay childless couples as somehow different from (for example) heterosexual couples marrying past the possible age of reproduction. If those making the "stable environment for children" argument were really sincere, then they would argue that childless marriages should be outlawed, too.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1139989312127090172006-02-15T02:41:00.000-05:002006-02-15T02:41:00.000-05:00You say that "All the arguments [you've] heard are...You say that "All the arguments [you've] heard are clearly based on religious dogma." Are you saying you have never heard the argument that the point of marriage as a state-sanctioned institution is to attempt to provide a stable enviroment for the bringing up of children? That is not a religious argument. <BR/><BR/>When this argument was brought up at Crooked Timber, I tried to deal with it. Perhaps you can look at the exchange there, and offer your comments, my contribution starts <A HREF="http://crookedtimber.org/2004/11/26/ab-hominem-arguments/#comment-52351" REL="nofollow">here</A>, and the fellow putting forward the argument is "Enthymeme".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1139118018083241932006-02-05T00:40:00.000-05:002006-02-05T00:40:00.000-05:00Well, we could judge them based on the actions and...Well, we <I>could</I> judge them based on the actions and opinions they <A HREF="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060203/NEWBIES03/TPNational/?query=albrecht" REL="nofollow">avoided bringing up during the election campaign</A>...<BR/><BR/>Voters of Kitchener-Consetoga, congratulations. Not only did you elect a bigot, you elected a bigot who's stupid enough to admit it the day after he's fooled you all. If it weren't for those meddling kids!M@https://www.blogger.com/profile/13408488215496128814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1138967430733977272006-02-03T06:50:00.000-05:002006-02-03T06:50:00.000-05:00Dear Anonymous:My definition of bigot is "one who ...Dear Anonymous:<BR/><BR/>My definition of bigot is "one who is irrationally devoted to his opinions". Anyone who says ridiculous things like "If one is truly committed to the marriage vows of fidelity, these same-sex marriages would succeed in wiping out an entire society in just one generation" is clearly not speaking rationally.<BR/><BR/>If there are rational arguments against gay marriage, by all means, present them. I've yet to hear any. All the arguments I've heard are clearly based on religious dogma.<BR/><BR/>I am not convinced at all by your argument about "50% of the Canadian people". First, my post was about Albrecht, not Canadians in general. Second, I see no reason why 50% of any population might not be bigoted on a number of different topics. Wouldn't you say that 50% of Americans were bigoted towards black people in 1875?<BR/><BR/>Finally, as for the "witch hunt" accusation, exactly how <B>should</B> we evaluate someone, other than based on their writings and actions? You give no rational basis to dispute my analysis, you only call it "blah, blah, blah".<BR/><BR/>All in all, a very unimpressive set of objections, Anonymous.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1138946351173208322006-02-03T00:59:00.000-05:002006-02-03T00:59:00.000-05:00Well, you have identified quite a few points where...Well, you have identified quite a few points where you disagree with Harold Albrecht, but I don't quite see the justification for your claim that he is a "bigot". My understanding is that at least 50% of the Canadian population is opposed to gay marriage, and I seriously doubt that they are all bigots. Also -- going back to the early 90's to dredge up some of your claims and the "blah, blah, blah meta-analysis" tone of your attack seriously smacks of a witch hunt.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1138399442331756602006-01-27T17:04:00.000-05:002006-01-27T17:04:00.000-05:00The CPC has become the Canadian chapter of the US ...The CPC has become the Canadian chapter of the US Republican Party which in turn is largely an arm of the US Fundementalist movement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1138377223385332222006-01-27T10:53:00.000-05:002006-01-27T10:53:00.000-05:00What scares me is that Albrecht is far from an ano...What scares me is that Albrecht is far from an anomaly in the CPC caucus -- and maybe not even the most outrageous. David Sweet in Ancaster-Flamborough-Dundas stepped down as president of the Canadian arm of the Promise Keepers to run in the last election.<BR/><BR/>Surprisingly, his four years at the head of that huge organisation were somehow missed in his candidate bio. And other references to it have gone missing as well. What a shame! Luckily <A HREF="http://www.egale.ca/index.asp?lang=E&menu=20&item=1276" REL="nofollow">Egale Canada</A> managed to find some of them.<BR/><BR/>The scary thing is that the past views of Albrecht and Sweet were so suppressed during the campaign, and were apparently unworthy of journalistic attention. Must be that liberal media bias again.<BR/><BR/>Even scarier is that, even with Albrecht's dish rack meeting appearing in the paper, and even with his intolerant views being generally well-known, he was elected.M@https://www.blogger.com/profile/13408488215496128814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1138379629866841852006-01-27T11:33:00.000-05:002006-01-27T11:33:00.000-05:00Are you sure he isn't an American Republican under...Are you sure he isn't an American Republican undercover agent? I thought we were the only country in this hemisphere with religious wackos.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com