AJ Philips:

“I was responding to Is Mise’s claim that “the vast majority of people will continue to understand marriage to be between man and woman”. Why was that so hard to understand?”

OK but how can you tell what people really believe just because of what they say in a poll. Maybe they are too afraid to say what they truly think.

“Believe it or not....”

Where is the danger in that? You don’t have to influence everyone – just a majority which it seems are well and truly influenced already.

“I was listing possibilities...debate.”

Your motives for other instances are irrelevant so why present them as an explanation for you behaviour in this instance? If the naysayers have not got a case then why keep arguing one?

“Well there’s the point I made earlier about the possibility of bad ideas being passed around.”

Why is this problem? If you have what you already want why does it matter what others think? It is what the majority thinks in this case – that is all that is needed. At least 70-80 per cent is more than enough to declare victory is it not?

“Further to that, I would think that most people would want to know if an argument they are using is a bad argument.”

Why would they want to know if it is a dead argument – it won’t change anything? If they come around to your point of view the end result is the same because both you and they will both have what you want.

“Well, clearly not every is aware that they have been.” Only a majority have to be aware.

“How have I been hypocritical?” It is hypocritical to keep arguing for a position that you already have unless you do not think the same-sex marriage issue is done and dusted. If you do not think that it is then why not? If you do think it is a foregone conclusion then what is your real motivation for arguing?

Maybe they are, Phanto.

<<OK but how can you tell what people really believe just because of what they say in a poll. Maybe they are too afraid to say what they truly think. >>

It’s just as well a pro-same-sex-marriage position doesn’t fallaciously rely on polling numbers then, isn’t it. And all the more reason for me to engage with naysayers, too, I might add.

<<Where is the danger in that?>>

Ignorance and poor reasoning always have their dangers, because if someone believes something for a bad reason, then there is a chance that that heuristic will influence their decision-making processes in other more hazardous areas.

<<You don’t have to influence everyone…>>

Most people are not explicitly racist, but I still think it is admirable to fight racism when it pops up.

<<Your motives for other instances are irrelevant so why present them as an explanation for you behaviour in this instance?>>

I didn't. You asserted that there was only one possibility, so I gave you more.

<<If the naysayers have not got a case then why keep arguing one?>>

Because they think they do and naive fence-sitters may think so too. I also find it enjoyable. I’ve already answered this.

<<Why is [the possibility of bad ideas being passed around a] problem?>>

I’ve explained this several times now. I make no apologies for wanting to fight irrationality. Why is it so important to you that I shut up?

<<Why would they want to know if it is a dead argument…>>

I already explained that in my last post.

<<It is hypocritical to keep arguing for a position that you already have unless you do not think the same-sex marriage issue is done and dusted.>>

I have given sufficient reason to continue to advocate same-sex marriage. Your charge is unwarranted.

<<If you do think it is a foregone conclusion then what is your real motivation for arguing?>>

I think same-sex marriage is inevitable in most parts of the world, but there are still bigots whose poisonous ideas need to be fought for reasons I have already mentioned.

AJ Philips:

“Ignorance ... areas.”

We are all ignorant about hundreds of issues but unless it leads to action that is detrimental why bother trying to convince someone? If you believe that same-sex marriage legislation is inevitable then their opinions about same-sex marriage can do no harm so why try and influence them?

“Most people are not explicitly racist, but I still think it is admirable to fight racism when it pops up.”

That is because the fight against racism is not over – it is an ongoing issue but if the fight for same-sex marriage is won there is no ongoing issue to fight.

“You asserted that there was only one possibility, so I gave you more.”

But why give me irrelevant ones?

“Because they think they do and naive fence-sitters may think so too. I also find it enjoyable. I’ve already answered this.”

Whether they think they do is irrelevant. What happens is relevant and if same-sex marriage is going to happen then it is irrelevant what the naysayers think. You have answered this and I refuted your argument. It does not become any more logical just by saying you have presented an argument.

“I’ve explained this several times now ...?”

You haven’t explained it you have just given arguments which I have refuted. It is not resolved just because you have presented your arguments.

“I already explained that in my last post.”

What is wrong with learning unless you expect to know everything from birth? Maybe what you learnt has led you to your current position but since that position is almost upon us then there is nothing to be gained by anyone else learning that they were once wrong.

“I think same-sex marriage is inevitable in most parts of the world, but there are still bigots whose poisonous ideas need to be fought for reasons I have already mentioned.”

And which I have refuted as poor reasons. You still have not given good reasons.

Phanto,

Your concern for my motives is starting to look bizarre.

<<We are all ignorant about hundreds of issues…>>

I also mentioned poor reasoning.

<<If you believe that same-sex marriage legislation is inevitable then their opinions about same-sex marriage can do no harm so why try and influence them?>>

I already addressed this in my fourth paragraph at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17648#312090, and my third paragraph at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17648#312094. You have said nothing to counter it.

<<That is because the fight against racism is not over…>>

Neither is the fight for same-sex marriage until it’s legislated.

<<But why give me irrelevant ones?>>

Because you asserted that there was only one possible explanation.

<<Whether they think they do [have a case] is irrelevant.>>

I have already answered this multiple times now.

<<You have answered this and I refuted your argument.>>

No, you haven’t. You have simply asserted that the war is won and that fighting irrationality is pointless if a majority agree with me. You have not responded to any of my reasoning.

<<It is not resolved just because you have presented your arguments.>>

Indeed. It is resolved because what I have just said above.

<<What is wrong with learning…?>>

I have never said there was anything wrong with learning.

<<Maybe what you learnt has led you to your current position but since that position is almost upon us then there is nothing to be gained by anyone else learning that they were once wrong.>>

You see what I mean? I have already explained why there is and you’ve ignored it and continued down the same line of assertions.

<<And which I have refuted as poor reasons.>>

You have addressed very little of what I have said by simply re-asserting that there is no point in me debating this topic. That’s it.

But this is just one big off topic ad hominem. Why should you care if I had poor reasons for debating this topic? All it would prove is that I was unaware that I was wasting my time. What should matter is whether my position on the topic is backed with sound reasoning.

Stezza,

I accept that words change their meanings over time, but I don’t see why “marriage” should change from meaning the union of a man and a woman to the union of any two – or more – people. More importantly I think presenting a demand that a word change its meaning as if it is an issue of human rights is just absurd.

The government already regulates certain aspects of relationships, such as the care of children, the settlement of property when couples, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, split up and so on. I don’t have a problem with this. I don’t have a problem with the government making a law to officially register same-sex couples. All I object to is the removal from the language of a word that specifically means the union of a man and a woman.

Lots of words are homonyms. Fluke is a good example: it can refer to fins on whale's tail, a stroke of luck, the end parts of an anchor, a species of flounder or a class of parasitic flatworms.

My dictionary has two different definitions for marriage. Will the English language suffer from adding a third? I doubt it. You should see how many meanings a nice simple word like 'set' has, but most of us seem to muddle along OK and make sense of what we hear and read because the particular sense in which a homonym is meant is usually evident from context. English is a pretty robust language.