A J Philips:

"Anyone who is against same-sex marriage, is vocal about it, and continues to be vocal about it after it is shown to them that they don’t have a rational argument against same-sex marriage."

This is how you would classify a hate preacher according to your answer to the question of how you would define a hate preacher. Then you added that contempt needs to be present.

Why did you answer that question? Sure, I know you were asked but you do not answer every question that you are asked. Why did you choose to answer that particular question?

Why does it matter what constitutes a 'hate preacher? What value is there in being able to accurately label a hate preacher. Decisions should be made based on reason. You are a great champion of reason and do not like to see emotions get in the way of the decision making process so why buy into the question of what classifies someone as a hate preacher?

If they hate same-sex couples why should that be relevant to the process of determining whether or not SSM should be legalised? Pointing out the reality of their hate is irrelevant to the process because you are introducing emotion as a factor into the rational process and this is inconsistent with your principles of keeping the argument based on reason.

Hi Phanto,

There may be many more mighty leaps between 'hating' homosexuality and supporting the inclusion of homosexuals within the term 'marriage':

* a heterosexual couple may fully support homosexuality, homosexuals and homosexual acts, perhaps try some of them themselves (a bit of analingus probably never hurt anybody), without seeing the need to support 'marriage' between homosexuals;

* a hetero couple may support homosexuals in every way, except trying out any homosexual practices between themselves, or extending the definition of marriage;

* a hetero couple may support homosexual friends but be uneasy or unenthusiastic about homosexual practices, or find them distasteful; they may also not support homosexual 'marriage';

* a hetero couple may have homosexual friends who they dearly love but not want to know about anything at all about their practical relationship;

* a hetero couple may have homosexual acquaintances, with whom they share social activities amicably, but not want to get much closer;

* a hetero couple may simply not want to associate with homosexuals if possible.

And they all have the right to their respective positions. Turn it around and so do homosexuals have the right to their respective positions. Like it or not, nasty or disagreeable as it may be, we all have the right to distrust, to dislike, and yes, even to hate. After all, how many thought police would have to be employed to weed out anybody who does ? Preferences exist. Distaste exists. Even hate exists. Suck it up, I suggest respectfully.

Cheers,

Joe

A J Philips,

Somewhere in your response to me, I think there's agreement that there are indeed rational arguments against homosexual marriage.

I'm not claiming that they are conclusive arguments (although they are to me) but only that one doesn't need to be a shirt-lifter hating, evolution-rejecting hate preacher to see problems with the changes as they are currently postulated.

It seems to me that the changes are inevitable whether through a plebiscite or after the so-called progressives eventually regain control of the parliament n 3, 6 or 9 years time.

My points are two-fold:

1) this is such a monumental change to the things that have made this society great that it requires much more gravitas in the decision making process. We aren't talking mundanities like where to build the next vote attracting piece of infrastructure. This isn't a decision that can be reserved if we see we made a mistake. This is a societal altering decision that'll be with us forever, for better or worse (for richer, for poorer!). So asking the entire populace seems to be the least we can do to give it its due consideration.

2) the plebiscite is opposed because the pro's see a danger in given the nay's a platform to enunciate their concerns. The media and popular culture have succeeded in convincing most that this is a mere changing of a coupla words and that the opposition are all religio-crazies. There is a danger for the yes case if this is shown to be false. The yes case will still win - eventually - but they'd prefer to not have their mythology challenged.

phanto,

Well that's a really bizarre set of questions you have there for me.

<<Why did you answer that question?>>

Josephus's question? Because it was a good question that was relevant to what I had said.

<<Sure, I know you were asked but you do not answer every question that you are asked.>>

Actually, I’m pretty sure I do. I try to at least. Sometimes even the rhetorical questions.

<<Why did you choose to answer that particular question?>>

I have answered all the questions directed to me on this thread so far, so why should it come as a shock to you that I answered that one?

<<Why does it matter what constitutes a 'hate preacher? What value is there in being able to accurately label a hate preacher.>>

How about you ask Josephus? He was the one who asked the question.

<<Decisions should be made based on reason.>>

I’m glad you’re back on the ‘reason’ wagon with me. I was getting worried for a moment there when you were starting to talk about being guided by emotions.

<<…why buy into the question of what classifies someone as a hate preacher?>>

Because it was a reasonable question to ask. Yours was too. I didn’t “buy into” anything. Do you think Josephus was trying to trap me somehow?

<<If they hate same-sex couples why should that be relevant to the process of determining whether or not SSM should be legalised?>>

It’s not. I didn’t say it was.

--

mhaze,

I have read through our discussion on that other thread again and I cannot see where I agreed that there were rational arguments against homosexual marriage.

<<I'm not claiming that they are conclusive arguments…>>

I would agree that there are many arguments against same-sex marriage that are not conclusive. There are some arguments that would, prima facie, appear to be reasonable, such as your first point, but are left wanting when such abstract fears are weighed against the more quantitative social and economic costs of inequality.

Loudmouth:

I agree with all that you say but my point was that if the discussion is to be based on reason then emotions like hate are irrelevant. Everyone has a right to hate whoever they want but it should not be taken into account in the decision making process.

I am questioning AJP why he is keen to define hate preachers when their hate is irrelevant to the debate on SSM.

Hi Phanto,

I agree but some contributors seem to think that simply labelling someone as a 'hater' is the be-all and end-all, without any other argument. They overlook that they themselves are perfectly entitled to hate too, but that, as you say, it should have no bearing on their argument.

I would defend (perhaps not to the death) the rights of left-wing nutters like Paul or AJP to hate heteros, and politely remind them that, on the same logic, sensible people have the right to disapprove of and, yes, even hate (although I suspect that it is much rarer than people think, and I would object even to that), homos.

Cheers,

Joe