Ask Me Why

Knight Dragon, here to review.

When I first saw the title of this essay, my mind immediately went to the abortion issue with your addition of the "Pro Choice" portion. And I was also interested to see what kind of support you could give for being pro choice in this area. I wanted something logically solid. That's not what I got.

The entire argument is based off of emotions. I can't think of a pro-gay argument that's not ever been based off of emotion and relative perspective. Let me explain this according to each paragraph.

"...the right to marry whomever they love. Without this right in all 50 states, America cannot truthfully be called a free country."

This is a right? By whose definition? By one person's definition, marriage is a right that means a man has the choice to marry whatever woman wants to marry him, regardless of the opinions of others. By another's, marriage can be between a human and whatever they choose to love. http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/uk/ne ... 844194.stm This is an article about a man who wanted to marry his PS2 that's how much he loved it. So for this man, he could say that marriage is the union of a human and whatever they choose to love. Such a definition would also include bestial marriage, adult-minor marriages, and taken to an extremity forced marriage. If people have "the right to marry whomever they love", then why should a man be prevented from marrying a 6 year old girl he loves? That's absurd, but that's what logic dictates when followed through with completely.

"The first reason why same sex marriage should be allowed is in The Bill of Rights. The First Amendment of The Bill of Rights prohibits taking away the freedom of religion."

So you're a Mormon now? Or am I thinking of Islam? Again, this goes back to your definition. In some religions, the woman has absolutely no say in the marriage. It's either "I'm your father and you're going to marry this guy" or "I bought you and you belong to me." Those types of religions are illegal in the United States, and yet I hear no complaints about those religions being banned. So you're not really arguing for complete religious freedom here. You're arguing for a particular sect [the LGBT movement is a religious philosophy, if not an all out religion], and haven't proved to me why such a religious philosophy should be allowed. The basic summary of this paragraph is "Christianity is not the true religion and needs to quit telling people how to live." If you're not going to argue logically, don't attack one specific religion. It's unnecessary.

"It is not your business, nor your right to take away the rights of others."

Oh, I love this sentence so much. You have just thrown the situational ethics door wide open. What are our rights? I have the right to enjoy my life on my own property, right? Then what right does the government have to say that they can take my front yard up to my porch to widen a road? Oh...yeah, situational ethics. Such fun stuff. That's just one example. There are many others. A quick Google search of situational ethics scenarios should give you an idea of what I mean.

"Many people are against same sex marriages because homosexuals often have more privileges than straight people."

Um...no, that's not entirely true. And then you took a double-barreled shotgun to both feet in the logic department with this paragraph. Take a breather from the rush of emotions you're getting over this issue and think about this logically for a moment. Gay people get more privileges than straight people. Now for the next quote.

"For example, with many insurance companies, they will not allow a two straight people that live together to be on the same insurance plan as domestic partners."

What two straight people are we talking about here? Two straight guys or gals? A pair of the opposite gender? What? And you do realize that a boyfriend and girlfriend can get on the same policy as domestic partners as well as gay people, right?
But what you're also saying is that "gay people don't have to pay as much as straight people who aren't married." So you want them to pay more? You do realize that what you've just said is that there are more privileges to being gay and unmarried than being gay and married, right? So why is there even an argument for gays to get married if it's cheaper when they're not married? My word, logic has gone out the window.

So I hoped and prayed for logic to return. It did not. Instead I received a healthy dose of ranting and unsupported demands.

"Lastly, gay marriage bans should be taken off because you are taking away a person's right to be who they are."

The exact same thing could be said about child molesters, rapists, murderers, drug addicts, organized crime members, human traffickers, and drug dealers. Whenever you say "you shouldn't prevent someone from being who they are" you've just said that there is no reason to have law enforcement of any kind and that anarchy should reign because there is no right but what is right to each individual person, regardless of how it harms someone else. And your quote of Herb Ritts made me smile because you were supporting the opposition with that one. "Being an American is about having the right to be who you are. Sometimes that doesn't happen." Praise the Lord "sometimes that doesn't happen." I don't want someone breaking into my home and stealing my belongings because that's "right for them." The good old police department is involved in making sure that doesn't happen, and protecting my right to live a safe life. Again, by the same logic you're using I can justify theft, murder, rape, assault, and so on.

Your opening sentence of your last paragraph almost made me laugh, and I hope you can understand why.

"You have now seen the reasons why same sex marriages should be legal in all 50 states of the U.S."

No, I have not seen the reasons. By your own logic I have seen no good reasons for believing that gay marriage should be allowed. I am not throwing religion at you. And I'm not saying you believe any of what I said using your logic.

Let me stop and explain what I mean by all of the examples I've used. By your logic and your logic alone those examples can be justified. I did not and am not saying you believe that is right, or that those examples are equal in nature. I also am not saying I believe any of those are right. Nor have I said or am I saying that you must now have a religion. The entirety of my point in all of those examples is that, by your logic, very strange and erroneous conclusions can be drawn. So I wanted logic that actually made some sense. I did not get that. I got one long emotional rant with no logical support at all. This essay is just your opinion put into words. When it's your opinion versus mine, nobody wins. That's not how logical debating works. You need non-subjective facts to argue persuasively, and you did not show me those facts.

With your closing remarks, I was left wondering how you could bash a certain religious group for condemning another group while at the same time doing so yourself. The implication of your questions is that it is bigotry to go on in religious stubbornness or ignorance, and that it is noble to jump on the LGBT bandwagon. "join" is such a positive, jumpy word, and "continue to try to take away the right" makes it sound like such people are persevering in abominable actions akin to the Salem witch trials.

I sincerely hope you can take a step back and objectively examine your beliefs and logic.