Ok, fine. Just tell me I've said one of those things we can't talk about and I'll be done. I was pushing the issue because I had thought HN was more interested in discussing arguments vs worrying about being offended. But if it is mainly concerned with the latter, then it's not so interesting to debate things here.
Anyways, my argument is good precisely because it is contrary to racist arguments. Racist arguments are wrong because they are based on appearance when we should be more concerned with how people function.
Besides, I don't think you really discriminate against discrimination like you say you do. Don't you want to discriminate against pedophiles being baby sitters? Why? Isn't it because the function of a baby sitter is to protect your children, and a pedophile will do the opposite? Roles and institutions are created primarily to fulfill functions. If you undermine the function, then the role and institution go away. That is what I'm saying in regards to marriage, and is the rational (vs prejudiced) reason why people oppose gay marriage.
People value marriage because they care about their children. If the institution is jeopardized, it significantly harms their ability to raise their children well, or even at all. As another commentator pointed out, just look at areas of our society where marriage has disappeared. The coincide with our highest crime rates and violent behavior.
So, if you are willing to not even consider this possibility merely to avoid offending people, you worry me. It further irks me that this policy, like a number of others, originates from the very well to do and highly educated sector of America where the negative reprecussions will not be felt. However, these policies have been devastating for the poor. For example, look at the impact of abortion and welfare on black communities. Worrying about offense in these cases isn't really worrying about others. It is worrying about yourself.
Anyways, my argument is good precisely because it is contrary to racist arguments. Racist arguments are wrong because they are based on appearance when we should be more concerned with how people function.
Besides, I don't think you really discriminate against discrimination like you say you do. Don't you want to discriminate against pedophiles being baby sitters? Why? Isn't it because the function of a baby sitter is to protect your children, and a pedophile will do the opposite? Roles and institutions are created primarily to fulfill functions. If you undermine the function, then the role and institution go away. That is what I'm saying in regards to marriage, and is the rational (vs prejudiced) reason why people oppose gay marriage.
People value marriage because they care about their children. If the institution is jeopardized, it significantly harms their ability to raise their children well, or even at all. As another commentator pointed out, just look at areas of our society where marriage has disappeared. The coincide with our highest crime rates and violent behavior.
So, if you are willing to not even consider this possibility merely to avoid offending people, you worry me. It further irks me that this policy, like a number of others, originates from the very well to do and highly educated sector of America where the negative reprecussions will not be felt. However, these policies have been devastating for the poor. For example, look at the impact of abortion and welfare on black communities. Worrying about offense in these cases isn't really worrying about others. It is worrying about yourself.