Some of my friends on Facebook have posted a picture. You might be familiar with it: on top is a gay couple and it looks like they're getting married; on the bottom is an incredibly malnourished child. It calls anyone against same sex marriage failures if they have a problem with SSM when instead they could be helping starving children.
In logic, this is what we call a false dilemma. I could support starving children (indeed, Freerice is a way I can donate at least a bit despite my low income) and oppose SSM. Someone else might support both, and another might support neither. This is why the dilemma is false.
That said, this reminded me of an oft-quoted phrase, "love is love." At the risk of sounding sarcastic, congratulations, you just used the reflexive property of equality. My point is that this little phrase means nothing. Say it if you like, I'm not the thought police. It's simply that it has no bearing in an argument.
Need I remind everyone that we don't legislate based on love, let alone act out of love all the time? While my friends want to tell me to accept their version of love and the legislation what it entails, I have no actual rebuttal because there's no argument in the first place. I don't have an issue with people with other worldviews than mine. The issue I have is when an argument becomes about one's viewpoint of love and anyone who disagrees is a bigot. Thanks for sowing seeds of discord, by the way, if you've done such a thing.
Post what you want, but be consistent and don't manipulate children to further your viewpoint that would be exactly the same simply by the cop-out "love is love."
No comments:
Post a Comment