DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**BaselBimbooooo** · 01-06-2012, 08:34 PM

Here's the dealio...how come no one can argue his point?

He's basically saying that we can't make laws just to make individuals happy. He cites polygamy as an example, i.e. if same sex marriage becomes legal, then perhaps polygamy should be legal. I'd say there are two reasonable counter-arguments that same sex proponents could make:

1) Yes, perhaps polygamy should be allowable, too. This would deflate his presumptive argument that polygamy is universally rejected.
2) As a society, we make laws incrementally. Legalizing same sex marriage does not mean you'd have to legalize polygamy. For example, we legalize alcohol, but we don't legalize marijuana. I'm not saying it's right, but I'm saying we have a precedent.

But what's disturbing here is not his logic, it's his attitude. He comes across as incredibly condescending and smarmy.

01-06-2012, 08:34 PM	#16
BaselBimbooooo Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 646 Senior Member	Here's the dealio...how come no one can argue his point? He's basically saying that we can't make laws just to make individuals happy. He cites polygamy as an example, i.e. if same sex marriage becomes legal, then perhaps polygamy should be legal. I'd say there are two reasonable counter-arguments that same sex proponents could make: 1) Yes, perhaps polygamy should be allowable, too. This would deflate his presumptive argument that polygamy is universally rejected. 2) As a society, we make laws incrementally. Legalizing same sex marriage does not mean you'd have to legalize polygamy. For example, we legalize alcohol, but we don't legalize marijuana. I'm not saying it's right, but I'm saying we have a precedent. But what's disturbing here is not his logic, it's his attitude. He comes across as incredibly condescending and smarmy.
	Quote