Frogblog • At the risk of being jumped on by people, I say this with sincerity.

At the risk of being jumped on by people, I say this with sincerity.

Because when you employ this line of thinking, it invites comparison with other human behaviours that people are arguably born into, but that society has no compunction in regulating and banning. To put this in your opponents hands is to pitch them a wonderful slowball that they will smack out of the park by saying “nobody chooses to be a pedophile either.”

The argument in favour of gay marriage argument is a simple one. In society, we no longer grant no gender-specific rights. Marriage as it currently stands privileges one class (opposite-sex couples) against another (same-sex). There is no moral or defensible philosophical basis for this.

If society is to offer certain right to couples over those held by individuals (a proposition so appalling that it should offend you much more than that gays cannot get married) then it should not offer them on the basis of gender.

THIS! This is exactly what I was getting at with the torture arguement yesterday. To say that torture is “ineffective” is to open the door to your opponent to cite a case where some penny-ante crook confessed to a crime when a cop twisted his arm. At that point you’ve conceded that torture is “sometimes” effective, and from there you’ve pretty much lost 2/3 of the argument.

Torture may occasionally get you actionable intelligence, but it is always immoral and illegal.

Source: indefensible