Not much going on except for the Roommate's newfound preoccupation with "completing projects" which require me to help. We spent the hours between 9 pm and midnight last night cleaning out closets and getting rid of clothes. With a bottle of wine. Amazing how much you realize you really don't like items of clothing when a little on the tipsy side.
Yesterday I briefly listened to a talk program on NPR concerning homosexuality in modern day. The panel contained a guy with some religious affiliation that I didn't catch and an openly gay man whom I was unable to discern his association. The reason I don't have any more specifics is that I came in on the program after it was well into the discussion and didn't listen to the entire program as I was running errands---in and out of the car---so my run-down of the discussion is less than complete, although there were a few points made that I found interesting. First off the religious guy seemed OK with gay people but still saw being homosexual on a par with infidelity, kind of bad but not bad. Opinionated but in a very "grey area" sort of way so I am assuming there are degrees of bad. The subject of the bible's view of homosexuality being wrong was explained by the gay panelist as not necessarily being an incorrect opinion so to speak but more to the point of being an outdated concept. He explained that the early stance was the whole necessity of Christians procreating to swell the population of followers. Now that there is no urgency in building the flock there was no reason to be concerned with the bible's negative stance on homosexuality. The two panelist kind of disagreed but in a kind of polite, agreeable sort of way. No sarcasm, no yelling, no bible quotes. It was a---again---polite discussion (it was NPR after all) and highly interesting. Too bad the masses can't agree to disagree in the same civilized manner; it's so black and white in modern America: if you are gay you are sinner and if you believe that you are backwards.
There was one really stupid point made though. Although the gay man stated that if two people were in love, committed, of legal age and consensual what they did privately should be no one's business. The religious-affiliation man disagreed with the legal validity of gay marriage because as he explained, if two lesbians were allowed to marry, what was to stop THREE lesbians from marrying down the road. Just ridiculous, that's like saying if you let two men marry then the next step is a man legally marrying a cow. That logic escapes me. And kind of makes me belly laugh.
I have to run. I need to fix the fence because Rufus just jumped over it to get into the neighbor's yard. Seems he and the neighbor are planning to run off and get married and I'm totally against that.
7 comments:
Without agreeing with the argument that gives you a belly laugh...
The religious gentleman was using a perfectly reasonable bit of logic called "the slippery slope." I know, I know, they taught you in college not to use that one in your papers...but that has far more to do with the lazy nature of college students than the (il)legitimacy of the logic.
Slippery slope can be applied to any and every situation without thought or reason and still have the superficial apperance of truth. Thus, colleges ban anyone from using it for fear that a great many students (of the lazy mind variety) would use it poorly.
Any guesses as to the logic behind the argument that slipery slope should be banned?
Ironic, ain't it?
In MY opinion, the one's who speak out and are all concerned about it and shit are totally in the closet. At least that's how I view it, so I can sleep at night. Oh, and also how I deal with my backwards-ass Southern Baptist family here in Texas. I think all my cousins secretly want it in the "you know what", that's why they slam gay people.
Go Rufus, Go!
That Rufus is an angel; he would NEVER jump the fence!
The slippery slope "theory" can also be applied to straight marriages since by that definition if a man is allowed to marry a women than what’s stopping him to marry a woman and than a cow. The theory that TWO consenting adults want to do anything LEGAL (and this can be appled to anything smoking, drinking, driving) than who is anyone to say that they can't do that.
And if you can marry a cow would it be legal to divorce it or would you just slaughter it for hamburger? Is that moral?
The slope gets slipperyer.
Can you say "Reductio ad absurdum?"
Post a Comment