![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
April 27th, 2004
Just taking a short break from some writing I've been doing tonight, before my brain explodes. Thought I'd comment here on something I'm starting to notice with regard to debate.
In many public debates, there are huge glaring holes in the logic used. Holes which seem not to be readily apparent to the participants. Indeed, despite having taken part in these debates for a while now, I'm just now seeing many of them. Things like people arguing (simultaneously) that marriage is all about having children, but that straight couples without the desire or capacity to have children should still be able to get married because "marriage can function in additional ways (one of them being companionship) and can express additional ideals (the most obvious one being love). Consequently, these traditions do not insist that childless couples separate. Instead, they maintain what they consider the one distinctive ideal of marriage without punishing those who fail to attain it."
So... umm... if childless exceptions don't undermine the institution, and marriage can indeed serve other functions and ideals, why are they so against homosexual marriages joining the ranks of those exceptions?
Their argument undermines itself. But they don't see it.
I think it has to do with emotions clouding the issue, but it also seems like a proper emotional appeal made while simultaneously pointing out the inherent contradictions of their position would have the potential for an enormous effect. Maybe part of the art of persuasion is to find such illusory arguments and turn the emotional energy bound up in promoting them back on their source?
At any rate, it seems a little less obnoxious than just flat out telling them "No, you're wrong, and this is the logical reason why." over and over again.
Ah well, back to writing.
In many public debates, there are huge glaring holes in the logic used. Holes which seem not to be readily apparent to the participants. Indeed, despite having taken part in these debates for a while now, I'm just now seeing many of them. Things like people arguing (simultaneously) that marriage is all about having children, but that straight couples without the desire or capacity to have children should still be able to get married because "marriage can function in additional ways (one of them being companionship) and can express additional ideals (the most obvious one being love). Consequently, these traditions do not insist that childless couples separate. Instead, they maintain what they consider the one distinctive ideal of marriage without punishing those who fail to attain it."
So... umm... if childless exceptions don't undermine the institution, and marriage can indeed serve other functions and ideals, why are they so against homosexual marriages joining the ranks of those exceptions?
Their argument undermines itself. But they don't see it.
I think it has to do with emotions clouding the issue, but it also seems like a proper emotional appeal made while simultaneously pointing out the inherent contradictions of their position would have the potential for an enormous effect. Maybe part of the art of persuasion is to find such illusory arguments and turn the emotional energy bound up in promoting them back on their source?
At any rate, it seems a little less obnoxious than just flat out telling them "No, you're wrong, and this is the logical reason why." over and over again.
Ah well, back to writing.
