3 ms·

I'm not well-versed on what the fearmongering was that turned out to be bullshit, because I wasn't a voter for most of it. Besides obvious hysteria, were there

I'm not well-versed on what the fearmongering was that turned out to be bullshit, because I wasn't a voter for most of it. Besides obvious hysteria, were there strong, substantive arguments against it that turned out to be false? Or do you consider any objection to gay marriage as "conservative fearmongering", because the strength of your position for marriage equality is such that there are no conceivable legitimate arguments against it? For the sake of steelmanning: do you see the ~30 countries around the world that have legalized gay marriage as being more advanced than the rest, or as merely having different customs and cultural values that aren't translatable?

throwaway675309 4y ago
Your earlier arguments about how the government should not exercise negative rights, e.g. taking things away from you, as well as your proposition that conservatives advocate that the government should leave the private sector to handle things would seem to be in complete conflict with the idea that the government should be able to control who can and cannot get married.
rurp 4y ago
> were there strong, substantive arguments against it that turned out to be false? No, that's why it was so ridiculous. There was a lot of absurd hysteria that didn't make any sense, yet a lot of conservatives argued very fervently that gay marriage is wrong and legalizing it would be a mistake. The two main arguments I recall are that it would ruin traditional marriages (despite hearing this a lot, I never heard how it would actually happen) and that it was a slippery slope. The slippery slope arguments were usually along the lines of claiming this would lead to men marrying one animal or another. Nobody ever hears these arguments now because none of the absurd predictions had any validity and everyone can plainly see that since gay marriage has been legalized.
boppo1 4y ago
>For the sake of steelmanning: do you see the ~30 countries around the world that have legalized gay marriage as being more advanced than the rest, or as merely having different customs and cultural values that aren't translatable? He knows this is a trap.

throwaway675309 4y ago

Your earlier arguments about how the government should not exercise negative rights, e.g. taking things away from you, as well as your proposition that conservatives advocate that the government should leave the private sector to handle things would seem to be in complete conflict with the idea that the government should be able to control who can and cannot get married.

rurp 4y ago

> were there strong, substantive arguments against it that turned out to be false? No, that's why it was so ridiculous. There was a lot of absurd hysteria that didn't make any sense, yet a lot of conservatives argued very fervently that gay marriage is wrong and legalizing it would be a mistake. The two main arguments I recall are that it would ruin traditional marriages (despite hearing this a lot, I never heard how it would actually happen) and that it was a slippery slope. The slippery slope arguments were usually along the lines of claiming this would lead to men marrying one animal or another. Nobody ever hears these arguments now because none of the absurd predictions had any validity and everyone can plainly see that since gay marriage has been legalized.

boppo1 4y ago

>For the sake of steelmanning: do you see the ~30 countries around the world that have legalized gay marriage as being more advanced than the rest, or as merely having different customs and cultural values that aren't translatable? He knows this is a trap.