You've got to look at the big picture, Brad. Not just one guy getting bullied. I've gotten bullied - at some point, most of us have gotten bullied, in one way or another. So, what? Does that mean, we get special rights - just for being bullied? Life is NOT fair. To think it should be 100% fair 24-7 is a cognitive distortion that creates anger, sadness & frustration. For one thing, by the fact that we're educated and have the resources to communicate online shows how unfair in our favor, things are... The fact that most of us usually have filled stomachs is another such testament of the lack of fairness, with 1,000,000,000 people chronically hungry (according to the World Health Organization).
I've read your posts down thread. I can't tell whether they were directed at me, as they don't seem to respond to the things I've discussed in response to your post on Saturday. If they were, would you please let me know? My response may be a little slow, as I still haven't finished discussing the many issues raised in your post of Saturday. This morning, I'd like to talk a little about the above paragraph.
So let's talk about fairness and the big picture. I agree that life is not fair. That's an "is" statement. But what follows from that? Is unfairness a "good" thing just because that's the state of the world? What justification is there for turning how the world is into a model for how it should be? That's a logical fallacy closely related to the naturalistic fallacy -- the appeal to nature. For example, as you have observed, kids get bullied. Does that really imply that kids ought to get bullied. The fact that you stepped into prevent a fellow human from getting bullied indicates to me that understand that how the world is right now does not tell us how we should act. Arguing that we should be unfair to gay folk because "life is unfair" is a logical fallacy.
Next, since you've used the term "special rights," I think we should talk about that term. I've noted in other discussions here that people have asked to you explain what you mean by "special rights." I haven't seen you reply. I hope you will do me the courtesy of explaining to me what you mean, because I have no idea. In fact, it seems to me like you are using the term exactly backwards.
Here's an analogy I thought of. In my state, citizens have the legal right to open carry handguns. I don't own a handgun. Does that mean that open carry is a special right granted only to handgun owners? I don't think so. Anyone who chooses to open carry can do so. That I don't choose to open carry, or even own a handgun, doesn't mean I don't have the right. So, I would say "open carry" is not a "special right."
Similarly, in my state, people have the legal right to enter into marriage regardless of sex. I can choose to marry someone of the opposite sex or the same sex. The fact that I may choose to marry someone of the opposite sex doesn't mean that I don't have the right to marry someone of the same sex. Thus, just as in the case of open carry -- the right to marry is a general right in my state.
In other states, however, the legal right to marry is restricted to people of the opposite sex. It's not that people simply choose not to marry someone of the same sex -- they have no legal right to do so. So, marriage is not a general right in those states -- it is a special right that confers legal benefits and advantages to some, but not all, people in the state.
That's why it seems to me your use of "special rights" is backwards. With my explanation as context, can you explain to me why permitting same sex couples to marry is a special right?
The next thing I'd like to talk about is a logical fallacy called the straw man fallacy. I think that's an important thing to discuss in the context of message board discussions, where it can be very easy to misunderstand someone else's argument. The straw man fallacy basically occurs when someone unfairly mischaracterizes someone else's argument and then attempts to refute their own unfair characterization.
So, let's look at this sentence: "Does that mean, we get special rights - just for being bullied?"
I think that is a classic straw man fallacy. First, as I explained above, I'm not arguing for special rights. I'm arguing for a general right of marriage that extends to all couples regardless of sex. Second, I'm not arguing that marriage should be extended to same-sex couples because gay folks are bullied. To the extent my plea to you involved the making of arguments, the argument was that the manner in which you have chosen to post in this forum, as well as on other on-line forums, about same-sex marriage actively contributes to the conditions that both permit and encourage children of God to bully, persecute, beat, and even kill, other children of God. That's different from the argument I would make for including same-sex couples in marriage. So far, I've simply been responding to your arguments. Because the next paragraph of Saturday's post discusses laws, and what we are really talking about when we discuss same-sex marriage is what the law ought to be, I'll lay that argument out in my next post.
Now, let's look at this sentence: "To think it should be 100% fair 24-7 is a cognitive distortion that creates anger, sadness & frustration."
This, again, is a straw man. I'm not arguing that the world should be 100% fair 24-7. I agree with you that the world is not fair. I also agree that it would be impossible to make the world 100% fair 24-7. But neither the fact that world is not fair and that it would be impossible to make the world fair 24-7 lead us to any logical conclusion about whether same-sex couples should be permitted to marry. Again, that puts is squarely in the realm of the appeal to nature and the naturalistic fallacy. It also seems to imply that if we can't do something perfectly, we shouldn't do it at all. In other words, if we can't feel all the starving children, we shouldn't feed any of them. Should we make perfect the enemy of the good? If you think so, would you please explain to me why you think that?
You've used the term "cognitive distortion" here and in other threads. What does that mean and why do you think it is important to the discussion of same-sex marriage?
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951