I absolutely agree everyone should be able to marry. But the OP was asking if you support same sex marriage and why/why not. Dave and others gave their opinions and they get absolutely slammed (as did I) for disagreeing with the majority. BH is not very welcoming of people 'going against the grain'. You may say its about challenging opinions but if you read back over this thread it seems more attacking.
I'm learning that I shouldn't post on a thread if its not going to be popular.
Sorry this wasn't directed at you SSP, just general post.
I support same sex marriage & think it's high time it was legal in this country. Who are we to dicate who someone can fall in love with & legally marry? Just because someone loves someone of the same sex why is that relationship any less worthy than that of two people of opposite genders?
I whole heartedly support same sex marriage. And I know how to change some conservative minds (worked on my DH).
Think about the money the economy is missing out on by not allowing same sex marriage. All that money that same sex couples could be pumping into the various areas of the wedding industry.
Sent from my U8860 using The Bub Hub mobile app
In this case the majority of people posting on the thread recognise that not allowing same sex couples to marry is a violation of their basic human rights, so of course people questions as to why anyone would wish to continue to deny them.
Having a majority disagree with you or question your view does not equate to attacking. But even so- is calling someone's relationship "unnatural" not attacking? Is it not "slamming" someone to tell them that you do not support them in their quest to have equal rights to everyone else and end the discrimination against them based on their sexual preference? I would feel pretty "slammed" of my sexual preference was compared to violent offenders or vicious animals and deemed equally as 'abnormal' as these. You can't come in to any discussion saying things like this and then, when called out for your comments, be all "Hey, where's the respect for my opinion??"
As for the last bit, you are free to post whatever you want. If you choose to post that you are homophobic, racist, sexist or otherwise bigoted, yeah, you'll most likely get called on it. Same as in real life in that regard.
I've posted this article before, but I think it's worth reposting:
Every year, I try to do at least two things with my students at least once. First, I make a point of addressing them as “philosophers” – a bit cheesy, but hopefully it encourages active learning.
Secondly, I say something like this: “I’m sure you’ve heard the expression ‘everyone is entitled to their opinion.’ Perhaps you’ve even said it yourself, maybe to head off an argument or bring one to a close. Well, as soon as you walk into this room, it’s no longer true. You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for.”
A bit harsh? Perhaps, but philosophy teachers owe it to our students to teach them how to construct and defend an argument – and to recognize when a belief has become indefensible.
The problem with “I’m entitled to my opinion” is that, all too often, it’s used to shelter beliefs that should have been abandoned. It becomes shorthand for “I can say or think whatever I like” – and by extension, continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful. And this attitude feeds, I suggest, into the false equivalence between experts and non-experts that is an increasingly pernicious feature of our public discourse.
Firstly, what’s an opinion?
Plato distinguished between opinion or common belief (doxa) and certain knowledge, and that’s still a workable distinction today: unlike “1+1=2” or “there are no square circles,” an opinion has a degree of subjectivity and uncertainty to it. But “opinion” ranges from tastes or preferences, through views about questions that concern most people such as prudence or politics, to views grounded in technical expertise, such as legal or scientific opinions.
You can’t really argue about the first kind of opinion. I’d be silly to insist that you’re wrong to think strawberry ice cream is better than chocolate. The problem is that sometimes we implicitly seem to take opinions of the second and even the third sort to be unarguable in the way questions of taste are. Perhaps that’s one reason (no doubt there are others) why enthusiastic amateurs think they’re entitled to disagree with climate scientists and immunologists and have their views “respected.”
Meryl Dorey is the leader of the Australian Vaccination Network, which despite the name is vehemently anti-vaccine. Ms. Dorey has no medical qualifications, but argues that if Bob Brown is allowed to comment on nuclear power despite not being a scientist, she should be allowed to comment on vaccines. But no-one assumes Dr. Brown is an authority on the physics of nuclear fission; his job is to comment on the policy responses to the science, not the science itself.
So what does it mean to be “entitled” to an opinion?
If “Everyone’s entitled to their opinion” just means no-one has the right to stop people thinking and saying whatever they want, then the statement is true, but fairly trivial. No one can stop you saying that vaccines cause autism, no matter how many times that claim has been disproven.
But if ‘entitled to an opinion’ means ‘entitled to have your views treated as serious candidates for the truth’ then it’s pretty clearly false. And this too is a distinction that tends to get blurred.
On Monday, the ABC’s Mediawatch program took WIN-TV Wollongong to task for running a story on a measles outbreak which included comment from – you guessed it – Meryl Dorey. In a response to a viewer complaint, WIN said that the story was “accurate, fair and balanced and presented the views of the medical practitioners and of the choice groups.” But this implies an equal right to be heard on a matter in which only one of the two parties has the relevant expertise. Again, if this was about policy responses to science, this would be reasonable. But the so-called “debate” here is about the science itself, and the “choice groups” simply don’t have a claim on air time if that’s where the disagreement is supposed to lie.
Mediawatch host Jonathan Holmes was considerably more blunt: “there’s evidence, and there’s bulldust,” and it’s no part of a reporter’s job to give bulldust equal time with serious expertise.
The response from anti-vaccination voices was predictable. On the Mediawatch site, Ms. Dorey accused the ABC of “openly calling for censorship of a scientific debate.” This response confuses not having your views taken seriously with not being allowed to hold or express those views at all – or to borrow a phrase from Andrew Brown, it “confuses losing an argument with losing the right to argue.” Again, two senses of “entitlement” to an opinion are being conflated here.
So next time you hear someone declare they’re entitled to their opinion, ask them why they think that. Chances are, if nothing else, you’ll end up having a more enjoyable conversation that way.
The dictionary's definition for 'opinion':
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
So how can you say someone is not entitled to their opinion when it's their personal view? It could very well be wrong, it's still an opinion. They shouldn't have to produce graphs and stats or evidence to prove their opinion correct - it's just a belief.
I agree with you Atropos, a majority disagree does not equate to attacking. But I was specifically talking about this thread. I've been attacked and slammed in the real world for some of my opinions but I've learnt just to realise some people are ignorant and will never change. And I need to walk away. Otherwise I'd spend my whole life worrying about what others think and that would get me nowhere.
There are other topics I feel strongly about too - animal abuse, Americas gun laws (or lack of), and indigenous affairs just to name a few. And I've come to accept there are people who couldnt give two sh!ts about saving the Bali dogs or whatever, but I'm ok with that. Not everyone in life is going to agree with me or always want to do the right thing. And in my OPINION, they're allowed to feel differently.
Hopefully one day soon laws will be passed and same sex couples can marry in Australia. But I'm not going to waste my time preaching to those that don't want to be converted.
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!