I dare say this move will enrage certain quarters on Blogging Theology, given how much they were stung by remarks that weren’t even aimed directly at them before, but given the on-going desire by certain parties on that site to continue and perpetuate misleading arguments and drag irrelevancies into discussions, I feel I have no choice but to present, in detail, a counterpoint. There is after all the danger, on a site such as Blogging Theology, of being drowned out.

The original post, as you may be aware from my previous post, is this one.

The original point of the original post? To suggest that allowing and accepting same-sex relationships will give the opportunity to paedophiles to try and so the same. Paul, of course, when quizzed, had little of relevance to say. My initial reply, and subsequent replies of mine will be in blue. Paul’s will be in purple.

Upon what basis do you assume this behaviour will ever be acceptable?

Our degenerate society has accepted ‘gay marriage’, transsexualism, and other deviants. Next stop incest and paodopholia.

But gay marriage is not at all equivalent to non-consensual relationships? It does not follow that anyone of any reasonable mind would ever consider paedophilia as a legitimate form of relationship, considering one party can never understand what they are expected to be involved in.

At this point Paul typically went silent. He is well aware that it is completely misleading and grossly irresponsible to compare the LGBT community to paedophiles, and he is equally aware that suggesting one will lead to the other, just because elements of the religious right have co-opted the love is love slogan to demonise it, is also grossly misleading. Unfortunately, an open admission on his part that his post was massively in error has not happened and is not forthcoming either.

After a few attempts to get Paul to offer up at least some form of answer, another poster, ‘quranandbibleblog‘, stepped in. For the sake of clarity, I’ll put their comments in green.

I think the point being made here is that there are people who are now calling for the legalization of pedophilia because “love is love”. And there are also people calling for acceptance of incestual relationships because “love is love”. If that is the excuse people use to accept gay marriage, then it certainly is difficult to argue against pedophilia or incest either as long as you use that same excuse. If two people “love” each other and happen to be closely related, then who can argue against it? That is the sick excuse being used to justify all sorts of sexual deviancy.

Emphasis mine. This is the moment where a logical fallacy gets introduced, one that quranandbibleblog takes and runs with for the rest of the discussion. The addition of incest to the discussion around same-sex relationships and the false equivalence of connecting them to paedophilia is, in my view, a non-sequitur, a false flag, or perhaps a strawman. For the record, I do not care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home, and guess what? Legally, cousins here in the UK can in fact marry. Does it have any bearing on my life? No. If two people of the same sex wish to marry, does that have any bearing on my life? No. Does it have any bearing on quranandbibleblog’s life? No! Oh, he raises a point about taxes, but by that measure, should any of us pay any taxes that provide state benefits to anyone’s relationships beyond our own? I can argue that my taxes shouldn’t help provide state benefits to a heterosexual couple that’s recently married and is just starting out. Why should my money help them? For that matter, we can take that analogy further – why should my taxes help provide NHS support for someone if they get hurt, regardless of whether they’re married cousins, a same-sex couple, a heterosexual couple, or some single guy or girl? Guess what – the impact of those taxes is minimal.

The real reason for such an argument (as made clear by the remarks about deviancy that quranandbibleblog makes) is that they desire to have their beliefs dominate who can and can’t get married. It’s as simple as that. Without a trace of irony, quranandbibleblog has complained about lifestyles being forced upon others, yet the religious right (or certainly elements of it) has made it its mission (be it from a Christian, Muslim or other perspective) to inject itself into as many people’s lives as possible, and it has done so for centuries. Hypocrisy much?

There is of course more, which anyone can view and draw their own conclusions from. For me, my ‘wrap-up’ of this discussion (because the increasingly angry tones from quranandbibleblog suggest it won’t go anywhere) is here and now. I believe anyone can see for themselves (and deduce for themselves) that introducing a third element to a two-prong subject is unreasonable and is a means of taking a discussion away from the original context. All of that side-show was also with the aim of establishing… what? That I was ‘uncomfortable’ with some types of relationship but not others? I simply do not care. As long as no one gets hurt, and it’s between adults who have given consent, what does it matter? We will always have laws to protect children, for that is the right thing to do, but among grown men and women who are entitled to make their own choices? What right do I have to interfere? What right does the religious right have to interfere? They are among the first to react with passion and anger if anyone dares hint at curbing their rights (even though usually this doesn’t happen), and they are among the forces of society most inclined to force their beliefs and values upon that society. Yet they moan bitterly that people who simply want to be left alone to live their lives in peace are ‘forcing lifestyles upon them’. As I said, hypocrisy much?

Please follow and like us:

2

0

20