Brasas: I'll be brief - relative to my usual ;)
My points were:
Para 1: Do not legislate marriage. Deregulate it.
Para 2: Debate ethics of marriage with someone else. Please do it openly and in good faith.
Para 3: Some counterarguments. Attempt to refocus on coercion. Social conservatism is not wrong a priori.
That last one was the one I specifically asked about. The way I phrased it was "Do note that discomfort with change does not prove anyone wrong..." We had a wonderful example of someone using the word reactionary in derogatory if humorous fashion already, kind of exemplifying why I felt useful to make such a point explicitly. I don't need to explain how conservatism and 'reactionarism' are related. Yes?
Now that is (hopefully) clearer for you. You asked why I "accuse" you of distractions.
Basically the mixture of your gotcha attempts with my impression that your arguments are often non sequiturs makes me suspect you of bad faith argumentation. Only on occasion.
So no. It's not because you disagree, it's how you disagree. I love that you disagree, makes for interesting conversations, and I want to understand more about why instead of circling around, and around... aaaannnndddd around. ;)
Cool, very brief and didn't respond to any of my questions. Better than really long and not responding to any of my points which seems to be your usual work. So you'd prefer not to answer any of these questions??:
1. Do you really think Buddhist "scripture" defines marriage as a union between man and woman?
2. Do you really think its artificial to distinguish marriage, sex and reproduction? You don't think they can all happen independently of each other?
3. Do you agree it is also a valid interpretation to say the Bible supports slavery and is against interracial marriage?
4. Do you think people should be permitted to use genuinely held religious beliefs to refuse to serve at an interracial wedding?
5. Is it ok for someone to say for someone to say, I don't want to serve gays or blacks or whites or men because I hate them and you think they shouldn't be 'coerced' into doing so?
6. I agree that we are talking about changing the definition of marriage (in Australia's case, again). Why does that matter? If the norm is wrong, why not fix it? Why does the fact that we have been doing it wrong for hundreds of years matter in the case?
p.s. I didn't ask you why you accused me of distractions, I asked why you said "you are refusing to grant legitimacy to the other side on that debate" and then asked if you were doing the same with me as you disagreed with what I said about coercion being ok in certain circumstances.
