From what I have been able to surmise, there are seven arguments that have been given for "gay marriage."
So-called "same-sex" or "gay" marriage is quite the issue these days, and not unlike any of the other charged issues of the times, it is mired in confusion. At a later time, I will sort out the central arguments advanced by its detractors. At present, however, I examine those claims made on its behalf. Since apologists for "gay marriage" are advocating a transformative change in the institution of marriage, the burden of proof that such a change will ultimately be to the advantage of society falls upon their shoulders.
From what I have been able to surmise, there are seven arguments that have been given for "gay marriage." I will first state the arguments and, afterwards, reply to them in the order stated.
(1). Mutually consenting adult American citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender, have the equal "right" to marry one another. Thus, the denial to homosexual citizens of "the right" to marry other homosexuals is a denial of their civic rights.
(2). Marriage is a human good in that it contributes immeasurably to the flourishing of those engaged in it, for marriage is rooted in love and a life without love can't but be wretched. Now every human being has "the right" to avail him or herself of the good of marriage, for every human being has "the right" to love and happiness. Therefore, the denial to gays of their "right" to marry other gays is a denial of their human rights.
(3). It is true that the legalization of "same-sex marriage" would require a modification of "the traditional definition" of marriage, but the history of the understanding of marriage is nothing short of the history of the modifications that it has endured. The ideal of monogamous marriage, for example, with which contemporary critics of "same-sex marriage" unfailingly equate "traditional marriage," isn't "traditional" at all, as far as history is measured; rather, by this standard, it is a relatively recent development.
(4). It is as irrational, arbitrary, and, thus, immoral for the State to proscribe "same-sex marriage" as it was irrational, arbitrary, and immoral for it to have proscribed "interracial marriage" in the past. Hence, proscriptions of "same-sex marriage" are "discriminatory."
(5). Opposition to "same-sex marriage" is ultimately motivated by nothing more or less than a raw, undifferentiated but sophistically concealed "hatred" of gays, or "homophobia."
(6). Far from imperiling "traditional marriage," as critics alleged, allowing homosexuals to marry will strengthen both the institution of marriage as well as society as a whole, for marriage, given that it consists in the pledging of one's very life to that of his or her spouse, promotes stability, individual responsibility, and selflessness while discouraging selfishness and sexual promiscuity.
(7). Given the religious inspiration underlying much opposition to "gay marriage," the prohibition of it violates "the separation of Church and State."
Response to (1): The first argument in this set, in spite of whatever plausibility it may initially seem to possess, is actually quite weak. Civic or civil rights, in contradistinction to so-called "Human Rights," are conditioned by a variety of culturally and temporally contingent considerations. In 21st century America, for instance, the right to marry is qualified by a set of specific conditions determined by the current sensibilities of the dominant culture and extends only to those citizens who have been deemed to have satisfied them: one has the right to marry as long as the marriage into which one enters is monogamous; one is 18 years or older; one is unrelated by blood to one's prospective spouse; and one's prospective spouse is of the opposite sex. It is an instance of the worst and most glaring kind of question-begging to argue from this right of citizens to marry to the conclusion that "same sex marriage" is encompassed by this right, for this is exactly what needs to be established.
Response to (2): In claiming for gays everywhere and at all times a "Human Right" to marry other gays, the second argument goes awry before it even gets going. There are several difficulties here, but we need consider only one, for if this criticism is correct, it would be superfluous to list the others.
To say of "X" that it is a "Human Right" is to imply that there are no conceivable countervailing considerations that could ever prevail over it; to deny one his or her "Human Rights," regardless of the cogency of the reasons or the extraordinariness of the circumstances in which the right is asserted, is, ultimately, a moral offense devoid of justification. Notwithstanding the sophistication and thoughtfulness of the attempts on the part of several philosophers of "Human Rights" over the last few decades to circumvent this counterintuitive implication-"Human Rights" aren't necessarily "absolute," for some are "inalienable" and others "indefeasible," but neither of these last two are synonymous with either one another or the first, etc.-none have proven convincing. A "Human Right" is, by definition, an unconditional, an absolute. But as Burke long ago observed, even if we concede the reality of "Rights" that transcend civilization, the government of no society can be guided by them, for it is precisely for the sake of qualifying these "Rights" that civil society exists in the first place. To paraphrase Burke, it is the culturally embedded citizen and no other to which political decisions must be addressed.
Response to (3): It is of course true that, historically, the concept of marriage admits of a multiplicity of conceptions. On this score I will say more below, but for now it should suffice to point out that while it is wildly unlikely that the understanding of any idea can escape modification, given the constant flux characteristic of our world, not all changes are of the same order or kind. Some changes are identity enhancing, while others extinguish the identity of the being to which they occur.
Thus, that the understanding of marriage has undergone alterations suggests that critics who (foolishly) speak as if this is the very first time any such changes have been proposed are driven by either ignorance or dishonesty, but it does not establish that the modifications that are now being recommended should be endorsed.
Response to (4): The argument analogizing the legal proscription of "gay marriage" to that of interracial marriage is no less fallacious than any of the others that we have thus far treated. The analogy is weak, for reflection on the history of marriage and its manifestations in societies around the globe reveals in no time that if there are any indispensable components to marriage, or if it has been thought by the world's peoples that there are essential conditions in the absence of the satisfaction of which marriage is unrealizable, racial homogeneity is certainly not one of them. Matters are clearly otherwise, however, when we turn to heterosexuality.
Besides this, cries of "irrationality," "arbitrariness," and "discrimination" are almost invariably used as rhetorical weapons by which apologists for "gay marriage" seek to intimidate their opponents into acquiescing to their demands. That the critics of "gay marriage" and, for all that, interracial marriage, submit reasons for their positions means that, even if it were true that they are motivated by the most nefarious of intentions, whatever else we may say of them and their perspective, we cannot legitimately say that they are irrational; there is no viewpoint, however silly it may be, that is literally arbitrary in the sense of being capricious, for every position is attached to a host of presuppositions "in the air," so to speak, of the culture and temporal period to which the agent belongs, and at least some of these suppositions can, in principle, be stated as reasons; and "discrimination," in spite of the beating that the term has taken during the last fifty years or so, is an inescapable, fundamental feature of everyday human life, for insofar as we lack God's knowledge, we have no option but to exercise discrimination. Of course, this means that we can't but make mistakes, but it also means that by discriminating in favor of the experience of past generations from every culture the world over by disallowing a radical change in our marital arrangements we rely upon the only means at our disposal that holds out the greatest potential for averting catastrophe. In other words, although the proponents of "gay marriage" may be correct, if they are interested in arguing in good faith, they can hardly fault their opponents for being "discriminatory."
Response to (5): This last claim on behalf of "same sex marriage" is the most ridiculous of all. In fact, it can't really even be called an argument unless and until its' implicit premise is made explicit-but it's not clear what that premise is. It appears that the argument, fully stated, would run something like this:
P1: It is always and everywhere immoral to act solely or primarily from a hatred of homosexuals ("homophobia").
P2: Resistance to "same sex marriage" is motivated solely or primarily by a hatred of homosexuals ("homophobia").
Conclusion: Therefore, resistance to "same sex marriage" is always and everywhere immoral.
If this is what proponents of "gay marriage" argue, then the weakness of this argument should at once be spotted for what it is.
First of all, given the wide range of civil liberties and rights, to say nothing of above average levels of education and economic well being that gays in today's America enjoy, the charge that opposition to the legalization of "gay marriage" is fundamentally informed by a "hatred" of gays is a specimen of the worst kind of dishonesty, and it strains credibility to the snapping point.
Second, as anyone who is remotely introspective is all too painfully aware, it is often difficult enough to know one's own motives for one's actions. It is exponentially more difficult, then, and, in point of fact, not infrequently impossible, to discern the motives of others, especially when they are strangers. Besides, the only evidence of which we can avail ourselves in inferring others' motives consists in their utterances and actions, and by this standard, there is no evidence to substantiate the allegation that the critics of "gay marriage" are "hateful" of gays.
Third, even if it is true that the opponents of "gay marriage" are hateful toward gays, this does not prove that they oppose "gay marriage" because of their hatred of gays. There isn't a conceivable motive that is action-specifying: hatred, like any other motive, can find expression in a range of disparate actions. For example, it is not at all implausible to imagine that one who genuinely hates homosexuals (whatever this could mean) might support "gay marriage," not because he supports gays, but because he hopes that if the heterosexual majority has something as unusual and novel as "gay marriage" thrown in its collective face, if it is compelled to essentially endorse homosexuality by permitting "gay marriage," this may be just what is needed for it to lash back, not just against "gay marriage," but, at long last, against all "gay rights." Nor is it hardly inconceivable that the supporters of "gay marriage" just might be motivated by the need to conceal their own "hatred" of gays. And for that matter, could it not be the case that homosexuals who want to "marry" other homosexuals, from an intense longing to satisfy the heterosexual norm, might be motivated by "hatred" of their own sexual orientation, a "hatred" of their very selves?
My point is not that these are the real motives underlying the support given to "gay marriage," but that because of the difficulties with which the enterprise of discerning others' motives must contend-difficulties that owe both to the inaccessibility of other minds and the indeterminacy of motives themselves-partisans on both sides of this issue ought to avoid speculation over the "real" motives of their rivals, to say nothing of issuing dogmatic verdicts on them.
Fourth, it is far from obvious that "homophobia" is equivalent to a "hatred" of gays. Literally, "homophobia" is a fear of gays. While fear often leads to hatred, the two feelings are clearly not one and the same. A child may fear his parent, and a student his teacher, but this fear is compatible with and typically attended by love and respect. And many a warrior can attest that a certain fear of their enemies has co-existed seamlessly with a respect for their prowess.
Fifth, if "hatred" of gays is always immoral, it isn't self-evidently so. The question that needs to be asked is: Why is "hatred" of homosexuals wrong? Since hatred is a feeling or disposition that more people than not in our society deem undesirable, presumably "hatred" of homosexuals is wrong because the hatred of anyone is immoral.
Now if this is why "hatred" of homosexuals is morally illicit, then the argument needs to be reformulated as follows:
P1: It is always and everywhere immoral to act from hatred of anyone.
P2: Opposition to "gay marriage" is motivated by hatred of gays.
C: Therefore, opposition to "gay marriage" is immoral.
This formulation of the argument is no less problematic than the original, for the first premise is questionable. Is it really immoral for a man whose daughter was abducted, gang raped, and tortured to death to hate her assailants? Maybe it is, but if so, the burden is upon those who make this contention to substantiate it. The point is that if hatred is invariably immoral, we deserve reasons to illuminate how it is so.
There is another challenge here that the proponents of "gay marriage" must meet. Presumably, the mere fact that homosexuals are denied something that they value or desire proves that the resistance which they face is driven by "hate." The grossly simplistic and glaring question-begging of this reasoning aside, when taken to its extreme logical term, it's blatant silliness becomes obvious as well, for its inescapable implication is that whenever anyone's desires are frustrated by others, it can only be because of the latter's hatred of them. So, for instance, that Mormons and Muslim immigrants from the Middle East and Africa are prohibited by law from entering into polygamous marriages can only mean that the non-Mormon and non-Muslim majority "hates" them.
This, needless to say, is ridiculous, but it is no less so than the claim that opposition to "gay marriage" is rooted in hatred of gays.
Response to (6): It may very well be the case that "gay marriage" will not have the deleterious effects on the institution of marriage that its critics predict, and it could also be true that "gay marriage" could contribute to the cultivation of the virtues of individual responsibility and selflessness, as its supporters claim. We can't know for sure.
And that is precisely the point.
In varying degrees, virtually every person has a conservative disposition with respect to change. Now, contrary to what leftists of various types have been telling us for centuries, there isn't a single person, conservative or otherwise, "opposed to change," whatever such a ridiculous expression could possibly mean. Change is constant. But the conservative disposition to which I refer is a disposition to prefer small changes over large ones, gradual changes over revolutionary changes, changes that are to as great an extent possible continuous with the past over those that radically depart from it.
That every person is "a creature of habit," as we say, decisively establishes the universality of the conservative disposition, for to develop a habit, to say nothing of multiple habits-a person without any habits at all is inconceivable-is to acquire an attachment to the present, and thus, an aversion to anything that threatens to disrupt, much less radically disrupt, it.
"Gay marriage" would mark, at the very least, a potentially radical alteration in the institution of marriage. We don't know what its impact, not just on marriage, but on a host of institutions, will be, but we do know that it will have an impact, and a considerable one at that. The critics of "gay marriage" do no one a bad turn, then, in refusing to exchange a certain present for a most uncertain future.
Response to (7): That most (but far from all) critics of "gay marriage" are religious, and that their resistance to the imposition upon society of a "right" on the part of homosexuals to "marry" other homosexuals may be informed by religious conviction, is neither here nor there. There are at a minimum three reasons for this.
The first has to do with the consideration that from its inception until the present, there has never been a time when the overwhelming majority of American citizens haven't been self-consciously theistic or, more accurately, monotheistic. Indeed, it is with justice that it is said of the very character of the American people that it is religious in nature, a fact amply attested to by the range of governmentally-endorsed exhibitions-from the Declaration of Independence to the American currency itself-through which that character is expressed. That the majority of her citizens should now be motivated by religious conviction to oppose "gay marriage" is neither surprising nor injurious to their case.
Secondly, to know only that one's "religious" beliefs inform one's judgments isn't to know nearly as much as is usually thought, especially when, as is the case in both America and the Western world generally, the dominant religion is practically inseparable in all sorts of imperceptible respects from the dominant culture itself. To put it bluntly, if not for Christianity, if there was a Western civilization at all, it would be utterly unrecognizable to those of us who know it as it is. The composition of the West is not without its share of ingredients borrowed from paganism, it is true, but such ideas were long ago Christianized.
What this suggests is that because it isn't possible to detach those ideas that one acquired from the explicit scriptural and creedal teachings of one's religious denomination from those that have always been "in the air" of one's culture, even those who aren't self-consciously religious are still, in some relevant sense, religious; at any rate, they are not devoid of a religious sensibility that they have unselfconsciously imbibed from their culture.
That this is true brings me to the third reason why the religious inspiration that allegedly underlies opposition to "gay marriage" is not to the point: the monogamous ideal of which supporters of "gay marriage" clamor to partake is a legacy of a particular and distinctively religious tradition, Christianity. In other words, if "gay marriage" ought to be recognized by the State because opposition to it is religiously inspired and it is unlawful for the State to endorse religious considerations in making policy, then "gay marriage" ought to be proscribed, for the notion that only those arrangements that consist in a loving, lifelong commitment between two adults ought to be affirmed as marriage is no less religiously inspired-or at least religion was its original inspiration.
The arguments for "gay marriage" range from pathetically weak to profoundly problematic. This, at any rate, is what I have tried to demonstrate.
This, of course, doesn't necessarily mean that better arguments will not be forthcoming; but it does mean that until such arguments as there may be are provided, the case for "gay marriage" collapses.
The fact that you can’t see the logic and reasoning because you can’t get past my “style” is YOUR problem.
Your style isn’t the problem – it just makes you look even sillier than the actual content of your “reasoning”, and so it provides an opportunity for the rest of us to at least salvage a chuckle out of this conversation.
My comment about racial-v.-religionist bigotry was supported by a point-by-point comparison of racial purity laws and current marriage laws here in Utah.
A point-by-point comparison of laws and historical conditions that do not exist in reality (which you acknowledged by prefacing your “analysis” with a disclaimer supposing a willful suspension of disbelief and ignoring constitutional protections) in an attempt to support a position that has already been addressed a dozen times is a perfect example of why no one takes your “logic” and “reasoning” seriously. Rather than acknowledge this, you simply continue to level personal insults and attacks and complain that us slime sucking bigots simply cannot get past your “style”. My comparison of Nazis taking over Washington state, expelling all Jews, and confiscating all private property, or Phil’s comparison of domination by Old Fat Heterosexual Men, has as much relevance to reality as your doomsday fundamentalist Mormon scenario. As Phil pointed out, and as my post was intended to illustrate, whenever you preface an “analysis” with, “Let’s suspend disbelief for a moment and ignore constitutional protections, court decisions like Loving v. Virginia, etc.”, you might as well set up any apocalyptic scenario you wish to justify your position.
True. And pouring vinegar on an ant pile won’t get you a subscription to Time Magazine. There are a lot of other inanities I can cite for you that have nothing to do with the fact that you act like a smug, superior creep who really has no grasp on this issue other than what you personally feel about the matter. It’s one thing to argue a position passionately, and point out errors in judgment or facts with harsh, direct words — but your posts have been largely a series of gratuitous slurs aimed at people, not their positions.
And remember, I’m not saying that you are a smug, superior creep, or even a raging a-hole. Just that you sound just like a smug, superior creep, as well as a raging a-hole.
You are welcome to your opinion about my writing style. Please continue to make smug remarks if it makes you feel superior.
My “opinion” is that people who offer gratuitous slurs as a substitute for actual debate and discussion are smug, superior, creepy a-holes. This is not about an illiterate writing style. It’s a comment about your basic character (or lack thereof).
As for your intelligence, I feel superior to most smug self-superior creepy a-holes, so this really isn’t much of an issue for me or other people who avoid acting like you do.
Again, I didn’t actually say that you are a smug, superior creep, or even a raging a-hole. Just that you act just like a smug, superior creep, as well as a raging a-hole.
If you actually read my comments, each point is supported by logic and reasoned analysis. The fact that you can’t see the logic and reasoning because you can’t get past my “style” is YOUR problem.
There actually is a process involved with “logic and reasoning”. And it doesn’t rely on the constant use of the word “feel”.
In case you haven’t noticed, as the title of this website suggests, this isn’t about our “feelings”. There’s lots of “feelings” I have on lots of subjects, none of which are relevant to an analytical debate and discussion.
If you want to emote, go to the Huffington Post. They don’t require any intelligence at all to offer a comment. In fact, they prefer feelings to actual analysis
Yeah, I actually do. That’s what a Ph.D. in political science teaches you. And it doesn’t involve imposing the feelings of a creepy, smug, self-superior a-hole on the public at large.
Once again I need to remind you that I didn’t actually say that you are a smug, superior creep, or even a raging a-hole. Just that you act just like a smug, superior creep, as well as a raging a-hole.
As long as we’re defining feelings as basic Constitutional Rights, how about the “right” to turn red on right? I never liked that particular law.
A couple of my blockquotes didn’t come through in my last comment highlighting David’s words.
But they shouldn’t be too hard to pick out. Just go with your “feelings” if you have any doubts.
Animus
Here is a recent example.
The Salt Lake Tribune, “Legislators hold off studying expansion of anti-bias rulings,” Rosemary Winters, electronic version updated 02/06/2010 07:39:59 AM MST (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_14344262)
[Utah Senate President Michael Waddoups (R-Taylorsville UT)] said he has a “message” for all Utahns.
“Our citizens shouldn’t be doing things that are discriminatory. If they are—and if that’s the information we gather during the next year[*]—that will push legislation to deal with that in that direction,” Waddoups said. “If the LGBT community are doing offensive activities in a public setting, that will push legislation in the other direction.”
When asked what he considered to be “offensive activities,” Waddoups said, “I don’t know, anything that would draw us into drafting legislation [against the LGBT community].”
Jacob Whipple, a gay activist who has led gay-rights rallies in Salt Lake City, said Waddoups shouldn’t expect LGBT Utahns to be quiet.
“In other words, he wants us to shut up and sit down and quit rocking the boat,” Whipple said. “The LGBT community should be as loud and as visible as necessary so that all of our stories and our hurts and our needs can be displayed for the people of Utah so the proper legislation will be enacted.”
[End of quote]
* The Salt Lake Civil Rights Commission published an extensive, detailed report documenting discrimination based on LGBTQ identity or unsubstiantiated belief concerning the LGBTQ identity of individuals. This report documents recent discriminatory acts and was the foundation for ordinances prohibiting discrimination.
Serious Question
How would you feel if your state senate president said the same thing. . .about any minority group, including (but not limited to), blacks, hispanics, Catholics, Jews, red-heads, Republicans, Democrats, greens, independents, or members of the local garden club?
I think we should put all of our unalienable rights up for a vote! I say we just go ahead and write down what rights the government isn’t allowed to take from us and then we all vote on it until we’re satisfied. It’s a radical idea, I know, but I think it could be done.
David is hopeless. He has no idea what this website is about, and continues to ask us to debate our “feelings.”
If we put it to a vote and all our collective feelings trump his, will it end the inanities and banalities?
Probably not. He’ll just keep on telling us about his feelings.
I “feel” for him.
I FEEL so bad.
Gawd, I FEEL so very bad. So much bigotry, so much hate. That old guy down the street should be able to boink the 13 year old. Planned Parenthood should protect little girls getting an abortion so that their 31 year old boyfriends don’t get tossed in the klink.
I FEEL so intensely bad about all of this.
Anyone who doesn’t FEEL the same as me is a ‘tard. They don’t deserve polite response.
So David, are you saying that you support stripping the 1st Amendment rights of your fellow citizens who disagree with you? Are you saying you just want the HRSSNGSG community to simply sit down and shut up? Well no sir! The Hetero/Religious/Straight/Secular/Non-Gay/Single-Gender community will not simply stand by and let their rights be trampled upon. Don’t you care about personal freedoms and the liberty and love and peace and freedom and liberty that our great constitutional republican democracy was founded upon? HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF SOMEONE SAID THEY WANTED TO STRIP YOUR FREE SPEECH RIGHTS!? HOW YOU WOULD YOU FEEL?!?!?!?!
Gawd, I FEEL so bad, Patrick. America is so bigoted. So much hate. Sigggghhhhh…
Patrick: Add Fat Old Guys [FOGs] to the list, and I’m with you.
But please, type carefully.
Sorry, Dr. Jackson, I can’t buy this:
I have a counterexample – Germany under Hitler. Hitler himself wasn’t an atheist, he was kind a neo-Pagan quasi-Christian who thought Jesus was an ‘Aryan’. And the vast majority of those who actually carried out the Holocaust weren’t atheist, either, but Christians who’d absorbed the poisonous strain of anti-Semitism that
had been around there since before Martin Luther wrote “On The Jews And Their Lies”.
What’s really interesting is that there is a relevant common factor between Hitler, Stalin, and Mao: they all rejected Darwinian evolution. Hitler went with Creationism, believing that the races were created separately and justifying his treatment of the Jews. Stalin and Mao went with Lysenkoism, on the other hand, and the resulting famines killed millions.
Since you didn’t like the way I phrased my question before (and, as expected, didn’t answer it), let’s try one more time:
Can you give me a proposed wording of a law that (a) would allow a doctor to refuse to refer a patient for abortion on the patient’s request, or allow a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription for a drug that, in their view, caused abortion… but that (b) would not allow a doctor to similarly object to treating alcoholism, or object to washing thoroughly before surgery, based on their religious convictions?
(BTW, Mr. Mulligan – Mr. Wavering’s the one who brought up abortion and conscience in this discussion, not me.)
Dr. Jackson, as to ‘Who exactly says this is one of the “main objections”?’; you should consult Mr. Kerwick, the author of the article that prompted this discussion. See the section titled “Response to (6)”.
Raymond: The news media has just reported that the two individuals who are responsible for burning churches in Texas are atheists, the same kind of atheists as we find in Stalinist Russia and present day Communist China. Using Raymond-logic, I’ve just reinforced my main point that the absence of religion promotes anti-social and criminal behavior. (And I didn’t even have to go to the UK and find some smelly Muslim afraid to look at women’s breasts to make a point about US law or actions inside the US).
Once again, using your own contorted standards where a discussion of US laws can be “cautioned” by referring to the actions of individuals in other countries and other political systems, I’ve made my case by citing Stalinist Russia and Communist China — and further reinforced it by pointing to the “cautionary” tale of allowing atheists to roam around the United States freely. Maybe we should consider preventive action to lock these people up and keep them from committing their horrible atheist-induced crimes?
Now you want to add Hitler to the mix to prove your point that smelly Muslims afraid to look at women’s breasts “caution” the US against any legislation that wouldn’t force every doctor to kill unborn children regardless of their moral objection to slaughtering innocent developing human life. OK … Hitler, Stalin and Mao had something even more fundamental in question. They all hated Jews. Hitler gassed them, Stalin waged pogroms against them, and Mao killed them along with any other non-commie non-atheists he found who didn’t buy into his Commie paradise.
Once again the common theme of these people is their religion, which is to say their lack of atheism. The Darwinist example doesn’t work, because a lot of Christians and other people like me believe in evolution. Only a small subset of religious people interpret the Bible literally, so Darwinism is not a common feature of religion. But killing Jews seems to be a common feature of atheists who hold political power.
Raymond, you are being held to the same pseudo-standards you hold everyone else to. I’ve used your logic, and your irrelevant examples, to bolster my point and cast “legitimate” doubt on yours.
If smelly Muslims in the UK who are afraid to look at women’s breasts are a “cautionary” tale for forcing all doctors in the US to perform abortions regardless of their personal convictions, then the atheism of Stalin and Mao, and religious bigotry of Stalin, Mao and Hitler, are more than enough “cautions” to make us all consider pro-active legislation against atheists.
Well, below is the entire “response #6” I looked real hard for the phrase “one of the main objections to same-sex marriage is the consequences people fear might happen if they were allowed” — which Raymond said is a quote from Dr. Kerwick (I asked “who”, he referred me to words written by Dr. K) — and didn’t find it.
Response to (6): It may very well be the case that “gay marriage” will not have the deleterious effects on the institution of marriage that its critics predict, and it could also be true that “gay marriage” could contribute to the cultivation of the virtues of individual responsibility and selflessness, as its supporters claim. We can’t know for sure.
And that is precisely the point.
In varying degrees, virtually every person has a conservative disposition with respect to change. Now, contrary to what leftists of various types have been telling us for centuries, there isn’t a single person, conservative or otherwise, “opposed to change,” whatever such a ridiculous expression could possibly mean. Change is constant. But the conservative disposition to which I refer is a disposition to prefer small changes over large ones, gradual changes over revolutionary changes, changes that are to as great an extent possible continuous with the past over those that radically depart from it.
That every person is “a creature of habit,” as we say, decisively establishes the universality of the conservative disposition, for to develop a habit, to say nothing of multiple habits-a person without any habits at all is inconceivable-is to acquire an attachment to the present, and thus, an aversion to anything that threatens to disrupt, much less radically disrupt, it.
“Gay marriage” would mark, at the very least, a potentially radical alteration in the institution of marriage. We don’t know what its impact, not just on marriage, but on a host of institutions, will be, but we do know that it will have an impact, and a considerable one at that. The critics of “gay marriage” do no one a bad turn, then, in refusing to exchange a certain present for a most uncertain future.
I see a lot of discussion about “uncertainty” in this passage, but not a lot of “fear” about what “might happen” the way you fear that you “might die” if you drink poison. I see a discussion about “uncertain futures” — but only as an expressed rejection of change for change’s sake. And, to round it out, I see a reasonable assertion that “’Gay marriage’ would mark, at the very least, a potentially radical alteration in the institution of marriage”, whose consequences are both unnecessary in a change-for-change sake scenario, and whose exact consequences would be “uncertain”.
No “fear” here. Just good old fashioned common sense.
Once again to make his point, Raymond has to re-write what someone actually said, and respond only to that.
Minor note, Dr. Jackson: the people accused of burning those churches apparently had a book on demons, a book on atheism, and three Bibles. Apparently a graffiti linked to one of them involved an upside-down cross, not exactly an ‘atheist’ symbol, though certainly a ‘Satanist’ one. It’s not at all clear that they are actually atheists… though that’s certainly an exciting way to sell a story.
Oh, and speaking of ‘re-writing what someone actually said’, please cite where I advocated “forcing all doctors in the US to perform abortions regardless of their personal convictions”. (A possibly-helpful hint as you begin your search: a referral is not the same thing as performing a procedure. As a further hint, are otolaryngologists doctors, and did I say they should perform abortions?)
It’s okay, I won’t expect a retraction or apology from you.
And, finally, if the “consequences” of “gay marriage” were all expected to be neutral or pleasant, then there’d be no reason to oppose it. Only possible (putative) negative consequences would be a reason to oppose it. In other words, consequences to be feared. But, y’know, don’t let obvious conclusions get in the way of a good rarefied semantic parse.
It’s not at all clear that they are actually atheists… though that’s certainly an exciting way to sell a story.
Sorry Raymond — Stalin studied for the priesthood at one point before becoming an atheist. He owned a bible and was an atheist. There’s nothing incompatible here.
Raymond-logic rules once again. In fact, using your own method of citing extraneous examples to support a proposition, it’s clear that atheists are pre-disposed to burning churches and pose a grave threat to the safety and well being of the country. They must be dealt with. And quickly!
And, finally, if the “consequences” of “gay marriage” were all expected to be neutral or pleasant, then there’d be no reason to oppose it. Only possible (putative) negative consequences would be a reason to oppose it.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is yet another example of the world as seen from Raymondland.
Oppose an untried, unnecessary, change-for-change’s sake for a variety of reasons — one of which is that it is “uncertain” what the consequences will be, and from this Raymond concludes that the uncertainty must by definition be demonstrably “negative” for you to oppose it.
“Unnecessary” in its own right is enough for me to oppose something that’s, well, “unnecessary”. There’s no “negative consequence” requiring one to pat the top of their head three times before changing the channel on the TV, but I’d still oppose this unnecessary change nevertheless.
Raymond — having made a definitive statement that people object to Gay marriage out of “fear” — finds now that he cannot support that assertion with actual facts. So, he decides to make it a philosophical issue instead by talking about fear as an eternal, consistent aspect of unnecessary, change-for-change sake’s proposals.
Only it isn’t an eternal component. On a philosophical level (which Raymond now wants to discuss, instead of discussing the actual example on hand), some unnecessary change is indeed destructive, but other unnecessary change is merely inconvenient, stupid, irrelevant, tedious, and a variety of other adjectives.
Once again, when Raymond is shown to have made an unsupportable statement, he does what he always does: re-defines the discussion to mean more or less than he originally said, then argues that new (at times extraneous) point to deflect from what he originally said.
The problem with this approach is that I and others always return to what Raymond originally said.
And now, I’ve upped the ante by using Raymond’s logic to argue my own points.
The difference is that my inanities are meant to be funny while illustrating my points.
Still getting the hang of the HTML tags. Here it is again, hopefully more readable.
It’s not at all clear that they are actually atheists… though that’s certainly an exciting way to sell a story.
Sorry Raymond — Stalin studied for the priesthood at one point before becoming an atheist. He owned a bible and was an atheist. There’s nothing incompatible here.
Raymond-logic rules once again. In fact, using your own method of citing extraneous examples to support a proposition, it’s clear that atheists are pre-disposed to burning churches and pose a grave threat to the safety and well being of the country. They must be dealt with. And quickly!
And, finally, if the “consequences” of “gay marriage” were all expected to be neutral or pleasant, then there’d be no reason to oppose it. Only possible (putative) negative consequences would be a reason to oppose it.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is yet another example of the world as seen from Raymondland.
Oppose an untried, unnecessary, change-for-change’s sake for a variety of reasons — one of which is that it is “uncertain” what the consequences will be, and from this Raymond concludes that the uncertainty must by definition be demonstrably “negative” for you to oppose it.
“Unnecessary” in its own right is enough for me to oppose something that’s, well, “unnecessary”. There’s no “negative consequence” requiring one to pat the top of their head three times before changing the channel on the TV, but I’d still oppose this unnecessary change nevertheless.
Raymond — having made a definitive statement that people object to Gay marriage out of “fear” — finds now that he cannot support that assertion with actual facts. So, he decides to make it a philosophical issue instead by talking about fear as an eternal, consistent aspect of unnecessary, change-for-change sake’s proposals.
Only it isn’t an eternal component. On a philosophical level (which Raymond now wants to discuss, instead of discussing the actual example on hand), some unnecessary change is indeed destructive, but other unnecessary change is merely inconvenient, stupid, irrelevant, tedious, and a variety of other adjectives.
Once again, when Raymond is shown to have made an unsupportable statement, he does what he always does: re-defines the discussion to mean more or less than he originally said, then argues that new (at times extraneous) point to deflect from what he originally said.
The problem with this approach is that I and others always return to what Raymond originally said.
And now, I’ve upped the ante by using Raymond’s logic to argue my own points.
The difference is that my inanities are meant to be funny while illustrating my points.
Jeeze, I give up.
Phil,
Perhaps you would like the ‘tard back from Sandy, UT?
Or are you talking about HTML tags?
Well, Dr. Jackson, you certainly fulfilled my expectations. I pointed out that nobody who wants to be a doctor need put themselves in a situation where they would even have the opportunity to perform an abortion. For those specialties that do touch on abortion – should one choose to study or practice them, which I’m not aware was something one could be forced into – I even explicitly talked about ‘referring a patient for an abortion’ – not actually carrying one out.
But requiring doctors to provide services related to their specialty to their patients, or else refer them to someone who can/will, is “forcing all doctors in the US to perform abortions regardless of their personal convictions.” (Or qualifications, apparently.) Bravo, you certainly caught me out.
As to characterizing “gay marriage” as “change-for-change’s sake”… well. That phrase doesn’t appear anywhere in Mr. Kerwick’s article, and by the rules you hold me (though not yourself or anyone else) to, you need to use someone’s original words and never paraphrase them. I’m sure you’ll apologize to Mr. Kerwick forthwith.
But speaking of original words, let me ask you – do you think “deleterious effects” are to be welcomed or feared?
Raymond: as you’ve no doubt noted (or perhaps not — as I’ve said many times before, irony is often lost on the ironic), I’ve simply adopted your method of discussing an issue. It’s a whole lot easier than actually having an honest, intelligent discussion.
If I need to re-write something that someone said to make my point, hey, no problem!
If I need to point to extraneous foreign examples to comment on specific US laws or activities, hey, no problemo!
You are an atheist. Stalin and Mao were atheists too (note the extraneous foreign example). Mao and Stalin routinely lied and deceived to make their points (when they weren’t actually killing people).
Therefore, as a cautionary tale, it’s clear that atheists in general lie and deceive to make their points.
And did I mention that you are an atheist?
My only hope is that you don’t own a gun.
I put on my best Raymond-thinking cap to come up with another “relevant” example that pertains to the issue of gay marriage. We should all be aware of this cautionary tales and the implications it holds for allowing two people of the same sex to call their legal civil union a “marriage”.
The Nobel Peace Prize medal depicts three naked men with their hands on each other’s shoulders, which is an obvious allusion to multi-partner homosexual activity.
Clearly, if we re-define marriage to includes same-sex unions, because of the international prominence of the Nobel prize, and the precedent recently established that you don’t actually have to do anything important (or, for that matter, anything at all!) to receive one, calling gay civil unions “marriage” will not only lead to a “feared” reduction in heterosexual marriages, it will no doubt lead to polygamous relationships as well
The Raymond logic is incontrovertible. If smelly Muslims who are afraid to look at women’s breasts have significance for a discussion of US abortion law, then three gay men held in high international regard whose medal is bestowed on someone with no real accomplishments will all but require marriage to be a multi-partner homosexual activity.
You have been warned!
Dr. Jackson – Well, feel free to not actually discuss things. Others can compare and decide who’s honest and intelligent.
Raymond: I freely admit that your inanities are far superior to my inanities.
The difference is, mine are satirical and meant to be funny. Yours are funny too, but are meant to be taken seriously.
Art can only imitate life. Or in this case, a deliberately-contrived inanity cannot compete with one that is the product of an actual thought process.
Watch out for those smelly Muslims in the UK who are afraid to look at women’s breasts. No tellin’ what other cautionary tales they have for other utterly irrelevant actions or legislation within the US.