A Tactic You Shouldn't Use

Using Obama's recent ESCR speech (referred to in my last post), I want to point out a tactic that I've seen people use (whether consciously or not) to prevail in public debate on this topic and others.  Since this seems to be a trend, it's worth pointing out so you can spot it in the future. 

Here's the tactic:

1.  Use a principle to rule out the legitimacy of your opponent's position because of the very nature of that position (e.g., it's wrong, in principle, to "manipulate and coerce" scientists and not allow them "free inquiry" by placing limits on them).

2.  Excuse yourself from that principle completely (e.g., Obama does not allow the principle by which he rejected Bush's position to disqualify his own position limiting scientists in the area of reproductive cloning).

3.  Suddenly change the rules for determining appropriate legislation from whether or not it violates the principle you cited against your opponent to whether or not the legislation has valid reasons supporting it (e.g., Obama argues that limiting reproductive cloning is okay because it's right to do so, completely ignoring the principle as if he never used it as a standard for legitimacy).

4.  Make arguments for the limits you propose, even though you did not allow arguments from your opponent for his limits (e.g., cloning is "dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society").

Can you see the switch that has taken place?  It turns out that the objection against Bush's policy is not based on a principle Obama and others have against limits (regardless of the constant cries of "anti-science"), but on mere disagreement about where the limits should be.  George Bush wasn't really wrong because he was wrong in principle to limit science, but because his particular, favored limits were wrong.  But with a little sleight of hand, people can easily dismiss Bush's limits without argument and then completely change the rules to their own benefit.  And most people will never notice.

This is a very effective tactic because by ruling out your opponent's limits on principle, you don't need to debate whether or not the actual limits that opponent proposes are acceptable.  All limits are declared unacceptable, so the opponent automatically loses the debate before it even begins.  He can simply be dismissed before his reasons are offered.  Then, once he is righteously vanquished, you can simply assert your own limits and win by default.  And the needed debate that should have taken place about which limits are actually correct never takes place.

Sound familiar?  We've seen this tactic before--and very recently.  This is the argument I heard repeatedly regarding Prop 8:

1.  A constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman is wrong because it violates civil rights (i.e., it's wrong in principle).  No reasons explaining why homosexual marriage is bad for society matter because it's constitutionally wrong not to allow anyone to marry who wishes to.

2. I think Polygamy and incestuous marriages are wrong and should not be included in the definition of marriage (i.e., the disqualifying principle does not apply to me and the limits I prefer).

3.  It's completely different for me to disallow polygamy and incestuous marriage because there are good reasons to disallow these things (i.e., rules for legitimacy are changed).

4.  Here are the reasons it is appropriate to disallow polygamy and incestuous marriage (i.e., reasons for the personally favored limit are given unopposed).

See how this works?  We're never allowed to even get to the point of making an argument for the limits we think are correct.  We're stymied at the very beginning, arguing for the legitimacy of any limits (not to mention dealing with attacks on our character) while they saunter easily past the barrier they put up against us in order to openly make their own arguments for the limits they prefer. 

Nothing could be worse for the state of political discourse in this country.  Because of this tactic, I haven't yet met anyone opposed to Prop 8 who's been able to detail the reasons people supported it.  They've simply never heard our reasons because the tactic did its job.

Comments

[Naturallawyer]

In my several debates on Prop 8, I inevitably end up asking, "on what basis would you not recognize incestuous marriage?" (or words to that effect). I have yet to receive an answer.

[Sam]

I asked that question once, Naturallawyer. The guy I was arguing with said he'd object to it because inbreeding leads to birth defects.

[Michael D.]

The liberal pot sure loves to call the Christian kettle black.

[Alvin]

Naturallawyer,

Same sex marriage could legitimize incest only in part. Incest is still a different idea although yes, there could be an incestuous homosexual relationship, and there would be no chance of it leading to birth defects. Go figure, maybe same sex couples will be allowed to be close blood relatives. This will depend on just how many people are in favor of it (i.e. the number of votes to be had).

What I do see is that same sex marriage serves to legitimize polygamy/polyamory, no longer must anyone heed the approximately equal proportion in which the two sexes are born. Same sex marriage has the potential to distort the proportion of single men to single women. The question then arises, "Why should anyone arbitrarily impose a limit on the number of consenting adults allowed in a marriage?" There is no point in making an appeal to natural if homosexual marriage is allowed, the state would be saying that the proportions of the sexes don't matter. This would easily allow legislation "from the bench."

[Naturallawyer]

The reason I ask the incest question is generally in response to the "what do you care?" argument. I note the incest example and ask if the other person has any interest in that relationship, anymore than I do in a homosexual "marriage". Then I ask for the distinction.

If someone I was speaking with brought up the "birth defects" argument, then I would note that the person assumes that birth defects are inherently bad, and makes the judgment that incestuous marriage would lead to more of them (not necessarily true, especially in this day and age). But if the inherent badness of birth defects justifies eliminating marriage for all incestuous couples (even infertile ones), then why doesn't the inherent badness of homosexual acts become relevant to the discussion? That's a discussion I'm willing to have, but most of the people I've discussed this with don't care to discuss whether homosexual sex is morally appropriate. They'd rather call me a discriminator, even though they've done the same thing against the incestuous couples.

[Sage S.]

How can any proponent of same-sex marriage establish any definition of marriage at all?

They have no precedent to fall back on, no biological function nor societal purpose to appeal to. They cannot defend limiting marriage to two people, to consenting adults, to non-relatives, or to any other criteria. If marriage is a basic civil right, then by definition, this right cannot be abridged by society for any reason at all. No one thinks this way about marriage - not even homosexuals. But they want the social status that marriage conveys, so they talk about it like is an unabridgeable natural right.

[Giles Corey]

Naturallawyer,

"But if the inherent badness of birth defects justifies eliminating marriage for all incestuous couples (even infertile ones), then why doesn't the inherent badness of homosexual acts become relevant to the discussion?"

To what "inherent badness of homosexual acts" are you referring?