« Links Mentioned on the 4/14/15 Show | Main | Free Audiobook: Tortured for Christ »

April 15, 2015

Comments

Excellent post, Amy.

I would only add regarding the power "entertainment, business, and the government" that all three are heavily dependent on the legal profession which supplies most of the thinking that directs their decisions - especially those of the latter two.

Thus if you control the thinking of law schools, you control much of the thinking in business (I'm speaking of big business, not small business) and government.

Wow, that essay is a mighty fine specimen of "affirming the consequent". It's egregious enough that one could use it to teach the fallacy.

@Phillip, for it to be a fallacy that affirms the consequent (If P, then Q. Q, therefore P.), then it must be possible for the conclusion "therefore P" to be false even if the premises are true.

Or put another way, other factors besides P (same-sex sexual relationships lack the features that relationships morally unique + falsehoods require an elaborate support structure) could account for Q (the soft-despotism spoken of in the article).

But the writer -is- asserting that the only sufficient condition for the type of soft-despotism we see is because of P. What other sort of conditions would lead to the soft-despotism that we see, in your view?

@Mike Grant: True, and unfortunately there's this.

@Chris W. :

  1. If one speaks the truth to a self-deceiving society, they and their beliefs will be reviled and stigmatized.
  2. The beliefs of same-sex marriage opponents are increasingly reviled and stigmatized
  3. Therefore, same-sex marriage opponents are speaking the truth to a self-deceiving society.

That's the argument that Matt Anderson is making here, if you actually define what you are talking about with "soft despotism". And you can see how the logic boils down to "if they hate you enough, it proves your point"

Couldn't argee more. In fact it's going to have to escalate. "Studies " are going proclaim the superiority of homosexual relationships. Because those practicing those relationships know deep down it's not right and so far nothing has helped them alleviate that feeling . Look at the progression so far. Out of the closet (no help) have a parade (no help) Get married (no help) force approval of said marriage (no help) claim the lifestyle is morally superior is the next logical step but guess what. Ultimately (no help).

Phillip,
Anderson is not affirming the consequent. Rather, his argument is straightforward Modus Ponens, if we assume your syllogism accurately captures his argument. He does not conclude, he asserts it as a premise.

The key is the first paragraph, when he begins, "imagine, for a moment..." He is not trying to argue that we are speaking the truth, he is assuming it consciously, in order to make another point.

Sorry, left something out...edit:
Anderson is not affirming the consequent. Rather, his argument is straightforward Modus Ponens, if we assume your syllogism accurately captures his argument. He does not conclude *P*, he asserts *P* as a premise.

The key is the first paragraph, when he begins, "imagine, for a moment..." He is not trying to argue that we are speaking the truth, he is assuming it consciously, in order to make another point.

The Hans Christian Andersen tale about the Emperor's New Clothes is very applicable to gay marriage.

The union of husband & wife is profoundly exceptional, separate and unequal, compared to the coupling of same sex genders. This is empirical. The union of husband & wife is separate and unequal in design, purpose, function, meaning, value, virtue, and...tradition. Profoundly exceptional by comparison.

The only way to sustain the pretense of equality is by coercion - the ruling elites must apply tremendous suppression of thought, intuition, and conscience to sustain the fiction of equality.

This is no different than the story of The Emperor's New Clothes...this massive suppression of empirical evidence of inequality must be sustained for generations to come.

Once (IF) Gay Marriage becomes a god-given inalienable right according to SCOTUS then the LGBT advocates will be fully empowered to marginalize the advocacy of traditional marriage (the union of husband & wife as the exclusive definition) as morally equivalent to racism.

1st Amendment Liberties will be entirely dependent on the magnanimity of LGBT advocates. And I don't think they will be very magnanimous to "racism" and "bigotry".

This is how it will be played out.

@PhillipA

You are misstating Matt Anderson's argument. You've got point three and two reversed. He's not saying that you can tell supporters of Real marriage are telling the truth because they are persecuted; he's saying that because they are telling the truth to a deceived society, the deceivers must silence the truth to maintain the lie. And since the larger and more obvious the lie, the more vocally and vociferously the liars must work to keep the truth from coming out; the more the proponents of the big and obvious lie of same-sex marriage must silence, stigmatize, even persecute the voices of truth.

Either you have missed his point or you are deliberately trying to get other people to ignore Matt Anderson's argument (thereby proving his point). Given that the way you misstate his argument lets you off the hook dealing with the central point of his argument (the moral equivalence of same-sex relationships with Real Marriage is an obvious lie) would lead me to conclude you're in second category there.

Oranges do not equal Apples. Odometers are different from Speedometers. No one would equate a limited partnership as the same as a corporation. These things, entities are separate and unequal by definition. Basic contrast and compare stuff is all that is required to discern the inequality.

A piece of paper that licenses Odometers equal to Speedometers is foolishness. A piece of paper does not change the substance of things. Eyeballs and intuition can discern the substantive differences by simple contrast and compare.

The union of husband & wife is naturally, inherently not equal to same-sex coupling by any stretch of the imagination.

To sustain the fiction of equality requires massive coercion not just in this generation but for generations into the future. It requires an untethering from reality - unhinged from what is observable.

Effectively, it is a leap of faith - blind faith in some imaginary new morality where we make things up as we go. Gay Marriage reorders the civilization as it redefines gender, family structure, sexual ethics, and marriage itself. And none of it is founded on some solid objective truth. Feet-firmly-planted-in-the-air kind of thinking.

The state must intervene to establish some kind of order out of the ensuing chaos. Gay Marriage invites more state regulation and law to maintain the order and reduce conflict.

In fact, Gay Marriage effectively introduces a de facto state religion. Gay Marriage and 1st Amendment liberties cannot and will not coexist.

This is how it will unfold.

Well, I admit it was a subjective impression I got from Anderson: that the hostility of the same sex marriage movement indicates that the movement is false at its foundation. His last paragraph seems to indicate that gay rights activists should justify their own cause by being nicer. But, as I say, it was a subjective interpretation.

@Phyte_On

Once (IF) Gay Marriage becomes a god-given inalienable right according to SCOTUS then the LGBT advocates will be fully empowered to marginalize the advocacy of traditional marriage (the union of husband & wife as the exclusive definition) as morally equivalent to racism.

So I can't treat anti-homosexuality as morally equivalent to racism unless I get the go-ahead from the Supreme Court? Do you know how the law works?

"Couldn't argee more. In fact it's going to have to escalate. "Studies " are going proclaim the superiority of homosexual relationships" (Damian)

Yes, I have already noticed that one will be called a homophobic bigot if they suggest that children are best off in a loving, stable home with their own mom and dad. However; it is perfectly acceptable to say outright that homosexual couples are as good or better parents.

"Once (IF) Gay Marriage becomes a god-given inalienable right according to SCOTUS then the LGBT advocates will be fully empowered to marginalize the advocacy of traditional marriage (the union of husband & wife as the exclusive definition) as morally equivalent to racism.

1st Amendment Liberties will be entirely dependent on the magnanimity of LGBT advocates. And I don't think they will be very magnanimous to "racism" and "bigotry".

This is how it will be played out." (Phyte On)

Yes, I am afraid that is exactly how it will go. The next big push is going to be "sexual orientation" being added as a classification to the Civil Rights Act. This may seem innocent enough, but because homosexual behavior and same sex "marriage" are per the courts intrinsic to a "homosexual identity" this means that any traditionally minded Christian institution will be seen as discriminatory per the law (the same as if they were racists). Furthermore, per the zero-sum game, in order to add "sexual orientation" to anti-discrimination protection it means that holding traditional views will *not* be protected.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/political-straight-talk-about-religious-liberty-gay-rights/

@Phillip A.

The SCOTUS decision will only reinforce and fully empower the belief that defining marriage as the union of husband & wife (exclusively) is morally equivalent to racism. The SCOTUS decision would simply embolden and further empower the state to regulate this value system (moral equivalence to radism). The SCOTUS decision would simply reinforce the cultural self-deception and foolishness.

@Phyte_On

Interesting how you think that equating anti-same sex marriage and racism will lead to a violation of the civil rights of Christians. Do you think that the civil rights of racists are being violated? As in, right now? Because they have just as much First Amendment protection for their ideas as you have for yours. The only "regulation" of racism I see in the United States is in making sure racial minorities have access to employment, housing, and public accommodations.

Phillip A.:

It's not that equating anti-same sex marriage and racism WILL lead to a violation of the civil rights of Christians, the concern is that such a view already HAS led to the violation of the rights of Christians. Please consider the case against Barronelle Stutzman in Washington. Both sides agree that Mrs. Stutzman was willing to sell flowers and all the raw materials the same-sex couple might need for their ceremony; she merely objected to arranging the flowers herself. Such an act would constitute a violation of her Christian convictions. In deposition testimony, Ingersoll (of the same-sex couple) said that they wanted "just some sticks or twigs in a vase and then we were going to do candles." The same-sex couple wanted "sticks and twigs in a vase"; Barronelle Stutzman, on the other hand, stands to lose her flower business.
Whose rights are being violated? Before we can answer that, we need to have a clear understanding of the definition of inalienable rights. Inalienable rights can neither be given nor taken away, although they can be violated. So by their very definition, one inalienable right cannot contradict another inalienable right. I tire of hearing people refer to a conflict in rights, that one should supersede the other. There is no possibility of contradiction or conflict regarding inalienable rights. It is possible, however, for a so-called right to be in reality an impostor.
Those who believe that Christians must accept the tenets of same-sex marriage or be counted on the same par as racists must defend the awkward and ultimately untenable position that the gentlemen who wanted "sticks and twigs in a vase" had their inalienable rights violated, while (as this view would play out) the seventy-year old florist should rightfully lose her livelihood.

@ Phillip A.

I refer you to Dan Cathy and a private enterprise threatened by the mayors of 3 major cities that his business is not welcome in their political jurisdiction. I also refer you to Governor Cuomo who declared that those who espouse Traditional marriage as the definition are not welcome in his state.

On and on I can go providing empirical evidence. ALL of these cases are BEFORE the possibility of the SCOTUS decision.

The SCOTUS decision will only embolden statist restrictions on 1st Amendment Liberties for those who openly advocate traditional marriage.

Gay Marriage is a jealous god that will have no rivals. Do not be naive. Gay Marriage is aligned with the spirit of anti-Christ. Do not be fooled. Gay Marriage is a Trojan Horse to marginalize Christians as morally equivalent to racists. Christianophobia is alive and well in America.

Gay Marriage is a world view that redefines gender, family structure, sexual ethics, and marriage itself. It is a comprehensive reordering of the American civilization. It is a de facto statist religion.

Gay Marriage cannot coexist with outspoken dissent in the public square. Gay Marriage will demand your conformity. And conform you will or else.

@Julianna B.


Please consider the case against Barronelle Stutzman in Washington.

@Phyte On


I refer you to Dan Cathy and a private enterprise threatened by the mayors of 3 major cities that his business is not welcome in their political jurisdiction.

such persecute. very oppress. wow

@ Philip A

You miss the point entirely. Here's the point - Gay Marriage cannot coexist with 1st Amendment Liberties. Period. We have provided examples of statist interference of 1st Amendment Liberty PRIOR to the SCOTUS decision. Post SCOTUS decision (assume it affirms gay marriage as a god-given inalienable right) will empower the state to marginalize 1st Amendment Liberties to protect the culture from the pathology of the Biblical teaching on marriage, sexuality, gender, and family structure.

This is the point.

So, answer the question. Seeing as racist groups, or groups such as the Westboro Baptist Church, are seen as bigoted and pathological, are their "1st Amendment Liberties" being violated? If so, how? If not, why is it a violation of conservative Christians' "1st Amendment Liberties" to treat them like racists? Or are the "1st Amendment Liberties" of conservative Christians somehow more expansive than those of racists?

The Bill of Rights can and will be marginalized to protect society from harm done by the socially pathological.

1st Amendment liberties can and will be restricted to protect modern culture from the socially pathological Biblical POV which is morally equivalent to racism. This will be the rationalization and justification used to restrict 1st Amendment Liberty.

The 2nd Amendment is explicit..."that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." We all know this right has been restricted, marginalized, and infringed to protect the culture from harm. And as a culture we have democratically agreed to the legislation that restricts our 2nd Amendment Rights - for our own protection.

We kill the unborn on demand in America as a god-given inalienable constitutional right.

America's ability to rationalize away the Bill of Rights is done with breathless ease. The 1st Amendment Right to espouse values that are reprehensible (morally equivalent to racism) must not be tolerated.

"Live and Let Live" is not compatible with Gay Marriage. Gay Marriage is a jealous god. It must increasingly be intolerant of the socially pathological.

This is where we are headed as a civilization. This is the course we are on.


@Phyte_On


America's ability to rationalize away the Bill of Rights is done with breathless ease. The 1st Amendment Right to espouse values that are reprehensible (morally equivalent to racism) must not be tolerated.

Can you read? The First Amendment right to espouse racism itself is well established and protected. What makes you think there will be a justification to punish the mere equivalent of racism?

@ Phillip A

This will be my last response on this topic. I have given you all kinds of empirical evidence of punishment, restriction, and marginalization of our Bill of Rights. You have ignored my evidence of America rationalizing away life and liberty.

Gay Marriage is diametrically opposed to the Biblical teaching on marriage, family structure, gender, and sexual ethics.

Gay Marriage openly declares that the Biblical teaching on marriage, family structure, gender, and sexual ethics is pathological and harmful to culture.

If SCOTUS decides to affirm the world view of Gay Marriage then the political ruling class (progressives) will be the dominant world view of America - they will be fully empowered to institutionalize the marginalization of the pathological Biblical view.

You do not understand the concept of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as applied to culture (social entropy) - we will inevitably see breathless marginalization of the socially pathological (i.e. Christians). Tyranny.

Have a great day!

Homosexuals make snake-handlers seem tolerant by comparison.

I note for the record the strength of areas of consensus or agreement as already posted on this comments thread. However, I disagree. Some framing realities are being assumed which as I see it and sense it, are not necessarily coincident or essentially the same. One. Encouraging men to marry women (and vice versa) is not so nearly synonymous with having to de-value men who make relationship covenants with men or with having to de-value women who make relationship covenants with women. Two. It may be the case that encouraging fathers and mothers to successfully parent their biological children is not greatly dependent upon dis-suading two daddies or two mommies who are also parenting successfully, either their own biological or somebody else's offspring.

Some Notes towards a point three?

It is true that adoption can be a less than complete or total answer/response to the obvious human crisis situations of children of various ages who for whatever reason, do not have a biological parent or parents available. However, leaving such children un-homed and un-parented because their (presumably perfect? ideal?) biological parent(s) are not available smacks of cruelty towards the children.

Furthermore, refusing adoption because the high moral value/status/reality of traditional man/woman marriage and parenting is somehow thereby established, protected or supported is disingenuous, at best, and again, cruel at worst.

The majority of traditionalistic posters on this thread seem intensely in touch with an idealized model-norm-vision of traditional marriage, and remarkably out of touch with real world facts.

It is fair in public policy and in law to provide for children to be parented by stable adults who can and will sustain them to adulthood in all sorts of important ways, even if the available adults are not necessarily related biologically to the particular child or children at hand.

It is all too frequently the case that biological parent(s) do neglectful and abusive things to their child or to their children, in complete disregard of the alleged and highly idealized man/woman, mother/father pairing that is being urged as uniquely powerful, privileged and, did I hear it? godly.

It is perhaps just not really true that a man/woman who are seeking to be and willing to be the very best parents they can be, are at all negatively affected if two daddies or two mommies are also living down the street, across town, or on the opposite national coast while also aspiring to be the very best parents they are able to be.

I do agree that public policy and law are changing!

One sea change would seem to be: The traditional cultural-religious-morality innate link between demonstrating one's own high moral status and necessarily seeking in public policy and law to negatively interfere with and punish same sex oriented people is, to put it mildly, falling apart.

This de-linking may not be the sky falling down on all of us, after all, provided that demonstrating one's real moral high status has myriad other options and modalities besides having to make same sex oriented people the worst of the worst of the worst.

The comments to this entry are closed.