Monday, October 15, 2007
Keep going, Scott Lucas. He finds the idea that someone could be opposed to gay marriage to be unintelligible. I think he may have spent a bit too much time in the echo chamber (your college education apparently doesn't train you all that much).
The structure is this:
Some argument from anti-gay marriage dudes;
Some argument why those arguments are wrong.
To Lucas, the fact that an argument against it can be made means that it's unintelligible. Using this logic, by the way, gay marriage makes no sense.
So maybe the real argument is that marriage is defined on the basis of child-rearing. Maybe a mixed-sex couple provides the most stable foundation for raising children, which is why marriage is restricted to them. But that's factually inaccurate on three counts. First, there's no compelling evidence for the truth of the statement.Yes, that's why it's an "argument." The fact that Lucas doesn't think they have compelling evidence does not make their position unintelligible.
Second, that's an inept description of how the institution of marriage actually functions. We don't ask for fertility tests before people can marry, nor do we prevent unstable people from marrying and reproducing. Hell, Britney did it.Lucas also supports lowering the voting age to 0, because we don't prevent uninformed people from voting. Or does he? Anything else would be... unintelligible.
I suppose all we're left with is the religious or moral objection. Some churches frown on homosexuality. Well, rock on. I'm not here to tell any faith how to do its job. But, conversely, religion ought not to tell democracy how to do its job.I'm not here to tell your religion how to do its job. Your religion should do what I say. Hmm... that sounds almost... unintelligible.
Update: The Dangierre Blog, which I've subtly added to my blogroll, has more
. . .
. . .