[whiteperil] Sean: The ring

[Email subscription to blog articles]

Posted by Sean:
The ring
http://whiteperil.com/posts/1161665509.shtml


   Sigh.
   I realize this site has turned into [1]GoReadClassicalValues.com, but
   I happen to think that Bill Quick is absolutely [2]wrong about the
   point Eric makes [3]here. That Eric didn't digress from his discussion
   to flesh out [4]yet again why he doesn't support the push for gay
   marriage does not mean that his statement has "no logical support
   whatsoever."
   Eric clarifies what he meant:

     I agree with Bill that "percentages do not constitute logical
     refutation," and I did not mean to imply that just because 70% of
     the public disfavors same sex marriage, that this means they are
     not bigoted. However, if opposition to same sex marriage is defined
     as bigotry, then it flows that they (and most of the leaders of
     both parties) are. I just don't think that, considering all the
     circumstances, opposition to same sex marriage constitutes bigotry,
     and I'd say that even if only 20% of the country opposed it. I try
     to reserve the "bigot" label for people who want to do things like
     call me names, beat me up, put me in prison, or kill me.

   I'm not sure that bigot has to be reserved for people who express
   their beliefs through confrontation; intolerance can be expressed by
   quietly cutting people socially or declining to employ them or the
   like. But I'm also not sure that Bill Quick has been following the gay
   marriage argument as it's developed over the last ten years.
   It used to be that you had Andrew Sullivan and, for a few occasional
   paragraphs, Bruce Bawer arguing in favor of marriage or civil unions
   of some kind in the not-too-distant future, and you had the case in
   Hawaii, and that was pretty much it. At that point, most arguments
   from the opposition were confined to "gays don't actually fall in love
   and care for each other" and "most gay couplings are transient." Those
   arguments were, I think, often based on bigotry: people who didn't
   like gays much to begin with were all too willing to take Friday night
   in the Castro as representative of all gay life everywhere, pronounce
   us all sub-adult, and not dig any deeper before considering the issue
   closed.
   But things really have moved on in the intervening decade or so.
   Skeptics began discussing how a legal change in the definition of
   marriage could affect the choices of straight couples who planned to
   have children. The most sound thinkers among gay advocates (Dale
   Carpenter and Jonathan Rauch, notably) deliberated over the same
   issues and often made good counter-arguments; but at the same time,
   the pro-gay side was frequently stuck in a "we DO TOO love our
   partners!" mode that the debate had moved beyond. And "self-esteem,"
   that all but infallible indicator that malarkey is on the menu, was
   frequently invoked.
   I realize that I haven't proved that, say, Maggie Gallagher and
   Stanley Kurtz aren't bigoted against homosexuals. But even if we could
   prove they were, does that mean much in policy terms? We're still left
   with the fact that they've taken the time to research and construct
   arguments for their positions, and that those arguments have to be
   answered on their own terms. I'd much rather see gays and those who
   sympathize with us keep at that than prolong the (already seemingly
   interminable) back-and-forth over who's a bigot.

References

   1. http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/004170.html
   2. http://www.dailypundit.com/2006/10/calling_it_logic_doesnt_make_i.php#comments
   3. http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/004159.html
   4. http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/001116.html