July 27, 2010

"Marriage is under attack in Wisconsin... Standing for marriage as God designed marriage is not easy.”

So said Julaine Appling, CEO of the Wisconsin Family Council at the National Organization for Marriage rally in Wisconsin today. Appling appears in photo #4 in my collection of stills, posted here. I also put some video clips together. This gives a pretty accurate feeling of the event, as I encounter the pro-same-sex-marriage march on State Street (watch for the old woman who's concerned about crossing the street) and, later, join them on the Capitol steps. Finally, I go up in back of the speakers to see what the NOM event actually looks like.

95 comments:

David said...

The attackers still include a large number of people who are married.

To each other.

Palladian said...

I pity that poor polypropylene step-stool behind her podium.

rhhardin said...

You have to read "as God designed marriage" meaning "as the term was found interesting and useful to people."

Do not imagine that you know why that is.

It doesn't mean shacking up with some legal attachments.

Religion is the poeticization of ethics.

Not always well expressed.

As Nietzsche said, God is dead; the term no longer works for people.

rhhardin said...

Rush was pounding out God today too.

An audience not well judged.

Lem said...

I have never seen people so angry in my life.

The seething, acrimonious hatred is palpable.

I cant wait for Frank Rich to tell me about it.

Quayle said...

That's right - millions of people take time out of their Sunday to read Nietzsche.

And the people that were on that doomed US Air flight out of LaGuardia - during the descent towards the river, they were all reaching for their copy of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, right.

BTW, what is Nietzsche up to these days? He seems to have, like, disappeared, cause I haven't seen him on TV lately.

shoutingthomas said...

God, another gay marriage post.

When will these people go away (all of them on all sides) and shut up?

Give us a break, Ann.

Shitty, sanctimonious people everywhere.

Eric said...

I'm an engineer, and lemme tell you things don't always work as first designed.

I have my reservations about gay marriage, but it could be, you know, like a Microsoft product - don't do it until the second version comes out.

Eric said...

Rush was pounding out God today too.

Were I Rush and on my third (fourth?) marriage, the whole subject would be verboten on my show.

kristinintexas said...

I can't help thinking of stuff like this.

sunsong said...

Gay marriage is inevitable. For all the *reasons* that people give in opposition to equality - none have merit.

It really boils down to prejudice. People don't like gays and they don't want them to have equal rights.

One of the most prejudicial arguments is that being gay is a choice like alcholism or bigotry.

People are born gay - just like others are born straight.

And that's why gay marriage is inevitable. There simply is no good reason to dicriminate anymore.

shoutingthomas said...

Gay marriage is inevitable. For all the *reasons* that people give in opposition to equality - none have merit.

Blah, blah, blah, fucking blah...

It really boils down to prejudice. People don't like gays and they don't want them to have equal rights.

Blah, blah... prejudice... blah, blah

One of the most prejudicial arguments is that being gay is a choice like alcholism or bigotry.

Blah, blah... discrimination... blah, blah

People are born gay - just like others are born straight.

Blah, blah... born gay... blah, blah

And that's why gay marriage is inevitable. There simply is no good reason to dicriminate anymore.

Blah, blah... inevitable... blah, blah

Time to go to bed. Wake me up when something new comes along.

Penny said...

If one is inclined to judge his or her own circumstances relative to others, there will NEVER be an end to the fight for "equality" as long as there are two people left on this earth.

Meade said...

Shame on the person at the end of the clip subjecting the dog to all that heat (90℉) and noise.

mtrobertsattorney said...

What ever happened to Nietzsche?

He ended up in an insane asylum. Some say it was syphilis; others say he came to believe in his own nihilism.

Penny said...

"Shame on the person at the end of the clip subjecting the dog to all that heat (90℉) and noise."

And let me add..."Shame on the people so intent on acting out their grievances in the street, that an old lady needed to worry about getting to the other side without being trampled.

Beth said...

..."Shame on the people so intent on acting out their grievances in the street, that an old lady needed to worry about getting to the other side without being trampled.

Did they have a permit to parade or march? If so, then any legal parade is something to be ashamed about because an old lady wants to cross the parade route?

John Stodder said...

You think we live in an enlightened part of the world. You think science and reason and empirical evidence and so forth form the grounds for discussion of what matters in life.

Then you read a quote like the one in this post's header and you think... it's dangerous as hell to trust that reason will win out.

These social conservatives are EXACTLY like the liberals who think raising taxes will boost job creation. Angry and superstitious, with fixed positions that won't change no matter how brutal the consequences of their zealotry.

I just want to know how this lady knows that God created marriage; and, if He did, how she knows gay marriage is not part of the design?

The Bible as I've read it shows God himself evolving in His understanding of creation. Who's to say God didn't intend for the custom of marriage between a man and a woman to serve as a model for other social arrangements. Marriage is full of goodness. Commitment, responsibility, security, a haven for the rearing of children, a hearth for spiritual growth.

How do we know God only wanted that for a man and a woman? If God created everything, He created homosexuality. Do we know why? Why do we reject that aspect of creation while celebrating others?

Yeah, I know. I'm making shit up. But so are the anti-gay marriage zealots.

peter hoh said...

the bus rolls into St. Paul on Wednesday. Do you suppose they will let me enter the first ring if I show up wearing a suit?

A Lawyer Mom's Musings said...

But I was heartened to see them all come together there, at the end, when the NOM podium man said, "The Bible says marriage is a good thing. And I say, marriage can be a good thing."

Beth said...

Meade, I noticed two dogs, the one at the end in the NOM area and another in the counter-protestors area.

I've never understood why people bring dogs to parades, or festivals. In addition to the heat, many dogs don't like big crowds and noise. Every year I see (thankfully just a few) people bring their dogs to Mardi Gras parades and that's just insane. There are hundreds of thousands of people on the street for any given Mardi Gras parade night. A big avenue will be blocked off for most of its length, miles and miles, with maybe 40-60 floats passing in several parades, over hours and hours. People are standing 15 deep, with more people behind them in chairs, and dogs just freak out in that environment.

Some people have no sense.

El Pollo Real said...

The people trying to shout the speakers down are despicable, but that's par for the course in Madison, WI. I recall that the left-wingers successfully shouted down Eldridge Cleaver in 1980 or 1981. The Daily Cardinal even wrote it up as a triumph of righteousness, but that's the same way they wrote stoking the unrest that led to Sterling Hall. After that they cowered until the dust settled.

Only somebody like Maureen Dowd would insist that we have a national conversation on racism and gay rights at the same time.

danielle said...

so how long will it take for these people to look back on their participation in this march and realize that they are idiots for participating, and feel shame and embarrassment at their senseless stance ? i know its not quite the same, but for people who opposed civil rights, how long did their repentance take ?

Penny said...

"Some people have no sense."

Exactly, Beth.

BUT! The good news?

The vast majority of us are mighty good people.

phil said...

Agreed Danielle. I hope that 25 years from now every politician who opposed equal rights for gays today will be held politically accountable. Ala Shirley Sherrod.

rhhardin said...

Taking a dog to noisy and confusing events is a training opportuity I jump at.

Temptations become hard to find, and you treasure them.

You'll see my dog holding sit-stays in whatever crowd is around.

HDHouse said...

"as God designed marriage" What an absolute crock

HDHouse said...

ohmygod the O'Really attack on Christmas is spreading...is this what you all want?

Ephesians 5:22–33 (NIV)

22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything

Pogo said...

@amba:
My 'mission accomplished' response made no reference to the authors of that victory.

The destruction of marriage was a primary tenet of Marxism, and their success is evident. You can see the beginning of the end in Ibsen's plays and in the spread of communism and socialism worldwide. A quite effectve knife in the USA was AFDC and broadened welfare payments.

Gay marriage merely marks the fin de si├Ęcle. The unintended effects will be large, ignored, or celebrated. But like abortion, the fight will go on, and will separate, as here, along binary opponents, each calling the other the devil. Minds are made up.

After this, however, expect religion to be the next target, and the same argument swill be used against it, and be similarly successful, if that's the correct term.

Licentiousness and the elevation of the libertine in the social realm will of course have broad social effects. One can't argue seriously otherwise. And along Marxist lines, it occurs simultaneously with an inevitable increase in governmental control of nearly every behavior. That is no mistake.

Brave new worlds aren't as much as they might seem in impassioned speeches.

shoutingthomas said...

From Steve Sailer's blog:

We've all been taught to reason according to the following logic:

A. Gays Are Good;

B. So, Anybody Who Mentions Anything Not Good About Gays Must Be:

C. Bad

Therefore, the AIDS epidemic couldn't possibly have been self-inflicted. It had to be the fault of, say, Ronald Reagan, or of homophobic Mormons in Provo, or of something, anything, other than what actually happened.

Now, I will be buried under a shitload of stupidity. Perhaps, it's best not to even mention the obvious, because it only brings out the worst in idiots like Scott and Palladian.

So, the reality (as I observed personally) is that the "stereotype" about gay men was verified a thousand fold by the AIDS epidemic. The "prejudice" is, thus, no prejudice at all. It is, in fact, a sane view of reality.

Gay men are about a million times more likely to die of AIDS than from random violence as a result of bigotry. If they do suffer random violence, that is about a million times more likely to be the result of pickup sex with hundreds of partners. That is an inherently risky business.

The entire gay activism scam is built on lie after lie after lie after lie.

This is not to say that gays should not be allowed to live as they want to live in peace.

The truth is, that's already reality. In fact, in the U.S., it has been the reality for a very long time.

Lie after lie after lie after lie.

MadisonMan said...

So is Ms. Appling there to lobby for stricter divorce laws?

shoutingthomas said...

So is Ms. Appling there to lobby for stricter divorce laws?

Jesus Christ!

This argument is the same one constantly made about the Catholic Church: the fact that the Church harbors sinners damns the Church completely.

The Church, in fact, exists to serve sinners.

Pogo is the only sane commenter around. Ignoring human history and trying to replace traditional human wisdom with ideology will be repaid many thousand times in the future with catastrophe.

We just don't know yet what the catastrophe will be.

phx said...

Licentiousness and the elevation of the libertine in the social realm will of course have broad social effects.

When you want to marry it's part of God's plan. When I want to marry it's licentiousness and the elevation of the libertine in the social realm that will have broad social effects (of course).

shoutingthomas said...

When you want to marry it's part of God's plan. When I want to marry it's licentiousness and the elevation of the libertine in the social realm that will have broad social effects (of course).

Yes, that's true. Sorry, but I won't humor you in your foolish pretend martyrdom.

MadisonMan said...

If Ms. Appling actually wanted to protect marriage, she would do something about overturning the divorce laws in this state, laws that make it shockingly easy to void a contract made before God in the Church.

Pogo said...

phx, you misunderstand.

I fully acknowledge that what you desire and demand will come to fruition. I note that it is inevitable, but point out that it will be accompanied by many side effects that are deleterious. You are free to argue otherwise, but history is on my side.

I believe we are at the beginning of the end of the US. This just marks one more milestone on that path. Rome fell much the same way, why not us?

it was a good ride, albeit short.

Andrea said...

I don't think gays, or at least the gays who participate in "Gay Pride" parades and rallies like this on, who dress in costumes designed to shock and disgust people with conservative views (men in assless chaps and wedding dresses, for example), really want "gay marriage." They just want to shock and disgust "the mundanes" and get attention. If they were really intent upon getting the larger society to accept that gays should be allowed to get married just like straights, they'd dress like straights and act like straights and in general try to reassure straights that they really are willing to join society and work with it not against it. That's how everyone else who wanted to be accepted as a normal part of society used to act, and that was how they got accepted.

Marriage is seen as a normalizing act -- an indication that you are willing to give up your carefree single lifestyle in favor of "settling down" and doing your duty. Obviously in these modern times marriages rarely work out that way, but if you don't want to settle down or give up any of your single-life freedoms, then when are you getting married for? One can only conclude that you're getting married in the crass desire for a party, attention, presents, money, benefits, that piece of official paper, and prestige. This is what it looks like at least some gay marriage activists are after -- they have no plans of "settling down" with their partners into some sort of sober, stable life; they just want all the goodies and to be able to shove it in the faces of Christian fundies: "Nyah nyah I got married!" It's all very childish. I imagine many non-flamboyant, non-attention-seeking gay people who sincerely want to be accepted as normal members of society are very frustrated by the counterproductive activities of the in-your-face gay activists.

Andrea said...

Argh. "Then what are you getting married for?" I meant to say.

shoutingthomas said...

Pogo is the only commenter who even comes close to reality.

All this posturing about gay rights is a collapse into spoiled child nastiness.

It is a symptom of a society grown so rich and lazy that it wants to pretend that utility no longer matters.

I've lived among the gay activists in SF and NYC. They are the spoiled, pampered children of the rich and lazy. Because they are so favored, we have decided to humor them and pretend that they are also martyrs of a great civil rights crusade.

It's all stupid pretending. There is, ultimately, a price to be paid for this stupid pretending.

Pogo is right about this price.

And, he's also right: the die is cast. We've caved in to these spoiled, lazy kids and there's no going back.

I'm not going to do anything to stop the madness. I'm just an old guy limping toward the finish line. I'll just concentrate on living as best I can, and I'll watch the madness from the sidelines.

slarrow said...

If Ms. Appling actually wanted to protect marriage, she would do something about overturning the divorce laws in this state, laws that make it shockingly easy to void a contract made before God in the Church.

That's like saying that the army shouldn't focus its attention on the front. It should focus its attention 20 miles into enemy territory and re-capture that land if they're really serious about fighting this war.

For better or for worse, the NOM people are on defense. The pro-same sex marriage folks are the aggressors in this action; they're the ones who want to change the status quo. To castigate the NOM folks for doing what they do is not an argument, it is a demand for surrender. If that's what you want to do, fine; just don't break your arm congratulating yourself on your "enlightenment."

HDHouse said...

Quayle said...
"BTW, what is Nietzsche up to these days? ..I haven't seen him on TV lately."

Why am I not surprised that you HAVE seen him on TV on prior occasions.

HDHouse said...

shoutingthomas said...
"The entire gay activism scam is built on lie after lie after lie after lie."


Didn't you really mean the "entire opposition to gay activism"....

I thought you did.

phx said...

Pogo, interesting bedfellows. I also think that we may be at the "beginning of the end of the US"... I just don't see this as any kind of milestone. BTW, I don't desire or demand anything from governments.

My point was that your original quote must on the face of it sound hypocritical to someone who is looking at the issue reasonably. And you too are free to argue the other side. But I don't claim that history favors one side or another in this particular issue.

shoutingthomas said...

You are one of the pretenders, HDHouse.

I meant exactly what I said.

El Pollo Real said...

HD House is hypocryphal regarding his own outrages. Follow the links here.

chr1 said...

I mean, this has been a long time coming...the arguments for extending freedom and equality to all...without potentially thinking through the consequences and outcomes.

Or else it's just Madison...

Maybe Bush's spending was simply his own issue but maybe it just as likely had to do with Bush slowly being influenced by the logic of freedom and equality to all, and relativism. Some say it's the lefties winning the cultural wars, some say it's the 60's passing through the gut of our body politic.

I'm not really sure.

But good luck getting fiscal conservatism and small c government back...especially after Obama. We're all watching and villifying our elected officials for many of the problems already among us for generations. It won't get any better watching the spectacle. This will not be easy.

Pogo said...

" to someone who is looking at the issue reasonably. "

No true Scotsman....

That is, only unreasonable people can view the demise of marriage -as traditionally defined- as a threat of any sort.

former law student said...

Madison Man is correct.

One brave man in California is making the effort to save marriage by prohibiting divorce, citing the strictures of Scripture:

http://rescuemarriage.org/

The professor's adulterous relationship with Meade does bother me a tad -- because marriage is for life, she would have to wait for her ex to pass away before she could take up with another man. Such remarriage devalues the value of marriage. Recall that Paul counseled even widows to avoid Christian remarriage unless their lust would have driven them into adultery.

But such are the mores of today -- a slippery slope to Sodom and Gomorrah. First you have same sex marriage, next you're wearing suits made from both wool and linen.

In any event, I am not looking to the professor's life as a guide to live mine.

peter hoh said...

Rod Dreher:
Gay marriage is the final act of the Sexual Revolution, the thing that institutionalizes it.


Kind of amusing that the final act of the sexual revolution is the expansion of marriage to include couples that were previously excluded from marriage.

But same-sex marriage can't be the "beginning of the end," as it only emerges in response to the sweeping changes that heteros did to marriage over the past 40 years.

As I pointed out in the other thread, it's now possible for a man to leave his wife and kids and marry his mistress -- and this doesn't prevent him from promoting traditional marriage.

That, my friends, is the fullness of the sexual revolution.

Same-sex marriage is nothing more than the icing on the cake.

Beth said...

rhhardin,

I thought about you as I wrote that. But you are a Superman of dog owners. Your dog's never going to end up on a Lost at Parade flyer on a telephone pole.

Meade said...

Yes, Beth, I thought of rh too. Clearly, the dog owner in the clip is no rhhardin.

phx said...

Pogo,
You know I've been in a loving, happy hetero marriage for over 25 years now. I can't in the least fathom how gay people getting married leads to the demise of my marriage or that of anyone else. But go ahead and call ME unreasonable.

sonicfrog said...

As I pointed out in the other thread, it's now possible for a man to leave his wife and kids and marry his mistress -- and this doesn't prevent him from promoting traditional marriage.

Prevent him... Hell, that IS traditional marriage in the 21st Century! :-)


PS. Some one had to say it, and I figured it might as well be me.

Michael said...

Pogo: You are quite right that after gay marriage the next issue will be religion. It will be a very big thing with gays that the Southern Baptist Church, to take an example, will not marry them. You are right as well on the fact that the die is cast and that the decline of the US will be permanent. It took the Roman empire three hundred years or so to finally collapse and we will likely beat that by a century.

Shouting Thomas: I lived in the Bay area during the advent of the AIDs epidemic and you have it exactly right. For a couple of years the thought was that Aids could easily spread throughout the population and the actuaries were nervous. But it soon became clear that the disease was largely confined to gays and was easily preventable. The bath houses did a brisk business for another two or three years before SF itself had to put a stop to them.

peter hoh said...

Michael, the Catholic Church is free to enforce its own policies about who is eligible to be wed in their churches.

c3 said...

Palladian;
Why is your house on fire?

phx said...

Peter Hoh, you have a hard time reading between the lines. What they're saying is that because Obama was elected we will soon see a Soviet-like control of churches by the state. You'll see. The government will soon tell the churches who they can marry and who they can't.

c3 said...

Mr. House;
Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything

I don't believe you understand the gist of that passage.

Bryan C said...

I somehow doubt that folks who insist on "marriage as God designed marriage" would be happy about including multiple wives or concubines in their definition. Despite the fact that both practices were widely accepted in Biblical times among God's chosen people, and, judging by Biblical accounts, were apparently just fine with God.

c3 said...

Mr. Hoh;

As I pointed out in the other thread, it's now possible for a man to leave his wife and kids and marry his mistress -- and this doesn't prevent him from promoting traditional marriage.

(First the disclaimer: I have no idea what, if any, faith beliefs Mr. Gingrich has.)

Now, you well point out the continued problem with Christianity: it continues to associate with and invite in sinners and hypocrites.

We gotta work on that.

Anglelyne said...

danielle: so how long will it take for these people to look back on their participation in this march and realize that they are idiots for participating, and feel shame and embarrassment at their senseless stance ? i know its not quite the same, but for people who opposed civil rights, how long did their repentance take ?

Why do the heathen rage? Hate to break it to you, danielle, but a lot of those people will go to their graves still presuming to disagree with you, the impertinent things.

Worse yet, others now in agreement with you may go so far as to entertain the notion that dissenting from the Holy Writ of Progressivism may not necessarily be an indication of irrationality and bigotry. Why, some of them, in the fullness of time, may become so depraved as to reconsider their original views and go apostate.

If you're a believin' gal, you can take solace in knowing that the obdurately non-repentant will get their comeuppance in the world to come. If not, you might be able to get satisfaction by figuring out ways to harass and bedevil them with the law, as they do in Canada and elsewhere.

AlphaLiberal said...

Appling has a lot of junk in the trunk.

craig said...

phx said...

"...I've been in a loving, happy hetero marriage for over 25 years now. I can't in the least fathom how gay people getting married leads to the demise of my marriage or that of anyone else. But go ahead and call ME unreasonable."

It is the final deconstruction of the meaning (legal, social, and otherwise) of marriage. We already shot ourselves in the foot with cheap divorce and remarriage. That argues against our deliberately taking aim and firing at the other foot.

We have a habit of expecting social behavior not to change after we have deconstructed the basis for it. Worse, we have a habit of decreeing to the politically out-of-favor that the old duties remain long after the rights are gone. After all, somebody has to pay the tab.

Consider the man who married in, say, 1960; his expectation to support his mate for life was matched by the expectation that she would, in fact, be his mate for life. "No fault" divorce came along and his wife decided to leave him for the pool boy, yet the law decreed that he must support her anyway. The marriage contract changed without his ever having done anything to change it.

As someone else noted, the battle front is here now. This is as significant as arbitrarily redefining "childhood" and "parenthood" to accommodate various ideologies (oh, wait, we're doing that too). When the fundamental building block of society, the family, becomes an infinitely malleable political football, the end result is for all parties' relationships to be subordinated to their relationship to the State. This will end badly.

ALP said...

Andrea @ 8:48:

"I imagine many non-flamboyant, non-attention-seeking gay people who sincerely want to be accepted as normal members of society are very frustrated by the counterproductive activities of the in-your-face gay activists."

A gay couple I know fits this description exactly. They used to flee Seattle every year during the Pride Parade. They were so annoyed by the attention-seekers, they didn't even want to be present in the city during the festivities.

peter hoh said...

c3, I am well aware that the church has a place for hypocrites and sinners. As my pastor used to say, there's always room for one more.

I am not arguing that any flaw in the church means that everything the church says is flawed.

Gingrich, by the way, is now a Roman Catholic. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

He provides an example of how marriage has been redefined. See Fukuyama: Today many people have come to think of marriage as a kind of public celebration of a sexual and emotional union between two adults, which is why gay marriage has become a possibility in the United States and other developed countries.

Same-sex marriage is not shooting the other foot. It's the natural progression of events set in motion 40 or 50 years ago.

jeff said...

"It is the final deconstruction of the meaning (legal, social, and otherwise) of marriage."

That ship sailed long ago. I think a lot of people assume gay people will abuse marriage. Get married for the weekend, short term marriages of a year or so, open marriages etc. Which would be a good argument, except for us straight people already do that. As long as the law doesn't force ministers or churches to perform the ceremonies unless their ok with it, I have no issues with it.

Skipper50 said...

Support Talmudic/Biblical marriage...one man, 600 wives.

craig said...

Bryan C, the Old Testament accounts of multiple wives and concubines are descriptive, not prescriptive. Despite its social acceptance, most of the biblical accounts illustrate how it leads to unhappiness for the parties involved. Jesus later taught definitively against that practice, as He did against divorce.

Aside: The whole argument is merely a symptom of a 500-year-old problem, namely, what basis to use for one's moral paradigm. Catholicism has a consistent interpretive Tradition (of which the Bible is a primary part but not the only) and the ability to say "this fits within the moral tradition and that does not". Protestantism truncated that paradigm in favor of a text, leaving no stable answer to the question of how to correctly interpret the text -- which is why we are stuck rehashing "shellfish" arguments that seek only to obscure.

Pogo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
slarrow said...

You know I've been in a loving, happy hetero marriage for over 25 years now. I can't in the least fathom how gay people getting married leads to the demise of my marriage or that of anyone else.

Two observations: first, if you can't fathom the harm getting rid of something will do, then why should we listen to you when you've just admitted your lack of understanding and imagination? I wouldn't let someone knock down a wall in my house just because he can't see the point in having it there.

Second, Megan McArdle addressed this precise argument five years ago (link.) The crux is that the people making this objection aren't the marginal cases the issue will attack first. All this time later, it's still relevant.

Timon said...

People have a responsibility to oppose same-sex marriage because of their responsibility as voters to influence the justice of the laws. The point of recognizing marriage is not merely to give benefits to couples, but also to hold individuals accountable to one another. I would not even recognize that the law recognizes it: an unjust law is not a law.

former law student said...

Over the last three decades of work I've learned that "We've always done it this way" is never a valid reason to oppose change.

phx said...

slarrow writes:
...if you can't fathom the harm getting rid of something will do, then why should we listen to you when you've just admitted your lack of understanding and imagination?

Yes, in other words "if you can't just agree that I'm right then why should we listen to you when you've just admitted your lack of understanding and imagination?"

Find an argument and not a fallacy, will ya?

Anglelyne said...

peter hoh: See Fukuyama: "Today many people have come to think of marriage as a kind of public celebration of a sexual and emotional union between two adults, which is why gay marriage has become a possibility in the United States and other developed countries."

Same-sex marriage is not shooting the other foot. It's the natural progression of events set in motion 40 or 50 years ago.


That something is a "natural progression" says nothing about whether it's good or bad, improvement or decay. I agree completely that we have "naturally progressed" to the stage that most people think that a marriage ceremony is all about "sharing their love", or that marriage as a social institution is all about the "sexual and emotional union between two adults". I also think that means that marriage has been utterly trivialized. I really don't know why I'm supposed give a rat's ass about - or why society should formally publicly recognize - a "sexual and emotional union" that the participants insist is all about them as individuals and nothing larger. There is no need for any special legal or cultural institution of "marriage" if it's all about the feelings of the adults involved. Just "get a room" - lawyer, contract, whatever.

Now, I happen to think that a society that views marriage that way has its head up its ass, but you are correct, I think, in your statement that gay marriage is "just the icing on the cake" of many decades of change. So the impassioned demand for entry into an institution that has been largely demolished, and demolished in accordance with rights-and-choice language...well, it's a funny old world, ain't it?

slarrow said...

phx, quit projecting your position on me. And go look up "argument" and "fallacy" while you're at it.

former law student said...

Following Angelyne's point I would abolish state-recognized marriage entirely. Keep it as a religious institution if you want, but how two people relate to each other is hardly the state's business.

phx said...

slarrow...you can't identify by name the fallacy that you used that I called out? Huh.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
slarrow said...

Oh good grief. Let's unpack the argument, then, if you think you must.

When you say "I can't fathom X", you're telling me that not only do you not understand the argument for X being currently presented, you also cannot construct (imagine) an argument for X, even one stronger than the argument being presented. The mistake on YOUR part is to assume that since you cannot (or wish not to) construct such an argument, no such argument can be constructed. It also presumes that if you cannot be threatened by X, then no one else can be threatened by X.

But you substitute "you can't just agree that I'm right" for the above analysis. Bah.

phx said...

You've misunderstood yourself. You say "If you can't fathom the harm getting rid of something will do then it follows you are admitting a lack of imagination blah blah blah."

You avoid making the argument that harm follows from "getting rid of something" (in your words). Instead you imagine it's somehow already established or self-evident.

Go buy a grownup argument and peddle your worthless fallacy to someone else.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
slarrow said...

/* laugh */ Oh good heavens, is that the tack you're taking? That I have to establish that removal of something will cause some future harm?

First, that's a burden of proof claim, not a fallacy. Second, larger burdens of proof typically fall on those making the claim (in argumentation) or the change (in reality.) Thus it is incumbent on the agents of change (the pro same-sex-marriage people) to provide substantial evidence for their position, including those difficult ones about avoiding possible future harms (which, of course, cannot be established through empirical observation or pure extrapolation from current examples, especially not single cases like "my personal marriage".)

This is why, in another thread, I commended the use of WFB's observation of how difficult it is for a conservative to answer the question "why not". People who ask the question often don't want to recognize they have to establish an affirmative case for a position; they want to make their opponents establish a negative case against the position. That is, they want to shift the burden of proof so that, if the opposition fails or is weak, their position "wins" by default without the task of ever defending it. It's rhetorical base-stealing and a bad idea when tinkering with social institutions, but it's a cheap way to argue and therefore attractive to the lazy.

Or, at least that's the kind of thing I learned when I got my degree in philosophy ten years ago.

slarrow said...

Oh, to clarify: there is such a thing as burden of proof fallacy, but that exists when the burden of proof clearly rests on one side which tries to throw the burden on the other side. In other cases, it's a fair question where the burden of proof actually lies.

In the case I outlined, I'm choosing to view the question of where the burden lies as a somewhat open question and to argue why it belongs on phx's side. I'm not asserting that it belongs to him, case closed, slam dunk, and that by denying it HE would be committing the burden of proof fallacy. (I think I could, but it's best to be generous in argument formulation.) It's just a general principle not to accuse fallacy until fallacy has firmly been committed. FWIW.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
slarrow said...

Hey, you're the one blowing smoke about how I need to go back to school and get a grownup argument. I wanted to see if you had anything more than schoolyard taunting to back up your position. Your last tells me you don't.

But that's fine; I don't get to do much philosophy-type stuff in my day job, so this has been fun, even if you aren't. See you in the funny papers!

phx said...

You know what slarrow, I think I'm just getting cranky and it probably doesn't have much to do with you. I think your original posting to me was a little artless, a little provocative, and a little circular, but I'll bet most of the time I wouldn't have any problem getting along with you.

And I shouldn't sound like such a wise ass. I apologize.

Joe said...

If we allow gay marriage will that make it more or less likely that the marriage tax penalty will return?

Joe said...

If gays can marry, I want to be able to have a second wife! As long as she's good in bed.

(And can cook and do laundry--Mrs. Joe.)

Jason (the commenter) said...

Standing for marriage as God designed marriage...

It's not about marriage, it's about religious discrimination. Using the state to promote your religion to the detriment of others.

Joe said...

Standing for marriage as God designed marriage...

How did God design marriage? Is it how it's described in the Old Testament? The New Testament? RigVeda? Aboriginal oral tradition?

What if God's design was that if a man believes a woman should be his wife, she becomes his wife? (Unless married, in which case he is obligated to kill her husband.)

And does the husband live in the house of the wife's family or the wive in the house of the husband's family?

If you are going to appeal to God, you should get your story straight (and while at it, what God was this? Zeus? Shiva? Baal? Or do we really mean Shinto?)

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

I wonder when Althouse will let us in on her belief that this whole gay marriage thing is just too close to call.

Eric said...

Gay marriage is inevitable.

Certainly not. The people are pretty heavily against it.

former law student said...

Gay marriage is inevitable.

Certainly not. The people are pretty heavily against it.


Old people are. Young people don't give a shit. As the old people die off, gay marriage will come. The wedding toasts may be done by taking a drag on a spliff by then, however.

c3 said...

Peter;
Same-sex marriage is not shooting the other foot. It's the natural progression of events set in motion 40 or 50 years ago.

So we're talking about an ancient tradition that has finally come to its culmination?

/snark off

Timon said...

"The wedding toasts may be done by taking a drag on a spliff by then, however."

How else would they tolerate the offensiveness of the "lifestyle?"