A reader in the most recent Mark Sanford combox thread voices a familiar complaint from the previous ones. The argument goes like this:
1. Mark Sanford is a social conservative who advocated against same-sex marriage rights.2. But by having an adulterous affair, he dishonored his own marriage vows.
3. Therefore it is hypocritical for him -- and by extension, other social conservatives -- to argue against same-sex marriage.
4. Because some opponents of same-sex marriage are unfaithful to their spouses, there is no good reason to oppose same-sex marriage.
It's an absurd argument, but that doesn't stop more than a few people from pushing it. If you are one of the people who find its logic persuasive, though, then surely you agree that the arrest of a gay Duke University official on charges of having prostituted his adopted five-year-old son on the Internet is a convincing argument against allowing gay adoptions.
It is in no way a convincing argument against gay adoption, and no argument at all. Neither does Sanford's failings have a thing to do with the rightness or wrongness of the case against same-sex marriage. But if you're going to say Sanford's sin invalidates the anti-gay marriage cause, on what grounds do you then argue that Lombard's sin (and alleged crime!) has nothing to do with the case for gay adoption?
Maybe we'd all be better off sticking to arguments themselves, citing real-world examples only when they're relevant, and leaving argumentum ad hominem out of it.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Wow - this thread went off the rails - would like to agree if there is one situation where hanging seems justified it is sexual or physical abuse of a child - I do hope Lombard spends the rest of his life in jail.
Keep in mind that allegations of sexual abuse of a child is the nuclear weapon of choice in nasty divorces. A good friend of mine was violently arrested by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, incarcerated and general had life turned inside out because the teenage daughter of his new wife was being coached to make accusations by her father. It finally fell apart in court, and the judge actually apologized...but it doesn't always turn out that way. The accusation alone can ruin you, and it is easy to make and requires little or no proof other than lurid testimony.
Thomas R, who cares what Genesis says? This isn't a theocracy, despite the belief among many conservative Christians that the Bible is the foundation for our Constitution.
Classic combox hilarity:
(1) Secularist commentator introduces selective Scripture quote to try to show that Christians have their own doctrine wrong (apparently working from on the bizarre assumption that social conservatives base their views on some crude application of Bible quotes to public policy).
(2) Christian corrects the commentator's interpretation of the quote.
(3) Second secularist commentator chides the Christian for supposedly introducing Scripture to the discussion. Got to stop those Right Wing Theocrats!
"Thomas R, who cares what Genesis says? This isn't a theocracy" Gus
TR: Umm that post was directed to someone who had just quoted Genesis. It was germane to that discussion.
The most atheistic nations on Earth are likely Estonia and the Czech Republic. Do they have SSM? Does even France?
Additionally the post that led to a supporter quoting Genesis had just said marriage was by "God or Civilization for more than just individual happiness" so it was pretty non-specific as to religion. In fact the "or civilization" aspect meant I wasn't necessarily linking it to religion at all.
Still in most every civilization I'm aware of same-sex marriage either didn't exist or was limited to people specifically deemed "other gendered." It's not clear to me if you'll even have to prove your homosexual, not that I'm sure how you could do that, to get a same-sex marriage. And same-sex marriage certainly isn't going to be limited to just transsexuals marrying someone of the same-sex but other gender. Same-Gender-Marriage has few to no cultural antecedents that I know of.
And a guy saying "sure a man can marry a transsexual if their polytheistic cultural traditions accepts that" has got to be way different than any theocratic group.
I, for one, don't agree with the author that these are analogous in the least. In the case of Mark Sanford, the discussion in an exercise in convoluted logic that attempts to discredit the political opinions of heterosexuals without having any impact in the real world. For children being adopted by known sexual deviants, however, the ramifications are far more dire. It is disingenuous to suggest that a person's proclivity for sexual deviancy has no implications with regards to their fitness as adoptive parents. The revelation that heterosexuals engaged in bestiality or S & M would certainly be considered germane to there adoption application. I suppose that many would argue that the "rights" of homosexuals to adopt should nevertheless be protected. I say, let's not lose sight of the consequences to real children when our society abandons them to the care of perverts and molesters. What about the right of the helpless ones?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.