Monday, April 14, 2008

Kevin McCullough Demonstrates How Empty the Anti-Gay Marriage Arguments Are

The anti-gay marriage movement is really an interesting one. Alone among conservative issues, it stands as a completely undefended thesis. Oh sure, lots of people make lots of noise and type lots of words defending it, but there is never any real defense there. Never once have a I seen a clear simple explanation of the position. It shouldn't be that hard:

I, being of sound mind, and conservative predisposition, believe allowing homosexuals to marry will destroy marriage and traditional families because of A, B, C, and D. The facts supporting this view are X, Y, and Z.

But you'll never see that. What you'll see instead are irrational rants like this latest offering from Kevin McCullough, full of sound and fury, made up shit, and nary a logical argument to be found.

He was kind enough to make this apparent with his title "Why Does Obama Hate Marriage?", and his opening paragraph:

Barack Obama despises the institution of marriage. This assumption can be made on sound reasoning and easy logic. Anytime someone works to oppose something - it is assumed.

Obviously reasoning and logic aren't KM's strong suit, since OBAMA IS MARRIED. Let's try easy logic that should be easy enough even for KM to follow: if a man is participating in something, he's not opposing it. More importantly, KM is sneaking in a little circular reasoning here. His argument is that Obama's support of gay marriage amounts to Obama opposing the institution of marriage. He doesn't get to use that conclusion as one of his premises. WHY or how does allowing gays to marry effect other people's marriages? This is the question none of the people on KM's side of the aisle can answer. I am starting to get as frustrated as Lewis Black on this question.

KM doesn't lend any assistence. His article is one long stream of unsupported assertions, ridiculous scare words, and made up shit, even by the lofty Townhall standards. Obama's views are described as "punishing the definition of how a family is even constructed", "hostility towards a family's survival", and "the most diabolical way ever conceived to punish" people like KM, with nothing whatever to support those contentions. And McCullough has the nerve to complain that "hardly a word is spoken of it". That's because so far the entire threat is in your head Sir. You've given the rest of us nothing to go on.

He speaks of:

"...scientific, mental health, and diseased ridden drawbacks of engaging in homosexual behavior"

but even if he represents the science accurately (and he gives us good reason to doubt him later), WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH TRADITIONAL MARRIAGES? It's not like good monogamous Christians have to worry about catching STDs from the AIDS-ridden gay couple down the street. Ditto for his claim that the employment non-discrimination act would make it nearly impossible for a church to fire a youth pastor who had an inappropriate relationship with one of the boys. Granted that would be a social problem (granting KM's assertion FTSOA, which is generous given the many factual errors he makes), but once again, WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH TRADITIONAL MARRIAGES? No answer.

He then goes on an ignorant rant about how the military should enforce "Leave it to Beaver" sexual standards for the sake of morale. Facts cited to support these assertions? Zero, as usual. And...roll the tape boys...WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH TRADITIONAL MARRIAGES? Apparently the only answer he's willing to give is that questioning this assertion makes one "maniacal":

"Obama's maniacal view is that the moral question of disciplining one's choices is completely unrelated to protecting America's families."

Well then I guess many millions of Americans are "maniacal" Kevin, and for a simple reason: You and yours have so consistently refused to explain this supposed connection that we are getting pretty confident that there isn't one.

His next subject is the Defense of Marriage Act, and there we get to see his habit of MSU raise it's ugly head, as he claims:

...97% of this nation...see no value whatsoever in changing [marriage's] definition

97%? Now where do you suppose McCullough got this figure? Where else? He yanked it out of his ass. One who bothered to actually research the actual polls
he planned on quaoting would see that support for allowing same-sex marriages runs about 25%-35%. But more basically, McCullough needs a civics lesson or two. Civil rights issues are protected by the constitution, as interpreted by our judicial system. They cannot be voted away. Thus when McCullough says things like:

"Thusly when four black robed, self-superior, societal engineers (they prefer to be called "judges") decided to ignore the will of the people in their state..."

He is talking nonsense Interpreting the law is the function of judges in our system. They are supposed to ignore the will of the people. Doing otherwise would render them moot. This is typical of the new conservatives. They do not believe in constitutional restrictions on their power of the majority, especially if they can work their gods into the conversation.

Unfortunately for them, that is also when they tend to spew the most baseless crap, and McCullough does not dissappoint, as he chants one of the favorite, and most blatantly inaccurate lies from his little conservative myth missal:

"Perhaps it is important to note what [marriage] has always been: one man, one woman, in sexual monogamous fidelity for life. It was established by God for three purposes, to civilize men, to protect women, and to nurture children. Thusly a society - even a nation - can continue to exist for generations."

Praise the gods, I so love correcting smarmy Christians on their own religion. If McCullough would bother to read that dust covered book he supposedly so reveres with "Bible" written on it on his back bookshelf, he'd note that many people in the Bible had, with Yahweh's blessing, many wives. Solomon alone was said to have 600. For those as ignorant of history as McCullough apparently is, polygamy dominated the globe for many thousands of years prior to monogamy becoming the trendy change. St. Augustine was among the first early promoters of mongamy, and it was not made offical law until 534 CE. Now whether or not Yahweh changed his mind is a question I leave for McCullough to ponder.

And a big "HELLO!" on this "monogamous fidelity for life" nonsense. Polls suggest the rate of infidelity is 65-85% for men and 45-65% for women. Studies also suggest the proportion of marriages ending in divorce is 35-44%. Those factors produce a range of 2.9%-12.5% of actual marriages in the U.S. that fit the pattern McCullough insists has always been the case. I guess he's heard the phrase "til death do us part" so many times he's started to believe it.

Finally, McCullough's final assertion belies an ignorance (and willful I'll bet) of cultures all over the world that have continued for generations despite never adopting his view of what marriage is.

So there you have it: All bluster, MSU, and poor reasoning. Not a single argument offerred for what, exactly, allowing gay marriage would do to traditional marriage that warrants the latter needing to be defended. Defended from what? I guess we'll never know.

5 comments:

Charlotte said...

Somebody please tell me the difference between these anti-gay marriage type groups & the KKK in the 60's trying to prevent Afro-Americans from their civil rights? Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com

ScienceAvenger said...

Yes Charlotte, it is an interesting comparison. If you go back and look at Loving vs Virginia, the case that ended race-based legal restrictions on marriage. Some of the very same arguments can be seen there that are now hurled at homosexuals.

This is one of those issues where change is inevitable. Future generations 1,000 years from now will wonder how we could have been so unenlightened about this in the same way we look back at slavery.

larryniven said...

"This is one of those issues where change is inevitable."

Situations like these really interest me because I feel like they show the true insufficiency of a religious moral system. Regardless of whether such a system is accurate or not, clearly its followers have, at best, a tendency to give in to peer pressure. If allowing gay marriage is okay (which is what reasonable people think), then the fundies are, in this instance, less moral than everyone else. Alternatively, if allowing gay marriage is not okay, their dissent will eventually dissipate such that even being a fundie won't help. In what sense, then, does being a fundamentalist give one a better insight into morality?

Christopher Waldrop said...

To follow up on the point that, "its followers have, at best, a tendency to give in to peer pressure", what never ceases to amaze me is that fundamentalists point to the Constitution and the idea of democracy any time their ideas are criticized, although they only cite freedom of speech when it applies to them; they're happy to deprive all others of the same rights.
They resort to the same hypocrisy when someone like me asks that they stick to the same rules the apply to everyone else. In a debate I once pointed out that a fundamentalist was lying. He responded, "As a materialist you have no right to talk about morality." According to him, my religious views effectively negated any responsibility to remain true to his own.

ScienceAvenger said...

I once had a Christian respond to my identification of a contradiction in his Bible by telling me I couldn't talk about the Bible unless I was going to accept it as the word of God. He couldn't seem to grasp that all I needed to make my argument was that HE believed it. They understand the form of logic, but not its substance.