Saturday, April 25, 2009

Bill Murchison Gets Taken Down by his Commenters

Bill Murchison apparently didn't have much creative energy when he wrote this stinker of an article (reality by assertion anyone?): His many commenters take him down, the highlight being this point-by-point doozy courtesy of Jeff:

“The human race -- sorry ladies, sorry gents -- understands marriage as a compact reinforcing social survival and projection.”

A broad, sweeping statement that in no way undermines same-sex marriage.

“The supposed redefinition of the Great Institution is an outgrowth of modern hubris and disjointed individualism.”

Actually divorce got there first. Divorce redefined marriage from a life-long commitment to a “so long as it makes me happy” commitment.

“A marriage -- a real one -- brings together man and woman for mutual society and comfort, but also, more deeply, for the long generational journey to the future.”

As it does for same-sex couples, especially those that choose to have children.

“A gay "marriage" (never mind whether or not the couple tries to adopt) is definitionally sterile.”

Whatever that means. Whatever it means, post-menopausal women are sterile, as are some women at any age. Should they be prohibited from marrying? And why denigrate couples who adopt kids? Was that slam really necessary?

“The Iowa court's decision in the gay marriage case is pure nonsense”

Translation: I don’t like the legal decision all seven of the judges reached, even though I don’t really understand how government and the law works in this country.

“Hence the necessity of shooing away traditional marriage's derogators and outright enemies -- who include, accidentally or otherwise, the seven justices of Iowa's Supreme Court.”

And yet, it appears that all seven of the Iowa judges are, wait for it, MARRIED! Maybe they’re not quite the enemies of “traditional marriage” that the fearful rightwingnuts thing they are!

Another argument (and I'm elevating it by calling it that) against gay marriage crushed by facts and logic. It's going to be a long decade for these people as they watch the country move forward without them.


Pradeep said...


I would like your take on this article written by an MIT student back 2004 - The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage:

I could not find any contact email on this blog for you, so forgive me for posting this in your comments section.

Your avid fan,


RR said...

Good post SA ...

Religious and secular arguments against gay marriage are all rooting in bigotry and fear. The fact that a gay person wants to marry someone in no way effects anyone else. It is a simple matter of equal protection under the law.

To put it bluntly: if I (a man) choose to love and spend the rest of my life with another person, the gov should be blind to the back that he has a penis just as it is blind to hair color.

ronaldo said...

I might suggest that secular arguments against gay marriage are rooted in bigotry OR fear, not necessarily both. (I'm not trying to be nitpicky, but rather open the topic up for further consideration.)

IMO, religious arguments are trickier. Let's take the position that a religion originally, thousands of years ago, opposed homosexuality out of bigotry or fear. So I guess RR would be right about its roots. But now lets say that a modern man opposes gay marriage because his religion says it's wrong, not because of anything personal against gays. (Pretend he newly came to love his religion, but before this point, his opinions on gays was neutral.) So, is it still fair to blame this accuse this man of opposing homosexuality out of fear or bigotry? (Of course, it's fair to blame this man of following his religion, but that's another topic.)

ScienceAvenger said...

Pradeep, sorry for the delay, your analysis is coming.

Ronaldo, I think you are splitting hairs. If I choose to join a group with bigoted, fearful rules, then my support of those rules is rooted in bigotry and fear because they are. One doesn't get an exemption from the criticism of Klan hatred by saying "I don't really hate blacks, but I like being in the Klan and those are their rules".

Further, why on earth would you want to allow such an argument? Shouldn't our response to this man be to examine the rules of the religion he has chosen and engage in some personal reflection as to whether he really wants to be in such a group?