Wednesday, December 29, 2010

A Conversation and Not a Shouting Match

I haven't blogged much lately so why not stir things up.

One of the great things around is the Witherspoon Institute. It runs a blog called Public Discourse which recently featured an interesting exchange on same sex marriage between Andy Koppelman (for) and Robbie George, Ryan Anderson Sherif Girgis (against). The great thing about the exchange is that Koppelman does what proponents of same sex marriage rarely do. He addresses differing views of what marriage is and what it is for.

Much of the discussion of "marriage equality" simply assumes that marriage is something designed to facilitate a sexually intimate relationship between two people. But there are all sorts of embedded assumptions and begged questions in that assertion.

In a recent column in the Washington Post, Matthew Franck of Witherspoon addresses the implication of the fact that differences on same sex marriage are differences about marriage as much as they are differences on homosexuality. He suggests that proponents of same sex marriage stop playing the "hate card." But it won't happen. Politically useful demagoguery is rarely abandoned.


Dad29 said...

Machiavelli's Prince would certainly approve of the hate-game, as did Alinsky.

In any war, truth is the first casualty.

Anonymous said...

It's not a hate card the reality is hate. It often is camouflaged within a religious context but hate does exist towards gay people in Wisconsin. Gays have been discriminated in housing and jobs finally don't ask don't tell is on it's last legs. There us hate and it is not a card. How many more gay teens would you like to see commit suicide. Rick at best you are an insensitive clod.

Anonymous said...

Within the realm of rejection there is plenty of hate. Regardless of whether it's universal or a necessary component of the rejection, it deserves to be called out. Maybe you want to dedicate a post or two to that.

Dad29 said...

Within the realm of rejection there is plenty of hate.

Oh, please.

Dislike and/or incompatibility do not equal "hate." We've all met plenty of people with whom we do not, or do not CARE, to associate.

Are all of those "hate" rejections?

Dad29 said...

BTW, Rick, George et al argue that infertility is irrelevant, because of the ens of sexual organs.

They didn't mention that infertility also has some characteristics of 'accident,' although that is implied in their argument.

Anonymous said...

Gays and samesex marriage are a safe topic I'd Like to see you discuss interracial marriage in it's historical context. Oh I forgot that wouldn't be politically correct for the professor.

Hate is hate be it against someone because of race national origin or sexual preference.

Meanwhile the divorced professor continues to blog about denying the institution of marriage to gay

I see a hypocrisy card being played rather than a hate card

Rick Esenberg said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I saw this topic come up on Mirror of Justice, and took some time over the holidays to read the Girgis, George, and Anderson article; Yoshino's reply in Slate; the response from George, Girgis, and Anderson to Yoshino; and Yoshino's second reply.

Well, it was a tough slog, but I made it through them, and survived the holidays too. I posted two lengthy comments on Mirror of Justice, including answers to the "challenge" from George, Girgis, and Anderson.

Suffice to say, I find them not persuasive in their argument for their REVISION of marriage.

sean s.

Anonymous said...

Those who teach that homosexuality is contrary to natural law ignore its existence throughout nature. They instruct that it does not proceed from genuine affection, is "intrinsically disordered" and constitutes "grave depravity," and under no circumstances may it be approved. Telling a person that his desires are depraved, disordered, impermissible, and unloving marginalizes and anathematizes him. And so, gay teens attempt suicide four times as often as straight teens.

To tell an untruth is a sin. To pass by one's neighbor as he lies dying is a sin. Blessed is the despised Samaritan who binds up the wounds of the dying. The priest and the Levite followed the teachings of their faith and hurried forward without rendering themselves ritually unclean. They were not neighbor to the man at the side of the road.

Dad29 said...

"Existence" does not equal "natural."

There have been three-legged cows throughout history, too.

So tell me how 'natural' homosex relations really are...

No one confuses agape--or philia-- with eros, except those who have a serious disorder, or depravity.

The term 'depravity,' by the way, covers a multitude of disorders.

AnotherTosaVoter said...

There remains as yet no explanation of why marriage cannot accommodate both gays and heteros.

sean s. said...


Marriage can accommodate both different-sex and same-sex marriage. This is why folks who oppose it thrash around searching for theories to explain why same-sex marriage must not be legalized. They seek to make this a zero-sum choice; which in fact it is not.

sean s.

sean s. said...

Read Matthew Franck’s WP article. I do agree that the “hate” card is played too much in this debate, but not that it’s inaccurate, only not helpful. “Marginalize, privatize, anathematize”; these are themes familiar to gays and lesbians; these have been inflicted on them for years, along with violence. No surprise they turn to these tools now.

It’s unfortunate that conservatives didn’t oppose these oppressions on gays and lesbians back when; now they reap what they sowed. The Professor is a frequent reciter of the Law of Unintended Consequences; I think this is an instance of it.

Now supporters of same-sex marriage need to keep it in mind. The focus should be on chipping away at the rationale’s cobbled together by opponents, and to avoid accusations of “homophobia” except in the most egregious cases.

And I for one think that most “hate-speech” laws should be invalidated on First Amendment grounds.

sean s.

Anonymous said...

Gays play the hate too much
I dont think so.....

Would you say minorities play the race card too much
No because to say so would be too controversial

sean s. said...

Anonymous at 3:47 asked “Would you say minorities play the race card too much”? Or at least I THINK that’s a question. Seems that Anon. does not believe in punctuation. Or was rushed. Which ever.

But on that assumption: Yes. I say that minorities play the race card (and hate card) too much. Yes.

sean s.