The zealots at National Organization for Marriage have never been thought to have blazing intellects. The Defenders of the Faith willingly surrender critical thinking in order to be true believers. Today is no different from most days.
NOM highlights an April 30 piece in Crisis Magazine (“A Voice for the Faithful Catholic Laity.”) titled “Logic: What’s Missing from Public Discourse.” It is what the unidentified NOM blogger writes before and after the piece that is very interesting. Here’s the intro:
Logic and reason show us that there is only one definition of marriage–and defending marriage means persevering against emotional arguments and ad hominem attacks. Opponents of marriage often try to change the subject, make illogical arguments and false promises about “equality,” and personally attack those who defend marriage.
These folks believe their own bullshit. The definition of marriage can simply be stated as the legal union that forms a marital estate. What they mean by definition is the legal participants and their one definition comports with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Liturgical Protestants and most Jews do not agree.
As we all know, these people are not “defending marriage.” Rather, it is their mission to prevent states from recognizing same-sex marriage which presupposes that the Catholic Church has a monopoly on wisdom. It is discrimination that they are defending. Doing so defies logic and has been deemed unreasonable by a growing number of courts including the United States Supreme Court.
As for those “emotional arguments and ad hominem attacks,” are you fucking kidding me? NOM’s entire campaign has been based on empty emotional arguments. Given that marriage equality has no observed consequences after more than ten years, NOM and its allies are forced to make emotional and theoretical arguments that make no sense.
The intent of things like “gay marriage will be taught in school” is to suggest that gay marriage will turn your kids gay and that is a very bad thing. Their entire emotional argument is based on a false assertion that gays are a threat to children and that is a very old dog whistle. Argument ad hominem means attacking the arguer rather than the argument. NOM does nothing but argue ad hominem. And, no, we make no effort to “change the subject.” That would be like making the marriage argument about children when that ship sailed decades ago.
Here are the closing paragraphs:
Logic is missing from the marriage debate every time advocates of redefining marriage personally attack anyone who disagrees with them. It is missing from the marriage debate every time advocates of redefining marriage side-step questions about the effect growing up without a mother or father has on children.
Logic and reason are powerful weapons marriage defenders can use when explaining the uniqueness of a man-woman union. Let’s not be afraid to use them!
There should not be a “marriage debate” in the first place just as there should not have been a debate about anti-Semitism. Moreover, we do not sidestep the effects of marriage equality on children. We don’t have to. The overwhelming consensus of sociologists and psychologists is that gay couples make excellent parents, the equal of opposite-sex couples. Furthermore, how many children of so-called traditional marriages are growing up in single parent homes due to divorce? How many children of presumably heterosexual origin are born out of wedlock?
Two gay parents are certainly superior to one heterosexual parent. Indeed, gay couples often adopt children who have no mother and no father. Marriage discrimination also disadvantages the children of gay couples. These are the truths that we have been relying on for over ten years of Church resistance to equality. The Church could have better invested its many millions of dollars in the direct welfare of children rather than discrimination.
As NOM’s blogger writes, logic and reason are, most definitely, powerful weapons. They explain why we have been consistently beating back marriage discrimination at the ballot, in state legislatures and in the courts. We have also won public opinion.