Today, National Organization for Marriage is citing a couple of Ryan Anderson Videos. I’ll get back to NOM later. As for Mr. Anderson, he seems to think that he is a great deal smarter than he actually is. In the first video, a gay man asks why he and his potential male spouse should not be able to file a joint tax return. Anderson’s oh-so-clever response is to ask whether that should apply to marriages of three or more people. Trying to make the guy defensive, Anderson asks if he is making a “special pleading.”
“Special pleading?” What better example is there of special pleading than biblical morality? People like Anderson follow some rules while ignoring others. They are not selling their daughters into slavery nor are they stoning disobedient children. The bible provides no guidance as to which rules are more important than others.
In the second video Anderson indulges in the same argument about multiple partner marriages. In both videos Anderson is clear that gays cannot marry which is different than obtaining a marriage license in, say, California. The reason for this is that Mr. Anderson confuses civil marriage with religious marriage and he does so intentionally.
Anderson is also indulging in Hoyle’s fallacy sometimes called the Junkyard tornado which is often used by Creationists. Anderson entertains the presence or absence of an unlikely outcome to an unlikely hypothetical event.
There are many ways to demolish Anderson’s BS (which is really quite manipulative). My response might be something like this:
“There doesn’t seem to be a quadruple marriage movement, at least not at the moment. If and when that occurs I can give it more thought. However, you are simply offering an unlikely hypothetical. But I digress. Wouldn’t you agree that, irrespective of your personal approval, gay couples are raising children? Then wouldn’t you further agree that those kids are better off (emotionally and economically) if that gay couple were married (and we are talking about civil marriage which has nothing to do with your approval or the approval of the Catholic Church)?
Let us never forget that these people are irrational. We can debate with these people all day because they want laws based upon their superstitions. My religion (or superstition if you prefer) requires abstaining from the consumption of certain foods. While I had no choice over being “cut,” like most rational people I am selectively observant. I happen to love lobster as well as roast pork on garlic bread with duck sauce. If there is a God I think that he or she has more important things to worry about. The same is true of gay marriage.
After centuries of slavery followed by institutionalized discrimination in the form of segregation; After near genocide of Native Americans; after follies of Vietnam and Iraq; NOW God is going to be pissed off?
Getting back to NOM, according to their blog:
The Daily Signal has highlighted two great videos of marriage champion Ryan Anderson. In the first video, Anderson charitably responds to a gay man’s questions about marriage. Anderson explained how redefining marriage ultimately makes marriage dissolve.
The Daily Signal, by the way, is a blog of the far-right Heritage Foundation. There’s nothing “charitable” about offering Q&A after giving a speech (although Anderson is not particularly good at it in relying on rote over logical analysis). What I continue to find absolutely astonishing is the argument that same-sex marriage has some mystical effect on opposite-sex marriage. According to NOM, if gays can marry then marriage “dissolve[s].”
The bottom line to all of this nonsense is that the Catholic Church does not approve. If I could get Anderson into a quiet corner I might ask him “so fucking what?” The Church doesn’t approve of masturbation (one of my favorite hobbies), condoms and many other things. We don’t write those proscriptions into law.