How homophobes “reason”

Via Brian, the “reasoning” of the author of an anti-gay petition:

At the time of this writing, exactly one week has passed since the Supreme Court of the State of California decreed that homosexuals have a “basic civil right” to marry someone of the same sex. Whether these Golden Gate solons will follow up their remarkable finding with a ruling to the effect that an ass is the same as a horse, it is too early to say; but they have already gone well beyond the sophistical orator of Plato’s dialogue in “confoudning good with evil,” not to mention reason with insanity….

[T]he most important thing to know about the belief that God exists is not that most citizens happen (for now anyway) to share it, that it tends to uphold public morality, and so forth. The most important thing to know about it is that it is true, and demonstrably so. Similarly, the most important thing to know about “same-sex marriage” is not that it has been lawlessly imposed by certain courts even though a majority of citizens happen (again, for now anyway) to oppose it. The most important thing to know about it is that the very idea is a metaphysical absurdity and a moral abomination, and (again) demonstrably so. It is no more up to the courts or “the people” to “define” marriage or to decide whether religion is a good thing than it is up to them to “define” whether the Pythagorean Theorem is true of right triangles, or whether water has the chemical structure H2O. In each case, what is at issue is a matter of objective fact that it is the business of reason to discover rather than democratic procedure to stipulate.

This sort of crap almost makes me want to endorse Rawlsian public reason, just to have one more ground on which to scorn those who utter things like the quoted.

Share


4 Responses to “How homophobes “reason””

  1. salacious Says:

    At least this nonsense is (weakly) falsifiable. In this, it is vastly preferable to most arguments against SSM, mainly the incomprehensible musings about the damage SSM does to our “culture.”

  2. Steve M. Says:

    I don’t get it. Is he saying that on a Twin Earth where the underlying conceptual content of marriage is sufficiently capacious to embrace gay marriage, the referent of a 1950s Twin Earther’s use of the word “marriage” would not be the same as the California Supreme Court’s? Employing the principle of charity, this could just be the worst argument ever for semantic externalism, rather than the rantings of some dick who doesn’t seem to know that “Solon” was a name. I’ll go ahead and guess he’s also the sort of guy who needlessly corrects people on matters of usage.

  3. eric Says:

    The most important thing to know about the belief that Edward Feser is an imbecile is not that most sentient beings happen (for now anyway) to share it, that it tends to uphold public standards of reasoning, and so forth. The most important thing to know about it is that it is true, and demonstrably so.

  4. Steve M. Says:

    Also, perhaps I should deploy this sort of razor-sharp rhetoric in front of judges. Imagine a class certification hearing:

    “Your honor, the most important thing to know about plaintiffs’ putative ‘class’ is that the very idea is a metaphysical absurdity and a moral abomination, and demonstrably so.”

    What’s not to like? After all, rather than demonstrating that its conclusion is correct, the argument points out that its conclusion’s correctness is demonstrable, which is, as we all know, the important thing.

Leave a Comment