The biggest problem with this presentation is Koukl's notion that, in order to favor legal marriage recognition for same-sex couples, one must reject the idea that marriage is "something in particular, a thing in itself". This is a false dilema. Many hold that mariage is "something in particular" while also maintaining that this "something" is not exclusively in the domain of oposite-sex couples.
There's also the reality that Koukl's definition of marriage is out of sync with what the law currently recognizes as marriage. Because his definition is "the union of a man and a woman for a long period of time, in a stable relationship, to make a family. And a family is not the two of them, the family is 3, 4, 5 or more." [...] "and since same sex couples don't make kids, they don't make families that we're concerned with here".
But the legal recognition isn't predicated on an ability to make children. People without the will or capacity to have children are free to marry, and enjoy that legal recognition. Octogenarians and death row inmates among them. You have to split some pretty fine hairs to make the case that octogenarians and death row inmates fit Koukl's definition any better than same-sex couples do.
And that's the problem here. Same-sex couples are capable of doing all the things required of married people. In all relevant areas, they have the same capacities as any other couple who are unable to conceive children together. How can we reasonably justify dolling out different treatment, when their capacities to satisfy Koukl's requirements of marriage are virtually identical ?
Search likes to play games with tenses, indefinite and definite.
So when Koekle says it means "something in particular, a thing in itself" he's pointing not to the idea of being something in particular, but that it actually is something in particular.
Search fallacy #2
The legal recognition is predicated on the reasonable presumption of being able to have children together, that is exactly what "man and woman" means.
Substituting "heterosexuality" for procreative ability is the slight of hand which proves that Search is out to deny of your rights when having children together, and the rights children have to their natural relationships and heritage which are products of those natural relationships.
I didn't comment on anything that Koekle said. I don't even know who that is. B ut here's what Koukl says (for those who have not listened through the video).
@ 04:48 "04:48 "here's the question. Is marriage something in particular? Is it a thing in itself? Does it have a fixed definition if you will? Or, or , or is it just whatever we want to make it? This is what's at stake."
On lawn: "Substituting "heterosexuality" for procreative ability is the slight of hand which proves that Search is out to deny of your rights when having children together" You're the one who introduced the term "heterosexuality" in this conversation. So if anyone is trying to pull a slight of hand by using that term, it would be you.
Lawn: "...he is eilding the discussion of an topic..." Sorry, don't know what "eilding" is. If you care to try again, and explain why this is an issue of concern to you, please feel free,
The next major flaw in Koukl's thesis is his assertion that we can only treat two things equally if we declare them to be identical. Here's what Koukl says about it:
@ 07:45: "That is, you want the government, which is the culture, to affirm that your union, your same-sex union, is exactly the same kind of thing as a heterosexual union. "
@ 10:34: "If same-sex marriage is legitimate marriage, it is only because there is no difference between same-sex union and heterosexual unions."
This is a recurring theme that pops up from time to time in *defenses* of traditional marriage. That two things are only eligible for equal treatment if they are identical to one another. But our lives are full of examples to the contrary, as there are so many things that, although NOT identical, are of equal utility and worth in a given situation.
A Cadillac is not identical to a BMW, but both are equally suited to transporting passengers. Even if some might prefer a Cadillac, and argue that it has superior features, nobody would claim that the existence of differences between the two means that only one of them can be called an automobile.
And a fountain pen is not identical to a ball-point pen, yet both are equally suited to writing. Surely they have different characteristics, and many would argue that a ball-pont pen is superior to the traditional fountain pen. But who would argue that, because they are not identical, that only one deserves to be called a pen?
And even when it comes to marriages, we know that they aren't all identical. Some are passionate, others are less so. Some produce children, some do not. Some result from the attraction and emotions shared between the two who choose to marry, while others begin with no such emotional impetus. Yet nobody asserts that, because they are not identical, that only one of these variations can be called "marriage".
Yet, that's the premise that Koukl presents in his video here. He wants the listener to accept that we can only treat same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions equally if we declare them to be identical to one another. And that's absurd.
Identical is simply the wrong standard to apply, as it doesn't even hold up across the spectrum of what we recognize as marriage among opposite-sex couples. Comparable would be a much better word in this case, because we only need to affirm that same-sex unions are sufficiently comparable to that spectrum of opposite-sex unions in order to contemplate equal treatment under the law.
So, are same-sex coulpes comparable to opposite-sex couples who'd marry? Both couples are ready to unite their lives, form a household, share responsibilities, be there for the other in times of need, share with each other their hopes and dreams and successes and failures.
Now, its true that same-sex couples do not have the capacity to conceive children on their own. But the same is true of many opposite-sex couples who marry. And "having children" is not the litmus test for recognition of marriage - neither in the law nor in the culture. As such, same-sex couples should still be seen as comparable to opposite-sex couples who'd marry.
After, above, affirming that there is no difference, that heterosexuality and homosexuality are the exact same (or in his words, "And that's the problem here. Same-sex couples are capable of doing all the things required of married people.")
Yet now thinks that affirming that similarity is a big flaw.
Search will trample on just about every one of his previous statements, as long as he is back pedaling from something else.
Search actually cannot produce a straight forward and consistent ideology behind marriage. In this case in affirming it is the same thing, it needs to be the same thing, but its a fallacy to assume anyways.
Lawn: "After, above, affirming that there is no difference..." Incorrect. I claim that same-sex couples and opposite sex couples are comparable. I even point out a difference between them as I question its relevance.
And, had you read the analogies, you would see a list of a few other things that, although not identical, share similar capabilities. A fountain pen and a ball point pen. A Cadillac and a BMW. Not identical, but substantially similar. Similar enough.
Please stop lying about what I've written. It is getting tiresome.
Koukl goes on to claim that an equal right to marry already exists. @ 07:00, he presents an imagined dialog to make his point. I'll transcribe a bit here (with emphasis added), labeling Greg's comments GK and the Imaginary Advocate's IA.
[begin transcription] IA: Well, what about my right? GK: What about them?
IA: I want to have equal rights. GK What right does a straight, I'm talking about sexually straight american, have that a gay american does not have?
IA: Well you can get married. GK: So can you.
IA: No I can't. GK: Sure you can. You can do exactly what I can do. I can marry the eligible member of the opposite sex that I want. And so can you. You don't want to? OK. Doesn't mean you don't have the right that I have. [pause transcription]
And that last line reveals the flaw in Koukl's assertion. He wrongly states that gays and straights can do the exact same thing: marry "the eligible member of the opposite sex that I want". And while its pretty clear who that might mean for the heterosexual majority, who would fit this description for the rest of us? Who would be that "eligible member of the opposite sex" that a gay man or lesbian wants?
Koukl is acknowledging that his right allows him to pick somebody that he wants to marry. Limiting the choice to a member of the opposite sex essentially amounts to giving straights the right to choose somebody they want, while requiring gays & lesbians to choose somebody that they likely do not want.
And here's how Koukl tries to excuse that inequality:
[resume transcription] IA: Well, I want to marry who I love. GK: Well, I can't do that. I can't indiscriminately marry whoever I love. [end transcription]
Koukl has the gall to claim that he can't marry the person whom he loves? He's just told us "I can marry the eligible member of the opposite sex that I want". And now he's trying to tell us that he cannot? How does that work?
Well, according to Koukl, he isn't free to choose indiscriminately. But he's just changed the subject from the requirement to choose somebody of the opposite sex, to the requirement that they be eligible.
But who asked for the ability to choose indiscriminately? That's not the right that advocates of same-marriage seek. We're not looking to marry anyone of our choosing, indiscriminately, and without limitation. We only seek to choose somebody that we want from those who are eligible to marry. That would be an equal right to do exactly what Greg is doing: marrying the eligible person that he wants.
_He wrongly states that gays and straights can do the exact same thing: marry "the eligible member of the opposite sex that I want". And while its pretty clear who that might mean for the heterosexual majority, who would fit this description for the rest of us?_
While Koekle does a good job of presenting the basis of marriage along natural, biological compatibility, established in very real ways of observation (i.e. what it takes to create a baby together, the biological understanding of gender as reproduction) Search can't leave the grounds of the psychological desire for, not companionship, not mutual trust, but sexual desire.
He is, in essence, continually conflating the biological reality and the needs each person has in it, with only psychological need which no one actually says has to be a part of marriage.
But not only is that a bad conflation, it is a sloppy one.
Because as he disregarded procreation earlier as a purpose in marriage, he emphatically claims the psychological sexual orientation "want" is the purpose.
He disregards procreation because, "But the legal recognition isn't predicated on an ability to make children." And even so, the legal recognition isn't predicated on the sexual "want" either.
But perhaps the thing that is most lost in such a slight if hand, is the responsibility. The sexual want to be with someone is entirely different than a promise and responsibility you have for someone that can last much longer than the sexual "want". A want for yourself. A responsibility is what you are ready to give to others.
And we already have read what Search wants to do with our social, legal, recognition of the responsibility that people have just because they can create children together. He wants a marriage ideal that cuts out anything that a homosexual couple can't do.
Lawn: "Because as he disregarded procreation earlier as a purpose in marriage, he emphatically claims the psychological sexual orientation "want" is the purpose." Incorrect. Koukl introduced the idea of "want" when he states (shortly after 07:00) "Sure you can. You can do exactly what I can do. I can marry the eligible member of the opposite sex that I want. And so can you.".
Koukl wrongly states that gays and straights can do the exact same thing: marry "the eligible member of the opposite sex that I want".
Lawn: "And we already have read what Search wants to do with our social, legal, recognition of the responsibility that people have just because they can create children together. He wants a marriage ideal that cuts out anything that a homosexual couple can't do." Incorrect. I want to acknowledge that the social and legal recognition of marriage already includes couples who can and will (or might) have children, as well as those who lack the capacity or will to do so. All of Lawn's huffing and puffing about something being "cut out" is blind to this reality of the status quo. The fact is that we are not faced with he either/or dilema that Lawn wants us to believe in.
Lawn: "So exactly what acknowledgement are you expecting?" I already addressed that. I wrote: I want to acknowledge that the social and legal recognition of marriage already includes couples who can and will (or might) have children, as well as those who lack the capacity or will to do so..
Marriages happen now between people who cannot or choose not to have children. And this does not cut out any recognition (or protection) from those couples whose marriages result in children. There is no dilema here.
Lawn: "Do you know a group of people being told that they can't marry someone of the opposite gender that they want to?" Irrelevant, because the question isn't whether or not such a thing is possible, it is whether it amounts to being exactly the same thing, as Koukl asserts.
Lawn: "What's wrong with Koukl's statement, exactly?" I already addressed that: I wrote Koukl is acknowledging that his right allows him to pick somebody that he wants to marry. Limiting the choice to a member of the opposite sex essentially amounts to giving straights the right to choose somebody they want, while requiring gays & lesbians to choose somebody that they likely do not want. (at lease not in the same way)
Thus, the right in question is not exactly the same thing, is it?
_And this does not cut out any recognition (or protection) from those couples whose marriages result in children. There is no dilema here._
You are right, in cases where they have the capacity that can happen even if they don't want it to, it doesn't cause a dilemma.
In cases where the couple has a disability, it doesn't cause a dilemma.
But where it requires removing "man and woman" from the definition of marriage, is a dilemma.
Where it removes procreation as the core of marriage, it is a dilemma.
_Lawn: "Do you know a group of people being told that they can't marry someone of the opposite gender that they want to?" Irrelevant_
Well, if you are claiming a group of people are being told they can't marry someone of the opposite gender (e.g. "requiring gays & lesbians to choose somebody that they likely do not want"), then it is up to you to say who that group is.
On Lawn: "Well, if you are claiming a group of people are being told they can't marry someone of the opposite gender..." Another claim I never made that you've conjured in your imagination.
_Another claim I never made that you've conjured in your imagination_
Well, if you are claiming a group of people are being told they can't marry someone of the opposite gender (e.g. "requiring gays & lesbians to choose somebody that they likely do not want"), then it is up to you to say who that group is.
Just a couple more thoughts on this video. First, on the harms that follow from legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Here are a few that Koukl cites:
@ 08:25 "By getting the government that is the representative of the people to call their relationship a marriage (which its not, even when the government gives them a license) um, they will get the respect and affirmation that all heterosexual couples get." And is there a reason we should object to human beings getting respect? Koukl doesn't provide any.
@ 09:20 "Is [marriage] anything? And it doesn't matter, you can mix and match, men and women, or mean and men and women and women, and that's okay because there's no difference and after all marriage is a malleable thing because its not tied to any natural - uuuuum - function of humanity. Well, then, same-sex marriage is for you. But you can't stop there. Because if marriage is anything you want to make it, then its any thing you want to make it. If there's no natural teleology then there are no restrictions, there are no limits. So, uh, polygamy, polyamory, poly, there's a couple different pollies that relate here, I get em mixed up you know. but, what, you know, rub-a-dub-dub three men in a tub and a potted plant and a spaniel - why not?"
@ 12:00 "What't he harm? The harm is once you do this you're saying that marriage isn't anything in particular and then marriage is out the window. Its a completely relativistic, subjectivistic kind of thing, it is a social construction, it is whatever. And whenever marriage becomes whatever then people quit getting married". A) no state or country that offers the legal recognition of marriage to same-sex couples has slipped down the slope to allowing "rub-a-dub-dub three men in a tub and a potted plant and a spaniel" - nor any of the other combination Koukl warns about. B) legal recognition of same-sex marriage does not equate to *marriage is anything*. We can still hold that marris is something in particular, without insisting that this "something" is exclusively in the domain of opposite-sex couples. C) Where same-sex marriage is legal, the marriage rate of opposite-sex couples does not decline. ( according to a recent Portland State University study )
@ 12:18 "I mean, this started in the 60s. I don't need that piece of paper. Look at it, if you don't need that piece of paper, why do the same-sex couples need it so badly now? Because in the 60s and since then people have lost respect for the institution and so they've abandoned it. Now, has that been good for culture, and particularly good for children, or bad for children? I'll let you decide. I think the answer is pretty obvious". Koukl presents the idea that the trend of the 60s to reject marriage may have been bad for children, and leaves it to the listener to decide. But even if we take it as a given that its bad for children when adults don't want to marry, what does that tell us about the outcome when adults do want to marry, which is the case among same-sex couples seeking that opportunity? If its bad when fewer adults aspire to marry, perhaps its good when more adults have that aspiration.
@ 12:45 "But anything that causes instability in a natural structure like family is gonna hurt kids in the long run." Yet Koukl presents nothing to support the idea that legal recognition of same-sex marriage causes instability in the family. If anything, it adds stability tin those households headed by same-sex couples and raising children!
When Koekle makes a point that respect is something that the government cannot guarantee, Search questions back, "And is there a reason we should object to human beings getting respect?"
There is no question about if human beings get respect or not in what Koekle wrote, it is clear that respect is for everyone. Since Koekle didn't claim someone should not get respect, it isn't honest for Search to presume he did and challenge as if Koekle did anyway.
Search usually pulls this dishonest trick out when he wants to sound challenging. But the baseless nature of it just makes him sound barky.
Lawn: "Koekle makes a point that respect is something that the government cannot guarantee". Citation, please. Here's what heard @ 08:25: "By getting the government that is the representative of the people to call their relationship a marriage (which its not, even when the government gives them a license) um, they will get the respect and affirmation that all heterosexual couples get.". Any quote to support your claim to the contrary?
Lawn: "There is no question about if human beings get respect or not in what Koekle wrote" You do realize that I'm commenting on something that Greg Koukl said (see video above), not something Koekle wrote. If you would like to discuss something Koekle wrote, whoever this Koekle might be, please provide a link to it.
And here's what Koukl says on the topic - starting with his clear statement that this is a respect not currently afforded to same-sex couples. It is quite clear that Koukl thinks this respect is not for everyone.
On Lawn: "Go ahead, quote the three sentences before and after that quote."
If you're suggesting that I should transcribe seven more sentences of this Koukl video, no thank yo, I've done quite enough already. If there is something from the video that you wish to quote, and perhaps make some point about its relevance, please feel free to do so. But don't expect me to hold up your end of the conversation for you.
_But don't expect me to hold up your end of the conversation for you._
If you wish. Just to make sure, you are saying you don't know where Koekl says anything that suggests "respect is something that the government cannot guarantee". And that you don't even see that in anything surrounding where you pulled that quote :-D
Lawn: "Just to make sure, you are saying you don't know where Koekl says anything that suggests "respect is something that the government cannot guarantee"." Incorrect. I clearly never said anything remotely close to that.
You seem to htink the something Koukl said suggests "respect is something that the government cannot guarantee" - yet you can't provide any quotes to that effect? Curious.
Also, please explain why it would be relevant to this conversation whether or not respect is "guaranteed".
Me: >>>> "Koekle makes a point that respect is something that the government cannot guarantee".
Search before: >>> "Citation, please. [...] Any quote to support your claim[..]?
Me: >> "Just to make sure, you are saying you don't know where Koekl says anything that suggests "respect is something that the government cannot guarantee"."
Search now: > "Incorrect. I clearly never said anything remotely close to that."
LOL...
_you can't provide any quotes to that effect?_
And why do I need to? You never said anything like you "don't know where Koekl says anything that suggests 'respect is something that the government cannot guarantee'"
Apparently you do know where Koukl says that, which is what I suspected all along. You were asking me to provide something you already knew existed.
You claim that Koeke [sic] makes a point that government canot guarantee respect.
If that's what the man thinks, he must have said something to that effect, correct?
But you fail to provide a single substantiating quote to back up that claim. For all I know you heard something in that video (but I have no way of knowing what), conjured up some different concept in your imagination, and spit it back out as this "respect is something the government cannot guarantee".
Without a citation & quote, we have no way to know what bit of that vide you're interpreting to mean "respect is something the government cannot guarantee" - and, thus, no reason to accept your interpretation.
And you fail to show any relevance to this point anyways.
_But you fail to provide a single substantiating quote to back up that claim._
Me: >> "Just to make sure, you are saying you don't know where Koekl says anything that suggests "respect is something that the government cannot guarantee"."
Search now: > "Incorrect. I clearly never said anything remotely close to that."
On Lawn: > "Just to make sure, you are saying you don't know where Koekl says anything that suggests "respect is something that the government cannot guarantee"."
Search: > "Incorrect. I clearly never said anything remotely close to that."
Not sure why you are having such a hard time understanding this, but I'll try to explain it again.
What I don't know is this: what are Koukl's statements that you think equate to the concept that "respect is something the government cannot guarantee". Without citation & quote, I can only guess which of Koukl's statements you've interpreted to mean "respect is something the government cannot guarantee".
And since you apparently know which statements you think equate to the concept that "respect is something the government cannot guarantee", it makes much more sense for you to fill us in, rather than leave us to guess. Simple.
Also - please explain why it would be relevant to this conversation whether or not respect is "guaranteed".
But seriously, why is it that you keep backing into these same corners?
You deny you ever said anything remotely close to "[I] don't know where Koekl says anything that suggests "respect is something that the government cannot guarantee".
So you know I'm right, but don't know if I know I'm right :-D
Lawn: And you wonder why I don't take you seriously... No, I wonder why you have such a tough time reading and understanding. I plainly admitted to what I don't know: what are Koukl's statements that you think equate to the concept that "respect is something the government cannot guarantee". Read that slowly, and you'll see the problem: I don't know what you think (because you didn't disclose that).
Lawn: "Koekle makes a point that respect is something that the government cannot guarantee". [...] "Go ahead, quote the three sentences before and after that quote [@8:25] :-D" As I mentioned before, you really should have provided these quotes to support the point you were trying to make. And since I obviously see that as the reasonable standard here, and I now wish to make a point.
Lawn's is incorrect. Koukl's comments do not make the point that "respect is something the government cannot guarantee" in "the three sentences before and after" the quote I provided. See for yourself. (sentence numbers added to correspond to Lawn's "three sentences before and after" claim)
Koukl @ 08:03: [begin quote]
[-3] This is about a new respect.
[-2] And, and , and, I'm not saying this with animosity, I'm just simply trying to observe what's going on.
[-1] This is a group of people who, who has the same rights, they just don't have the same respect.
[0] They don't get the affirmation, and by getting the government that is the representative of the people to call their relationship a marriage (which its not, even when the government gives them a license) um, they will get the respect and affirmation that all heterosexual couples get.
[1] Which is exactly what they're after.
[2] So, people in the culture, now I'm not getting' biblical on ya', I'm not getting' theistic on ya' I'm not even getting' moral on ya' right now.
[3] I'm just saying' You guys, in our collective culture, you've got to ask yourself a question.
[4] Are same-sex unions exactly the same kinds of things as heterosexual unions? [end quote]
I see in that section of Koukls presentation the comments that "this is about a new respect" - and that same-sex couples "will get the respect and affirmation that all heterosexual couples get". Koukl could have written *might get* or *could get*, but he wrote "will get". He's stating that it is a certainty.
Koukl makes no statement that *respect is something that the government cannot guarantee*. He's practically saying the opposite. So On Lawn, how did you get out of that segment the opposite of what Koukl states outright?
And some final odds & ends relating to this video.
@ 00:38 Koukl says "He's wearing a suit and a tile. He's dressed like Mr. Conventional. He's got short cut hair, there's another fellow like him there" This one is worth listening just to catch Koul's inflection. He sounds incredulous that a gay man might dress conservatively! Surprise, Greg, homosexuals don't all fit into whatever extremes or stereotypes you might carry in your mind.
@ 01:32 "By the way, its same-sex marriage, not gay marriage. Because the government doesn't care about your sexual preference, it cares about your gender." Koukl seem so adamant about this terminology, because the government doesn't care about your sexual preference. ( sexual orientation would have been a more useful choice of words here ). Yet the remainder of his presentation is peppered with "heterosexual" this and "heterosexual" that. it strikes me as a disingenuous complaint, or at least a double standard.
@ 02:26 "I realized I was going to be forced to have to talk about this" Forced? Come on. He is speaking on this topic by his own choice. He may have felt compelled, but he is definitely not being forced.
@ 02:49 "But it is hard to deal with when having conversations with other people because it just sounds bigoted and mean spirited - even if you're not acting bigoted and mean spirited - when you're denying the other guy his rights" What else would it seem like when you're denying somebody their rights?
@ 07:40 "No, what you wan't isn't a special right for you, you just want a new right for everyone." @ 08:02 "So this is not about new rights." Koukl contradicts himself in the span of less than 30 seconds, claiming that this is about a new right, but it is not about new rights?
@ 11:10 "Now my answer is, I think marriage is a particular thing. It doesn't mean I'm mean to gay people. It just means I'm making an observation about the nature of the world that's accurate. that's all. Gay people want to live together, share their goods, whatever, nobody's stopping them". Not entirely correct, according to this report which shows widespread anti-gay housing discrimination. And as far as Koukl's "observation about the nature of the world that's accurate" ... while we would need some evidence or corroboration in order to assess the accuracy of his observation, we need nothing of the kind to recognize it as being subjective. That is, it is an explanation only of the things that Koukl has observed, as seen from his perspective. It would be more accurate to call it an opinion, rather than an accurate observation.
On Lawn: "Your just trying to take offense at something he said." Why would you assume that I'm offended? I haven't used that word in nay of its variations.
But listen to what Koukl says about these conservatively dressed men. "He's wearing a suit and a tile. He's dressed like Mr. Conventional. He's got short cut hair, there's another fellow like him there" [...] "What I thought, when I heard that, is, I thought what a brilliant way to advance your view. "
What Koukl is suggesting is that these gentlemen don't normally dress conservatively, and that their appearance is merely a facade for strategic purposes. Becuase that is what he tells us he thought of their attire and grooming .. that it was "a brilliant way to advance your view" .
_that their appearance is merely a facade for strategic purposes_
Perhaps a facade, perhaps not. I don't get that it would necessarily be a facade, just that the appearance of the presenter is a foil against the message they give, hence "advance your view"
In a (roughly) 4-minute video dedicated to discussing the harms to society of same-sex marriage, the best Koukl can come up with is a list of things other than same-sex marriage that he considers harmful! In four minutes, Koukl fails to mention a single harm to society of same-sex marriage in and of itself. He even says: "Am I going to be hurt 'tomorrow' with some same-sex couple living down the street or across town or something like that? And the answer is, of course, in that sense, probably nothing".
He goes on to suggest that legalizing same-sex marriage would inevitably lead to legal recognition (?) of polygamous and bestial relationships. Here's how he proposes that will happen:
1) He lays out the false dilema that legalizing same-sex marriage is forcing the question of whether marriage is a thing in particular or is it anything you want it to be. Either you accept that marriage reflects the "natural teleology" of bringing men and women together to have children, or you must accept that "there is no natural teleology or natural end to marriage or family and they can be anything you want them to be". But here's the problem with this pose: there remain conclusions we can reach other than the two he is trying to force us to choose between." He has presented a false dilema, because we might also recognize that same-sex pairing - which occurs throughout nature - also serves a natural purpose. Quite possibly even the very same natural purpose that opposite-sex pairing serves: creating the best situation for the production of the next generation. So if the natural teleology of marriage centers on producing & preparing the next generation, and same-sex pairing also serves that purpose, we are not faced with the either/or question Koukl offers. That "if" is a pretty deep topic, and probably a subject for elsewhere, but for our purposes here its enough to accept that it is a debatable possibility. That kind of kills Koukls argument.
2) Even if you accept Koukl's claim that legal recognition of same-sex couples amounts to redefining marriage "any way we want", there's no basis to believe that we would be compelled to redefine it in any way that we don't want. And whether "we" is a majority of voters, or a majority of elected representatives, or a majority of Supreme Court Justices, changes in this arena always come down to a majority opinion. Besides, the case for same-sex marriage isn't simply about what "we want"! Its more about whether the exclusion of same-sex couples is justifiable, particularly given the substantial similarities between their relationships and those of opposite-sex couples and the absence of harms to society or others of recognizing same-sex unions. The same case cannot be made for polygamy or bestiality.
Legal recognition of same-sex unions can happen, based on the characteristics of that type of union. But any theoretical consideration of any other type of relationship, upon the observation of different characteristics, would lead to a different conclusion. Its not the all-or-nothing package that Koukl proposes.
The biggest problem with this presentation is Koukl's notion that, in order to favor legal marriage recognition for same-sex couples, one must reject the idea that marriage is "something in particular, a thing in itself". This is a false dilema. Many hold that mariage is "something in particular" while also maintaining that this "something" is not exclusively in the domain of oposite-sex couples.
ReplyDeleteThere's also the reality that Koukl's definition of marriage is out of sync with what the law currently recognizes as marriage. Because his definition is "the union of a man and a woman for a long period of time, in a stable relationship, to make a family. And a family is not the two of them, the family is 3, 4, 5 or more." [...] "and since same sex couples don't make kids, they don't make families that we're concerned with here".
But the legal recognition isn't predicated on an ability to make children. People without the will or capacity to have children are free to marry, and enjoy that legal recognition. Octogenarians and death row inmates among them. You have to split some pretty fine hairs to make the case that octogenarians and death row inmates fit Koukl's definition any better than same-sex couples do.
And that's the problem here. Same-sex couples are capable of doing all the things required of married people. In all relevant areas, they have the same capacities as any other couple who are unable to conceive children together. How can we reasonably justify dolling out different treatment, when their capacities to satisfy Koukl's requirements of marriage are virtually identical ?
Search fallacy #1...
DeleteSearch likes to play games with tenses, indefinite and definite.
So when Koekle says it means "something in particular, a thing in itself" he's pointing not to the idea of being something in particular, but that it actually is something in particular.
Search fallacy #2
The legal recognition is predicated on the reasonable presumption of being able to have children together, that is exactly what "man and woman" means.
Substituting "heterosexuality" for procreative ability is the slight of hand which proves that Search is out to deny of your rights when having children together, and the rights children have to their natural relationships and heritage which are products of those natural relationships.
I didn't comment on anything that Koekle said. I don't even know who that is. B ut here's what Koukl says (for those who have not listened through the video).
Delete@ 04:48 "04:48 "here's the question. Is marriage something in particular? Is it a thing in itself? Does it have a fixed definition if you will? Or, or , or is it just whatever we want to make it? This is what's at stake."
On lawn: "Substituting "heterosexuality" for procreative ability is the slight of hand which proves that Search is out to deny of your rights when having children together"
You're the one who introduced the term "heterosexuality" in this conversation. So if anyone is trying to pull a slight of hand by using that term, it would be you.
_B ut here's what Koukl says_
DeleteAs is always true, a post complaining about spelling will have a spelling mistake too :-D
_You're the one who introduced the term "heterosexuality" in this conversation._
Wow, what a way to play games with a conversation.
Not Search fallacy #1, "Search likes to play games with tenses, indefinite and definite."
Here he is eliding the discussion of an topic with the definite term that denotes that topic
LOL...
Lawn: "...he is eilding the discussion of an topic..."
DeleteSorry, don't know what "eilding" is. If you care to try again, and explain why this is an issue of concern to you, please feel free,
The next major flaw in Koukl's thesis is his assertion that we can only treat two things equally if we declare them to be identical. Here's what Koukl says about it:
ReplyDelete@ 07:45: "That is, you want the government, which is the culture, to affirm that your union, your same-sex union, is exactly the same kind of thing as a heterosexual union. "
@ 10:34: "If same-sex marriage is legitimate marriage, it is only because there is no difference between same-sex union and heterosexual unions."
This is a recurring theme that pops up from time to time in *defenses* of traditional marriage. That two things are only eligible for equal treatment if they are identical to one another. But our lives are full of examples to the contrary, as there are so many things that, although NOT identical, are of equal utility and worth in a given situation.
A Cadillac is not identical to a BMW, but both are equally suited to transporting passengers. Even if some might prefer a Cadillac, and argue that it has superior features, nobody would claim that the existence of differences between the two means that only one of them can be called an automobile.
And a fountain pen is not identical to a ball-point pen, yet both are equally suited to writing. Surely they have different characteristics, and many would argue that a ball-pont pen is superior to the traditional fountain pen. But who would argue that, because they are not identical, that only one deserves to be called a pen?
And even when it comes to marriages, we know that they aren't all identical. Some are passionate, others are less so. Some produce children, some do not. Some result from the attraction and emotions shared between the two who choose to marry, while others begin with no such emotional impetus. Yet nobody asserts that, because they are not identical, that only one of these variations can be called "marriage".
Yet, that's the premise that Koukl presents in his video here. He wants the listener to accept that we can only treat same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions equally if we declare them to be identical to one another. And that's absurd.
Identical is simply the wrong standard to apply, as it doesn't even hold up across the spectrum of what we recognize as marriage among opposite-sex couples. Comparable would be a much better word in this case, because we only need to affirm that same-sex unions are sufficiently comparable to that spectrum of opposite-sex unions in order to contemplate equal treatment under the law.
So, are same-sex coulpes comparable to opposite-sex couples who'd marry? Both couples are ready to unite their lives, form a household, share responsibilities, be there for the other in times of need, share with each other their hopes and dreams and successes and failures.
Now, its true that same-sex couples do not have the capacity to conceive children on their own. But the same is true of many opposite-sex couples who marry. And "having children" is not the litmus test for recognition of marriage - neither in the law nor in the culture. As such, same-sex couples should still be seen as comparable to opposite-sex couples who'd marry.
Search Fallacy #3... Hypocrisy...
DeleteAfter, above, affirming that there is no difference, that heterosexuality and homosexuality are the exact same (or in his words, "And that's the problem here. Same-sex couples are capable of doing all the things required of married people.")
Yet now thinks that affirming that similarity is a big flaw.
Search will trample on just about every one of his previous statements, as long as he is back pedaling from something else.
Search actually cannot produce a straight forward and consistent ideology behind marriage. In this case in affirming it is the same thing, it needs to be the same thing, but its a fallacy to assume anyways.
LOL...
Lawn: "After, above, affirming that there is no difference..."
DeleteIncorrect. I claim that same-sex couples and opposite sex couples are comparable. I even point out a difference between them as I question its relevance.
And, had you read the analogies, you would see a list of a few other things that, although not identical, share similar capabilities. A fountain pen and a ball point pen. A Cadillac and a BMW. Not identical, but substantially similar. Similar enough.
Please stop lying about what I've written. It is getting tiresome.
_I even point out a difference between them as I question its relevance._
DeleteAnd there is where Search admits as much as denies doing something.
_you would see a list of a few other things that, although not identical, share similar capabilities_
And then admits to doing it again :-D
Koukl goes on to claim that an equal right to marry already exists. @ 07:00, he presents an imagined dialog to make his point. I'll transcribe a bit here (with emphasis added), labeling Greg's comments GK and the Imaginary Advocate's IA.
ReplyDelete[begin transcription]
IA: Well, what about my right?
GK: What about them?
IA: I want to have equal rights.
GK What right does a straight, I'm talking about sexually straight american, have that a gay american does not have?
IA: Well you can get married.
GK: So can you.
IA: No I can't.
GK: Sure you can. You can do exactly what I can do. I can marry the eligible member of the opposite sex that I want. And so can you. You don't want to? OK. Doesn't mean you don't have the right that I have.
[pause transcription]
And that last line reveals the flaw in Koukl's assertion. He wrongly states that gays and straights can do the exact same thing: marry "the eligible member of the opposite sex that I want". And while its pretty clear who that might mean for the heterosexual majority, who would fit this description for the rest of us? Who would be that "eligible member of the opposite sex" that a gay man or lesbian wants?
Koukl is acknowledging that his right allows him to pick somebody that he wants to marry. Limiting the choice to a member of the opposite sex essentially amounts to giving straights the right to choose somebody they want, while requiring gays & lesbians to choose somebody that they likely do not want.
And here's how Koukl tries to excuse that inequality:
[resume transcription]
IA: Well, I want to marry who I love.
GK: Well, I can't do that. I can't indiscriminately marry whoever I love.
[end transcription]
Koukl has the gall to claim that he can't marry the person whom he loves? He's just told us "I can marry the eligible member of the opposite sex that I want". And now he's trying to tell us that he cannot? How does that work?
Well, according to Koukl, he isn't free to choose indiscriminately. But he's just changed the subject from the requirement to choose somebody of the opposite sex, to the requirement that they be eligible.
But who asked for the ability to choose indiscriminately? That's not the right that advocates of same-marriage seek. We're not looking to marry anyone of our choosing, indiscriminately, and without limitation. We only seek to choose somebody that we want from those who are eligible to marry. That would be an equal right to do exactly what Greg is doing: marrying the eligible person that he wants.
Search fallacy #4, Ampibology and conflation...
Delete_He wrongly states that gays and straights can do the exact same thing: marry "the eligible member of the opposite sex that I want". And while its pretty clear who that might mean for the heterosexual majority, who would fit this description for the rest of us?_
While Koekle does a good job of presenting the basis of marriage along natural, biological compatibility, established in very real ways of observation (i.e. what it takes to create a baby together, the biological understanding of gender as reproduction) Search can't leave the grounds of the psychological desire for, not companionship, not mutual trust, but sexual desire.
He is, in essence, continually conflating the biological reality and the needs each person has in it, with only psychological need which no one actually says has to be a part of marriage.
But not only is that a bad conflation, it is a sloppy one.
Because as he disregarded procreation earlier as a purpose in marriage, he emphatically claims the psychological sexual orientation "want" is the purpose.
He disregards procreation because, "But the legal recognition isn't predicated on an ability to make children." And even so, the legal recognition isn't predicated on the sexual "want" either.
But perhaps the thing that is most lost in such a slight if hand, is the responsibility. The sexual want to be with someone is entirely different than a promise and responsibility you have for someone that can last much longer than the sexual "want". A want for yourself. A responsibility is what you are ready to give to others.
And we already have read what Search wants to do with our social, legal, recognition of the responsibility that people have just because they can create children together. He wants a marriage ideal that cuts out anything that a homosexual couple can't do.
Lawn: "Because as he disregarded procreation earlier as a purpose in marriage, he emphatically claims the psychological sexual orientation "want" is the purpose."
DeleteIncorrect. Koukl introduced the idea of "want" when he states (shortly after 07:00) "Sure you can. You can do exactly what I can do. I can marry the eligible member of the opposite sex that I want. And so can you.".
Koukl wrongly states that gays and straights can do the exact same thing: marry "the eligible member of the opposite sex that I want".
Lawn: "And we already have read what Search wants to do with our social, legal, recognition of the responsibility that people have just because they can create children together. He wants a marriage ideal that cuts out anything that a homosexual couple can't do."
Incorrect. I want to acknowledge that the social and legal recognition of marriage already includes couples who can and will (or might) have children, as well as those who lack the capacity or will to do so. All of Lawn's huffing and puffing about something being "cut out" is blind to this reality of the status quo. The fact is that we are not faced with he either/or dilema that Lawn wants us to believe in.
_Koukl wrongly states that gays and straights can do the exact same thing: marry "the eligible member of the opposite sex that I want"._
DeleteWait a minute...
Do you know a group of people being told that they can't marry someone of the opposite gender that they want to?
What's wrong with Koukl's statement, exactly?
_as well as those who lack the capacity or will to do so._
Acknowledge that exactly how?
Everyone I know acknowledges that some people suffer from a disability.
But that doesn't acknowledge homosexuals because they aren't disabled.
So exactly what acknowledgement are you expecting?
Lawn: "So exactly what acknowledgement are you expecting?"
DeleteI already addressed that. I wrote: I want to acknowledge that the social and legal recognition of marriage already includes couples who can and will (or might) have children, as well as those who lack the capacity or will to do so..
Marriages happen now between people who cannot or choose not to have children. And this does not cut out any recognition (or protection) from those couples whose marriages result in children. There is no dilema here.
Lawn: "Do you know a group of people being told that they can't marry someone of the opposite gender that they want to?"
Irrelevant, because the question isn't whether or not such a thing is possible, it is whether it amounts to being exactly the same thing, as Koukl asserts.
Lawn: "What's wrong with Koukl's statement, exactly?"
I already addressed that: I wrote Koukl is acknowledging that his right allows him to pick somebody that he wants to marry. Limiting the choice to a member of the opposite sex essentially amounts to giving straights the right to choose somebody they want, while requiring gays & lesbians to choose somebody that they likely do not want. (at lease not in the same way)
Thus, the right in question is not exactly the same thing, is it?
_And this does not cut out any recognition (or protection) from those couples whose marriages result in children. There is no dilema here._
DeleteYou are right, in cases where they have the capacity that can happen even if they don't want it to, it doesn't cause a dilemma.
In cases where the couple has a disability, it doesn't cause a dilemma.
But where it requires removing "man and woman" from the definition of marriage, is a dilemma.
Where it removes procreation as the core of marriage, it is a dilemma.
_Lawn: "Do you know a group of people being told that they can't marry someone of the opposite gender that they want to?"
Irrelevant_
Well, if you are claiming a group of people are being told they can't marry someone of the opposite gender (e.g. "requiring gays & lesbians to choose somebody that they likely do not want"), then it is up to you to say who that group is.
On Lawn: "Well, if you are claiming a group of people are being told they can't marry someone of the opposite gender..."
DeleteAnother claim I never made that you've conjured in your imagination.
_Another claim I never made that you've conjured in your imagination_
DeleteWell, if you are claiming a group of people are being told they can't marry someone of the opposite gender (e.g. "requiring gays & lesbians to choose somebody that they likely do not want"), then it is up to you to say who that group is.
Where did you get the idea that I'm claiming that?
DeleteJust a couple more thoughts on this video. First, on the harms that follow from legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Here are a few that Koukl cites:
ReplyDelete@ 08:25 "By getting the government that is the representative of the people to call their relationship a marriage (which its not, even when the government gives them a license) um, they will get the respect and affirmation that all heterosexual couples get."
And is there a reason we should object to human beings getting respect? Koukl doesn't provide any.
@ 09:20 "Is [marriage] anything? And it doesn't matter, you can mix and match, men and women, or mean and men and women and women, and that's okay because there's no difference and after all marriage is a malleable thing because its not tied to any natural - uuuuum - function of humanity. Well, then, same-sex marriage is for you. But you can't stop there. Because if marriage is anything you want to make it, then its any thing you want to make it. If there's no natural teleology then there are no restrictions, there are no limits. So, uh, polygamy, polyamory, poly, there's a couple different pollies that relate here, I get em mixed up you know. but, what, you know, rub-a-dub-dub three men in a tub and a potted plant and a spaniel - why not?"
@ 12:00 "What't he harm? The harm is once you do this you're saying that marriage isn't anything in particular and then marriage is out the window. Its a completely relativistic, subjectivistic kind of thing, it is a social construction, it is whatever. And whenever marriage becomes whatever then people quit getting married".
A) no state or country that offers the legal recognition of marriage to same-sex couples has slipped down the slope to allowing "rub-a-dub-dub three men in a tub and a potted plant and a spaniel" - nor any of the other combination Koukl warns about.
B) legal recognition of same-sex marriage does not equate to *marriage is anything*. We can still hold that marris is something in particular, without insisting that this "something" is exclusively in the domain of opposite-sex couples.
C) Where same-sex marriage is legal, the marriage rate of opposite-sex couples does not decline. ( according to a recent Portland State University study )
@ 12:18 "I mean, this started in the 60s. I don't need that piece of paper. Look at it, if you don't need that piece of paper, why do the same-sex couples need it so badly now? Because in the 60s and since then people have lost respect for the institution and so they've abandoned it. Now, has that been good for culture, and particularly good for children, or bad for children? I'll let you decide. I think the answer is pretty obvious".
Koukl presents the idea that the trend of the 60s to reject marriage may have been bad for children, and leaves it to the listener to decide. But even if we take it as a given that its bad for children when adults don't want to marry, what does that tell us about the outcome when adults do want to marry, which is the case among same-sex couples seeking that opportunity? If its bad when fewer adults aspire to marry, perhaps its good when more adults have that aspiration.
@ 12:45 "But anything that causes instability in a natural structure like family is gonna hurt kids in the long run."
Yet Koukl presents nothing to support the idea that legal recognition of same-sex marriage causes instability in the family. If anything, it adds stability tin those households headed by same-sex couples and raising children!
Search Fallacy #5, missing the real point...
DeleteWhen Koekle makes a point that respect is something that the government cannot guarantee, Search questions back, "And is there a reason we should object to human beings getting respect?"
There is no question about if human beings get respect or not in what Koekle wrote, it is clear that respect is for everyone. Since Koekle didn't claim someone should not get respect, it isn't honest for Search to presume he did and challenge as if Koekle did anyway.
Search usually pulls this dishonest trick out when he wants to sound challenging. But the baseless nature of it just makes him sound barky.
Lawn: "Koekle makes a point that respect is something that the government cannot guarantee".
DeleteCitation, please. Here's what heard @ 08:25: "By getting the government that is the representative of the people to call their relationship a marriage (which its not, even when the government gives them a license) um, they will get the respect and affirmation that all heterosexual couples get.".
Any quote to support your claim to the contrary?
Lawn: "There is no question about if human beings get respect or not in what Koekle wrote"
You do realize that I'm commenting on something that Greg Koukl said (see video above), not something Koekle wrote. If you would like to discuss something Koekle wrote, whoever this Koekle might be, please provide a link to it.
And here's what Koukl says on the topic - starting with his clear statement that this is a respect not currently afforded to same-sex couples. It is quite clear that Koukl thinks this respect is not for everyone.
_Any quote to support your claim to the contrary?_
DeleteLOL...
Go ahead, quote the three sentences before and after that quote :-D
_starting with his clear statement that this is a respect not currently afforded to same-sex couples._
Which doesn't contradict what I said.
Oh, and your nitpicking on said vs wrote is noted... LOL...
On Lawn: "Go ahead, quote the three sentences before and after that quote."
DeleteIf you're suggesting that I should transcribe seven more sentences of this Koukl video, no thank yo, I've done quite enough already. If there is something from the video that you wish to quote, and perhaps make some point about its relevance, please feel free to do so. But don't expect me to hold up your end of the conversation for you.
_no thank yo_
DeleteLOL...
_But don't expect me to hold up your end of the conversation for you._
If you wish. Just to make sure, you are saying you don't know where Koekl says anything that suggests "respect is something that the government cannot guarantee". And that you don't even see that in anything surrounding where you pulled that quote :-D
Lawn: "Just to make sure, you are saying you don't know where Koekl says anything that suggests "respect is something that the government cannot guarantee"."
DeleteIncorrect. I clearly never said anything remotely close to that.
You seem to htink the something Koukl said suggests "respect is something that the government cannot guarantee" - yet you can't provide any quotes to that effect? Curious.
Also, please explain why it would be relevant to this conversation whether or not respect is "guaranteed".
Me: >>>> "Koekle makes a point that respect is something that the government cannot guarantee".
DeleteSearch before: >>> "Citation, please. [...] Any quote to support your claim[..]?
Me: >> "Just to make sure, you are saying you don't know where Koekl says anything that suggests "respect is something that the government cannot guarantee"."
Search now: > "Incorrect. I clearly never said anything remotely close to that."
LOL...
_you can't provide any quotes to that effect?_
And why do I need to? You never said anything like you "don't know where Koekl says anything that suggests 'respect is something that the government cannot guarantee'"
Apparently you do know where Koukl says that, which is what I suspected all along. You were asking me to provide something you already knew existed.
LOL...
You claim that Koeke [sic] makes a point that government canot guarantee respect.
DeleteIf that's what the man thinks, he must have said something to that effect, correct?
But you fail to provide a single substantiating quote to back up that claim. For all I know you heard something in that video (but I have no way of knowing what), conjured up some different concept in your imagination, and spit it back out as this "respect is something the government cannot guarantee".
Without a citation & quote, we have no way to know what bit of that vide you're interpreting to mean "respect is something the government cannot guarantee" - and, thus, no reason to accept your interpretation.
And you fail to show any relevance to this point anyways.
_But you fail to provide a single substantiating quote to back up that claim._
DeleteMe: >> "Just to make sure, you are saying you don't know where Koekl says anything that suggests "respect is something that the government cannot guarantee"."
Search now: > "Incorrect. I clearly never said anything remotely close to that."
LOL...
On Lawn: > "Just to make sure, you are saying you don't know where Koekl says anything that suggests "respect is something that the government cannot guarantee"."
DeleteSearch: > "Incorrect. I clearly never said anything remotely close to that."
Not sure why you are having such a hard time understanding this, but I'll try to explain it again.
What I don't know is this: what are Koukl's statements that you think equate to the concept that "respect is something the government cannot guarantee". Without citation & quote, I can only guess which of Koukl's statements you've interpreted to mean "respect is something the government cannot guarantee".
And since you apparently know which statements you think equate to the concept that "respect is something the government cannot guarantee", it makes much more sense for you to fill us in, rather than leave us to guess. Simple.
Also - please explain why it would be relevant to this conversation whether or not respect is "guaranteed".
Oh, these games are fun enough.
DeleteBut seriously, why is it that you keep backing into these same corners?
You deny you ever said anything remotely close to "[I] don't know where Koekl says anything that suggests "respect is something that the government cannot guarantee".
So you know I'm right, but don't know if I know I'm right :-D
And you wonder why I don't take you seriously...
Lawn: And you wonder why I don't take you seriously...
DeleteNo, I wonder why you have such a tough time reading and understanding. I plainly admitted to what I don't know: what are Koukl's statements that you think equate to the concept that "respect is something the government cannot guarantee". Read that slowly, and you'll see the problem: I don't know what you think (because you didn't disclose that).
Lawn: "Koekle makes a point that respect is something that the government cannot guarantee". [...] "Go ahead, quote the three sentences before and after that quote [@8:25] :-D"
As I mentioned before, you really should have provided these quotes to support the point you were trying to make. And since I obviously see that as the reasonable standard here, and I now wish to make a point.
Lawn's is incorrect. Koukl's comments do not make the point that "respect is something the government cannot guarantee" in "the three sentences before and after" the quote I provided. See for yourself. (sentence numbers added to correspond to Lawn's "three sentences before and after" claim)
Koukl @ 08:03: [begin quote]
[-3] This is about a new respect.
[-2] And, and , and, I'm not saying this with animosity, I'm just simply trying to observe what's going on.
[-1] This is a group of people who, who has the same rights, they just don't have the same respect.
[0] They don't get the affirmation, and by getting the government that is the representative of the people to call their relationship a marriage (which its not, even when the government gives them a license) um, they will get the respect and affirmation that all heterosexual couples get.
[1] Which is exactly what they're after.
[2] So, people in the culture, now I'm not getting' biblical on ya', I'm not getting' theistic on ya' I'm not even getting' moral on ya' right now.
[3] I'm just saying' You guys, in our collective culture, you've got to ask yourself a question.
[4] Are same-sex unions exactly the same kinds of things as heterosexual unions?
[end quote]
I see in that section of Koukls presentation the comments that "this is about a new respect" - and that same-sex couples "will get the respect and affirmation that all heterosexual couples get". Koukl could have written *might get* or *could get*, but he wrote "will get". He's stating that it is a certainty.
Koukl makes no statement that *respect is something that the government cannot guarantee*. He's practically saying the opposite. So On Lawn, how did you get out of that segment the opposite of what Koukl states outright?
And some final odds & ends relating to this video.
ReplyDelete@ 00:38 Koukl says "He's wearing a suit and a tile. He's dressed like Mr. Conventional. He's got short cut hair, there's another fellow like him there"
This one is worth listening just to catch Koul's inflection. He sounds incredulous that a gay man might dress conservatively! Surprise, Greg, homosexuals don't all fit into whatever extremes or stereotypes you might carry in your mind.
@ 01:32 "By the way, its same-sex marriage, not gay marriage. Because the government doesn't care about your sexual preference, it cares about your gender."
Koukl seem so adamant about this terminology, because the government doesn't care about your sexual preference. ( sexual orientation would have been a more useful choice of words here ). Yet the remainder of his presentation is peppered with "heterosexual" this and "heterosexual" that. it strikes me as a disingenuous complaint, or at least a double standard.
@ 02:26 "I realized I was going to be forced to have to talk about this"
Forced? Come on. He is speaking on this topic by his own choice. He may have felt compelled, but he is definitely not being forced.
@ 02:49 "But it is hard to deal with when having conversations with other people because it just sounds bigoted and mean spirited - even if you're not acting bigoted and mean spirited - when you're denying the other guy his rights"
What else would it seem like when you're denying somebody their rights?
@ 07:40 "No, what you wan't isn't a special right for you, you just want a new right for everyone."
@ 08:02 "So this is not about new rights."
Koukl contradicts himself in the span of less than 30 seconds, claiming that this is about a new right, but it is not about new rights?
@ 11:10 "Now my answer is, I think marriage is a particular thing. It doesn't mean I'm mean to gay people. It just means I'm making an observation about the nature of the world that's accurate. that's all. Gay people want to live together, share their goods, whatever, nobody's stopping them".
Not entirely correct, according to this report which shows widespread anti-gay housing discrimination. And as far as Koukl's "observation about the nature of the world that's accurate" ... while we would need some evidence or corroboration in order to assess the accuracy of his observation, we need nothing of the kind to recognize it as being subjective. That is, it is an explanation only of the things that Koukl has observed, as seen from his perspective. It would be more accurate to call it an opinion, rather than an accurate observation.
_He sounds incredulous that a gay man might dress conservatively_
Deletehttp://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LHDxqigCco4/TpeLXt1w0GI/AAAAAAAADf8/4_aWa4D_QEE/s1600/fry.jpg
Your just trying to take offense at something he said.
He's incredulous about dressing conservatively means, not who would and who wouldn't dress conservatively.
On Lawn: "Your just trying to take offense at something he said."
DeleteWhy would you assume that I'm offended? I haven't used that word in nay of its variations.
But listen to what Koukl says about these conservatively dressed men.
"He's wearing a suit and a tile. He's dressed like Mr. Conventional. He's got short cut hair, there's another fellow like him there"
[...]
"What I thought, when I heard that, is, I thought what a brilliant way to advance your view. "
What Koukl is suggesting is that these gentlemen don't normally dress conservatively, and that their appearance is merely a facade for strategic purposes. Becuase that is what he tells us he thought of their attire and grooming .. that it was "a brilliant way to advance your view" .
_that their appearance is merely a facade for strategic purposes_
DeletePerhaps a facade, perhaps not. I don't get that it would necessarily be a facade, just that the appearance of the presenter is a foil against the message they give, hence "advance your view"
LOL...
Essentially I take it much like the phrase, "Lies sound true when dressed in Latin".
DeleteLawn,
DeleteYou again skipped the question. Why would you assume that I'm offended?
Here's another interesting Koukl video on this topic: Is Same-sex Marriage Harmful to Society.
ReplyDeleteIn a (roughly) 4-minute video dedicated to discussing the harms to society of same-sex marriage, the best Koukl can come up with is a list of things other than same-sex marriage that he considers harmful! In four minutes, Koukl fails to mention a single harm to society of same-sex marriage in and of itself. He even says: "Am I going to be hurt 'tomorrow' with some same-sex couple living down the street or across town or something like that? And the answer is, of course, in that sense, probably nothing".
He goes on to suggest that legalizing same-sex marriage would inevitably lead to legal recognition (?) of polygamous and bestial relationships. Here's how he proposes that will happen:
1) He lays out the false dilema that legalizing same-sex marriage is forcing the question of whether marriage is a thing in particular or is it anything you want it to be. Either you accept that marriage reflects the "natural teleology" of bringing men and women together to have children, or you must accept that "there is no natural teleology or natural end to marriage or family and they can be anything you want them to be". But here's the problem with this pose: there remain conclusions we can reach other than the two he is trying to force us to choose between." He has presented a false dilema, because we might also recognize that same-sex pairing - which occurs throughout nature - also serves a natural purpose. Quite possibly even the very same natural purpose that opposite-sex pairing serves: creating the best situation for the production of the next generation. So if the natural teleology of marriage centers on producing & preparing the next generation, and same-sex pairing also serves that purpose, we are not faced with the either/or question Koukl offers.
That "if" is a pretty deep topic, and probably a subject for elsewhere, but for our purposes here its enough to accept that it is a debatable possibility. That kind of kills Koukls argument.
2) Even if you accept Koukl's claim that legal recognition of same-sex couples amounts to redefining marriage "any way we want", there's no basis to believe that we would be compelled to redefine it in any way that we don't want. And whether "we" is a majority of voters, or a majority of elected representatives, or a majority of Supreme Court Justices, changes in this arena always come down to a majority opinion. Besides, the case for same-sex marriage isn't simply about what "we want"! Its more about whether the exclusion of same-sex couples is justifiable, particularly given the substantial similarities between their relationships and those of opposite-sex couples and the absence of harms to society or others of recognizing same-sex unions. The same case cannot be made for polygamy or bestiality.
Legal recognition of same-sex unions can happen, based on the characteristics of that type of union. But any theoretical consideration of any other type of relationship, upon the observation of different characteristics, would lead to a different conclusion. Its not the all-or-nothing package that Koukl proposes.