Flawed Reasoning to a Staggering Degree
Here's a letter by a guy named Francis J. Beckwith who, I have to tell you, is a Professor of Philosophy and Church-State Studies at Baylor University - the largest Baptist University in the world. You'll see the sort of mind it takes to be a professor at this institution by reading the following letter Prof. Beckwith wrote to Apple Computers, who recently came out against Proposition 8 in California, which is trying to re-ban same-sex marriages out there. Here's Apple's position (from his letter):
Apple is publicly opposing Proposition 8 and making a donation of $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees’ same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights — including the right to marry — should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.Ok, just to get this ball of ear-wax rollin' here's Prof. Beckwith's weirdness on full display in the first part of his response:
Apple's reasoning is flawed, since sexual orientation has never inhibited people from getting married. If marriage has a particular nature--one man, one woman--any man and woman not already married to someone else can marry each other regardless of their sexual orientation. So, “no” on Prop 8 does not advance any liberties at all.Um...does anyone else see a problem with this? Am I reading this wrongly? "...Sexual orientation has never inhibited people from getting married"? So, if a gay dude wants to get married, all he has to do is marry a girl. Problem solved - he's married and his sexual orientation had no bearing on the procedure.
Except for the fact that he enjoys penis.
Next up is a shocking, firework-like display of semi-lobotomized rationalizing. Only with a mind holed out by religious "thinking" could a person with a higher education degree and a specialization in this area be able to spout this sort of incredible pig-shit. I love this reasoning. I mean, imagine the size of the helmet on his guy's head:
In Massachusetts soon after the state’s Supreme Judicial Court in 2003 required that the state issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Catholic Charities, which was at the time in the child adoption business, was told by the state that it could no longer exclude same-sex couples as adoptee parents, even though the Catholic Church maintains that same-sex unions are deeply disordered and sinful. Because it did not want to compromise its moral theology, Catholic Charities ceased putting children up for adoption. And thus children and families were harmed.Yeah, fuckers! See what you do when you try to drag archaic, bronze-age institutions into the modern era? They respond by retreating into the cave of denial and eyes-squished-closed-fingers-in-the-ears-la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you frame of mind that hurts babies! BABIES! Are you progressive, liberal, assholes happy now?! You've forced the Catholic church to harm BABIES!
The last bit:
Because marriage is a public institution, there is surely no way to enforce same-sex marriage without punishing those who dissent in every public institution and accommodation. Thus, supporters of male-female marriage see the injustice in the state coercing them to embrace a policy for which their well-reasoned beliefs maintain is deleterious of social justice and the public good.No, no one is "coercing them to embrace" anything. If you don't want a gay marriage, don't have one. This is what so many of us genuinely hate about religious people - you just can't leave everyone else the fuck alone and you just have to make your way the only way. Well, I think gay marriage is wrong...so YOU shouldn't be allowed to do it." No, douche, you keep your relationships to yourself, I'll keep my relationships to myself, and Ellen can keep her's to herself too.
MYOB, fuckers, and don't try to make us regular people buy into your ridiculous crap.