Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Besides, I'm a smoker, I'll be dead before History can judge me



People who oppose the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" will be deemed by History to be as stupid as those who once tried to prevent the de-criminalization of interracial marriage.  That's the unsubtle message of this meme.  Oh, yes, the anti-miscegenation parallel just won't die.  On the contrary, it has grown into an unquestioned dogma:  if you oppose the legal recognition of ss'm', then you would have opposed interracial marriage forty (some odd) years ago.  And if you would have been a bigot then, you are most certainly a bigot now.  Because same-sex "marriage" is just like interracial marriage.  Obviously.

Whatever has fueled the growth and popularity of this analogy, it certainly isn't logic.

The analogy fails spectacularly on the gay activists' very own terms.  They are the ones who insist that sexual orientation is a trait just like race.  Fine, let's accept that arguendo, and when we do just that, we cannot help but realize (if and only if we use our minds and not ideological sanctimony, that is) that the laws criminalizing interracial marriage were premised upon the notion that the mixing of certain traits--in this case, the races--is bad, whereas the push for the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" is premised upon the notion that marriages of mixed sexual orientations are really miserable or, in other words, that the mixing of certain traits--in this case, the sexual orientations--is bad.   So, if you are to follow the logic of this meme, then you were stupid if you opposed the mixing of traits back in the 1960s, and you are stupid now if you oppose exactly the opposite (i.e. the unmixing of traits).

Analogies are supposed to compare things that are alike, but the reasons for opposing interracial marriage and those for opposing the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" are so different that comparing the two amounts to a basic, fundamental category mistake.  I don't care how History may judge me.  Basic Logic has already rendered its judgement:  This analogy is really stupid.

No comments: