In the month hiatus from the blog that I took (there’s something wrong with that word order, but, oh well), the march towards marriage equality has continued. No less than four judges ruled that state bans violate state or federal constitutions, and are therefore struck down, though each ruling was either immediately stayed or stayed by that court or a higher court pending appeal. Specifically, we’re talking Arkansas, Idaho (who da ho?), Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. And it was ordered that Utah must recognize the marriages performed in its state for the few weeks it was legal.

WND published many, many stories about this, and of course the comments have been overwhelmingly negative. What I find fascinating is that the commenters keep complaining about “activist judges.” At what point does an unbroken string of court decisions, in the same way, by liberal and conservative jurists, stop becoming “activist judges?”

Otherwise, the comments have all been religious (“But my ancient book says I should be against this!”) or icky (“Icky!!”). If you think it’s icky, don’t think about it! I’m convinced that many anti-equality people think more about the act of same-sex sexual acts than people who are homosexual. At least man-on-man. Women-on-women, you never hear about. Because for some reason, many straight guys fantasize about lesbians having sex, for reasons I cannot comprehend.

Meanwhile, there have been generic columns published, as well. Among them are:

Star’s column is an attempt to reassure readers that marriage equality isn’t going to win out. She cites polls that say only 32% of Republicans support it, and that The Gayz’ analogy to the Civil Rights movement is rejected by “black pastors” that she’s talked with or seen or heard.

The AP snippet, meanwhile, is quoting a conservative Republican Senator admitting that they’re losing: ““Let’s face it: anybody who does not believe that gay marriage is going to be the law of the land just hasn’t been observing what’s going on,” said Hatch, a seven-term Republican senator who has been a proponent of keeping marriage exclusively between a man and a woman.” Listen to the man, Star.

Of course, many of the 287 comments oppose this, with comments from “Rob” like: “Yea…let’s all give up and let the homos have the country and our children’s minds and our life liberty and pursuit of happiness. I dont want my children taught this is ok.”

Meanwhile, the FOX “news” snippet is an attempt to drum up the base and show that it’s the demoncrats who are behind all this and show the influence that presidents have on the court system.

And finally, Keyes’ argument – based on my brief 45-second skimming – appears to be entirely based on what we call the “Genetic Fallacy:” “The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue, is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone’s origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.” At least, I think that’s the fallacy here. Might also be a form of the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

What he argues is the baby-makin’ thing, that because two men who have sexual intercourse, or two women who have sexual intercourse, can’t produce a child together, it’s not really sex, therefore it’s bad for humanity and should be banned. I’d like to see him tell that to every infertile couple out there that when they couple, it’s bad for humanity and not really “sex.”

And there you have it. Keyes’ column is the only one where the sane people have dominated in the comments, generally pointing out his false analogy.

I predict that WND commenters and columnists are going to continue to whine and scream for the duration, though, representing that small group in society that longs for the old days when blacks knew their place, women were subservient to men, no stores were open on Sunday, and … wait– why don’t they just go live in a theocratic society, like Pakistan?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s