Author Topic: The Bulverism of Same-Sex Marriage Supporters  (Read 19162 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mrs Don-o

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 33
The Bulverism of Same-Sex Marriage Supporters
« on: June 15, 2016, 10:31:49 AM »
« Last Edit: June 15, 2016, 10:42:58 AM by Mrs Don-o »

Offline Mrs Don-o

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 33
Re: The Bulverism of Same-Sex Marriage Supporters
« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2016, 10:44:44 AM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH53uFBOGbw&amp;feature=em-subs_digest" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH53uFBOGbw&amp;feature=em-subs_digest</a>

Offline LonestarDream

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,061
Re: The Bulverism of Same-Sex Marriage Supporters
« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2016, 11:18:27 AM »
Got to take some time to absorb.
(?) Trump Realist    (*) Trump believer   (?) Never Trump,   Which are you ?

Offline r9etb

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,511
Re: The Bulverism of Same-Sex Marriage Supporters
« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2016, 01:12:56 PM »
The source article is a bit brief, though it does suggest that the debate (such as it is) is grounded in Bulverism.

The key point of the posting is this:

Quote
I would therefore call on gay marriage proponents to give a coherent account of reason and then explain how gay marriage is rational.

This is backwards.  The problem is not that gay marriage proponents cannot make a case -- they can.  The problem is that defenders of traditional marriage generally don't put forward a particularly rational case for traditional marriage.  Rather, we tend to react -- and that doesn't work: it plays to the greatest strength of the Bulverists.

So to begin with, there's a rather dire mushiness of language involved.  What is "marriage," exactly, and why is it important?  Is "marriage between a man and a woman" materially different from "marriage between two consenting adults?"  How and why?

Why do we never seem to ask: "shall we continue to recognize and affirm the privileged status accorded to marriage between a man and a woman, as it has been traditionally understood?"

Approaching the problem from that direction makes a huge difference.  For example, there's a huge and growing body of research and evidence from all across the political spectrum, concerning the positive effects of marriage between men and women; and particularly on the very great social advantages of raising children within within the intact marriage of their biological parents.

When you make the argument from that direction (and I have, on a small scale), it quickly becomes clear that the question of "gay marriage" is in fact peripheral; and as a matter of governmental policy, and as a matter of cultural priority, there is a clear case to be made for strengthening traditional marriage.

Once you make that case, then we begin to address the truly important things -- and the Bulvers of the world become rather irrelevant.

Offline don-o

  • Worldview Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,083
  • FR Class of '98
Re: The Bulverism of Same-Sex Marriage Supporters
« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2016, 02:29:34 PM »
« Last Edit: June 15, 2016, 02:34:03 PM by don-o »

Offline r9etb

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,511
Re: The Bulverism of Same-Sex Marriage Supporters
« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2016, 02:37:51 PM »

Offline don-o

  • Worldview Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,083
  • FR Class of '98
Re: The Bulverism of Same-Sex Marriage Supporters
« Reply #6 on: June 15, 2016, 02:59:41 PM »
Whether or not he's right, it's not a compelling argument to anybody not already interested in how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I strongly disagree with that throw away line.

We must have benchmarks by which to analyze and evaluate arguments. What are yours?

Offline r9etb

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,511
Re: The Bulverism of Same-Sex Marriage Supporters
« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2016, 03:48:53 PM »
I strongly disagree with that throw away line.

We must have benchmarks by which to analyze and evaluate arguments. What are yours?

Sure, it's important to have benchmarks.  And it's useful to have a discussion about the nature and use of such benchmarks.  I've got them, as do you -- it's not really necessary to go into details here, as I think we would probably agree on most things.

But my point is: if you try to argue "gay marriage" by straining to reach agreement on those sorts of benchmarks, you're just going to get ignored, and rightly so.  Most people who engage the question at a human level will see the attempt just as I characterized it: as pinhead angel counting.

If you want to argue "gay marriage," you need to discuss it in terms that touch on real life. 
« Last Edit: June 15, 2016, 03:51:48 PM by r9etb »

Offline LonestarDream

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,061
Re: The Bulverism of Same-Sex Marriage Supporters
« Reply #8 on: June 15, 2016, 10:58:34 PM »
Whether or not he's right, it's not a compelling argument to anybody not already interested in how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

This response does not address Don-o's point.  it is simply a glib way to dismiss key points.

Giving in 'what feels good' on a short term basis leads to manifest problems.
(?) Trump Realist    (*) Trump believer   (?) Never Trump,   Which are you ?

Offline r9etb

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,511
Re: The Bulverism of Same-Sex Marriage Supporters
« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2016, 11:46:30 PM »
This response does not address Don-o's point.  it is simply a glib way to dismiss key points.

Giving in 'what feels good' on a short term basis leads to manifest problems.

Read on.

Offline don-o

  • Worldview Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,083
  • FR Class of '98
Re: The Bulverism of Same-Sex Marriage Supporters
« Reply #10 on: June 16, 2016, 06:36:05 AM »


If you want to argue "gay marriage," you need to discuss it in terms that touch on real life.

Are you saying that faith and reason do not touch on real life? Then what method shall one use in making ones case? (I have an idea as to what is left to use, but I shall not appear to put words in your mouth.)

Offline r9etb

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,511
Re: The Bulverism of Same-Sex Marriage Supporters
« Reply #11 on: June 16, 2016, 07:09:59 AM »
Are you saying that faith and reason do not touch on real life? Then what method shall one use in making ones case? (I have an idea as to what is left to use, but I shall not appear to put words in your mouth.)

You did not succeed in not putting words in my mouth.

I'm telling you that the author of this piece is not offering practical advice.  He apparently wants you to get into arcane epistemological arguments with people who aren't interested in doing so. 

I gave you an example of the sort of method to use, above. 

Offline verga

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,607
Re: The Bulverism of Same-Sex Marriage Supporters
« Reply #12 on: June 16, 2016, 07:13:32 AM »
Several years ago I was discussing Gay marriage with a lesbian friend of mine. She told me I opposed it because I was Catholic.
I told her that John down the street was interested in contracting marriage with his German shepherd. Would she approve of this? I then said that My Uncle Bob was interested in a marriage with his John Deere Tractor, would she oppose that? Or how about her neighbor that was interested in having several wives,  should that be legal? How about that couple in New Jersey where the father and daughter wanted to get married. Would she approve of that?
I then told her that we all have a line that we will not cross, I chose to draw mine n a different location than she did based on reason, not faith or emotion.
In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
�More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.�-Woody Allen
If God invented marathons to keep people from doing anything more stupid, the triathlon must have taken him completely by surprise.

Offline don-o

  • Worldview Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,083
  • FR Class of '98
Re: The Bulverism of Same-Sex Marriage Supporters
« Reply #13 on: June 16, 2016, 07:29:31 AM »

You did not succeed in not putting words in my mouth.

I refrained from suggesting that, if faith and reason are to be excluded, then some basis will be used. A couple of possible options are emotional or psychological. 

I'm telling you that the author of this piece is not offering practical advice.  He apparently wants you to get into arcane epistemological arguments with people who aren't interested in doing so.

I am waiting for examples of "practical advice." The subject here is ideas, not situations. Of course the application of ideas to situations is also relevant, but separate.

Thank you for the replies. For me, the value of the OP is getting a grasp on exactly why an argument that "feels wrong" can be analyzed as related to its presuppositions.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2016, 09:32:38 AM by don-o »

Offline r9etb

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,511
Re: The Bulverism of Same-Sex Marriage Supporters
« Reply #14 on: June 16, 2016, 07:59:28 AM »
I am waiting for examples of "practical advice." The subject here is ideas, not situations. Of course the application of ideas to situations is also relevant, but separate.

For an example of practical advice, see my first post on this thread.  The general idea is to isolate and discuss the actual issue, not the emotional one.  So, for "gay marriage," the question for us is not "why gay marriage," but rather, "why does traditional marriage deserve the privileged status it has always been given?"  The argument for that is actually simple, as there is plenty of empirical evidence to support it.

For those who would be swayed by arguments from faith, I'd suggest this from Romans 1:  For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.  For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

Jesus' description of marriage in Mark 10 follows from there; and biology and the aforementioned empirical evidence follow directly.

But such an argument only works if it's directed toward somebody who is already disposed to accept an argument from faith.  Note, however, that the author is not giving advice on faith-based arguments, but rather on reason-based arguments.  And that's where he falls short.

Rather than go to the roots of the question, the author suggests you first get the other side to "give a coherent account of reason and then explain how gay marriage is rational."  Complete non-starter -- why should they give you an account of reason?  And what makes him think that his account of reason is the one they'll accept?  And in the endless wrangling about the nature of reason, any further discussion of the actual topic is likely to get lost.

The author does do us a service by reminding us of Lewis' idea of "Bulverism."  It is a good start for understanding the sort of discussion one tends to encounter on topics such as this one.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2016, 08:01:46 AM by r9etb »

Offline don-o

  • Worldview Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,083
  • FR Class of '98
Re: The Bulverism of Same-Sex Marriage Supporters
« Reply #15 on: June 16, 2016, 08:51:39 AM »
For an example of practical advice, see my first post on this thread.  The general idea is to isolate and discuss the actual issue, not the emotional one.  So, for "gay marriage," the question for us is not "why gay marriage," but rather, "why does traditional marriage deserve the privileged status it has always been given?"  The argument for that is actually simple, as there is plenty of empirical evidence to support it.

Supporters of same sex marriage can also make a case that adding them to the  privileged does no harm to traditional marriage.

The interesting take away (especially from the "doodle") for me, is an awareness that some people will use demonstrably dishonest and incoherent tactics to counter opinions they disagree with. And this is important for the matter of "Worldview Formation")

And that is helpful; as have been your comments.

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,686
Re: The Bulverism of Same-Sex Marriage Supporters
« Reply #16 on: June 16, 2016, 11:00:06 AM »
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2012/08/the-bulverism-of-same-sex-marriage-supporters
I see this so much:  You just think that because you're ,,, an unattractive feminist .... a person with Daddy Issues .... a Conservative wingnut.... a liberal twit .... a product of the public schools ... etc. ec. 

By people who are too lazy or intellectually unequipped to actually engage the argument.


Most discussion nowadays isn't really discussion.   It's a game of  "the dozens." 

Offline musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 21,377
Re: The Bulverism of Same-Sex Marriage Supporters
« Reply #17 on: June 16, 2016, 11:12:22 AM »
Bookmarked for later reading....

(Thanks for the article!)

@Mrs Don-o
« Last Edit: June 16, 2016, 11:13:32 AM by musiclady »
Character still matters.  It always matters.

May 3, 2016 - the day the Republican party left ME.  I am now without a Party, and quite possibly without a country.  May God have mercy!

Offline r9etb

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,511
Re: The Bulverism of Same-Sex Marriage Supporters
« Reply #18 on: June 16, 2016, 11:14:52 AM »
Supporters of same sex marriage can also make a case that adding them to the  privileged does no harm to traditional marriage.

Well, yes and no.  I guess the question would be, how could gay marriage cause harm to traditional marriage?

I submit that in itself, gay marriage cannot cause harm to traditional marriage.  The harm comes not because of anything a same-sex union represents, but rather that the role and meaning of traditional marriage is no longer properly understood.  Allowing "gay marriage" perhaps looks like harm, but only because we can no longer provide an explanation of why it is and must always be different from traditional marriage. 

As the debate currently stands, "marriage" is presented as being primarily about ways to legally recognize love.  When marriage becomes no more than that, there really is no argument to be made against gay marriage.

The problem, then, is not with pro-gay marriage positions, but rather our inability to articulate a case for traditional marriage.  So let's explore the question that way.

The thing about traditional marriage between a man and woman is that it is unique, and fulfills a unique and vital purpose in society.  To researchers across the political spectrum, the central role of an intact biological family in mitigating or preventing all manner of social ills is no longer a matter for debate.  (See, e.g., family research by the Brookings Institution for a surprisingly robust defense of marriage from the liberal side.) 

Not surprisingly, the empirical evidence backs up the importance given to traditional marriage in pretty much every major religion and culture throughout history.

And that's precisely the point.  No amount of argument can hide the fact that "Gay Marriage" does not and cannot fulfill the generational role of marriage.  The complementary pair, men and women, raising their children within the bounds of marriage, is demonstrably the best way to ensure the well-being of themselves, their children, and of civil society in general.

Once that point is established (which is easy to do, in honest conversation), then "gay marriage" actually becomes peripheral -- whatever it might be, it is not "marriage" in the same sense that traditional marriage is.  I've found that I'm not much troubled by "same-sex unions," because I'm under no illusions that it's "marriage."

The Bulverism in the discussion occurs precisely at that point.  You'll notice that the crux of the pro-gay marriage position is an essentially emotional argument -- "gay marriage is the same" because it's all about love between two people.  Well, we can accept the fact that gay people do fall in love, and we can even grant that there are benefits to giving them a way to formalize their union.  But it does not make it marriage.  The problem is not the unions, but in the power-play that attempts to force us to pretend that they're the same.

Which brings us to the various policy arguments (say, what to do about the murder rate among young black males), which ought to be based on establishing or strengthening traditional marriage in cultures where it is absent.  If you want a real battle to fight, it's on that front.  Don't argue against the emotional 0.3% of gays who want "marriage."  It's not worth fighting.

Argue instead in favor of an institution that we know can improve the situation in, say, inner city Chicago.  Once you're fighting that battle, the pretense of the other argument pretty much falls away.

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,686
Re: The Bulverism of Same-Sex Marriage Supporters
« Reply #19 on: June 16, 2016, 11:24:26 AM »


So to begin with, there's a rather dire mushiness of language involved.


There is no "mushiness",   there has been a display of massive ignorance or deliberate deception as to the meaning of the words involved.    The words have absolutely clear meaning in one case,  and reasonably clear meaning in the other case.   


I am a fan of etymology,  and so let us look at the word "Matrimony."   


It derives from the Latin word for "Mother".   The etymology dictionary clarifies that "Matrimony"  is the action, state, condition of "Mother",  which I take to mean the conditions necessary to create one.  In other words,   A male and female involved in reproduction.   


Absolutely clear.   Homosexuals cannot create this status or condition,   therefore the word,  by definition,   cannot be used to apply to them.   


Let us look at the more common word "Marriage."  It is derived from "Marry",   but is of less certain origin. 


One possible explanation for this word is that it comes to us from the first recorded wedding at the city of MARI in Mesopotamia on a clay cuneiform tablet.     





If this is it's origin,  it comes from a ceremony of fertility,  meaning the production of children.   Again,  what does this word have to do with two homosexuals?   


Clearly it is not the mushiness of the language which is the issue,   but rather the tendency of some people to deliberately redefine words to change their inherent meaning.   This is no different from claiming a man can become a woman,   it is a denial of reality.





Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,686
Re: The Bulverism of Same-Sex Marriage Supporters
« Reply #20 on: June 16, 2016, 11:38:37 AM »
I think what you say is true, except that I don't think it excludes what he is saying.  You are going further.  You are right.  Conservatives have lost because they've responded to an argument from emotion and ad hominem by being defensive rather than rational.  We responded to emotion with emotion and lost. 


In a contest of emotions,  the stronger emotions win.   Responding to an emotional argument with another emotional argument is the only method that can possibly win.   Rational or logical arguments almost *NEVER* win against emotional arguments.   

The problem wasn't that we responded to an emotional argument with another emotional argument,   the problem is that the Liberals have a thousand times the reach into the public mind than that which conservatives posses. 


Every source of information,   every glitterati on television or the movies,   is telling the public that homosexual marriage is an issue of equality, and therefore an issue of "fairness."   


Liberals control the airwaves,   they control the education systems,  they control the magazines,   they control the movies,  they control the internet.   


Do you really think you can compete with that on the basis of whatever argument you wish to present?   They out talk us 1000 to 1,   and they produce movies and television shows that visually enhance and punctuate their emotionally driven arguments.   

They literally make movies for the public to watch,  that proves by example that *they*  are right.   
For example,  this image comes from the Gay propaganda television show called "Glee." 





The issue is that *they*  can show a very realistic and convincing false reality,    and we cannot show the truth.   We cannot even speak the truth on their airwaves.   They won't allow it.   


Nothing we do can reach so much of the public in the manner that liberals routinely sway them with their ideas.   


It's not our arguments,   it's the fact that we lack the weapons of demographic manipulation which the Liberals posses. 











Offline LonestarDream

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,061
Re: The Bulverism of Same-Sex Marriage Supporters
« Reply #21 on: June 16, 2016, 12:03:39 PM »
It is necessary to go into details here.  Standards, related to the rationalist camp ( Aristotle) versus non-standards, related to the Sophist camp are key components of what we discuss here.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,210473.0.html

Did you have standards and when did you have them?



I've got them, as do you -- it's not really necessary to go into details here, as I think we would probably agree on most things.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2016, 01:39:25 PM by LonestarDream »
(?) Trump Realist    (*) Trump believer   (?) Never Trump,   Which are you ?

Offline r9etb

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,511
Re: The Bulverism of Same-Sex Marriage Supporters
« Reply #22 on: June 16, 2016, 12:14:33 PM »
There is no "mushiness",   there has been a display of massive ignorance or deliberate deception as to the meaning of the words involved.    The words have absolutely clear meaning in one case,  and reasonably clear meaning in the other case.   

That's not correct.  The "mushiness" to which I referred, was not toward the etymology of word itself, but rather the use to which the word is being put.  The room for debate on this topic is to be found on one side in maintaining a certain vagueness about the real meaning of the word, and the institution of "marriage;" and on the other side (ours) by not being able to draw the proper distinction between "real marriage" and "gay marriage."

Were there to be a single, agreed-upon definition of "marriage," the debate would certainly be different from what it is now.

Your entire post (which is a good one, btw) is proof to the very mushiness I was talking about.

Offline LonestarDream

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,061
Re: The Bulverism of Same-Sex Marriage Supporters
« Reply #23 on: June 16, 2016, 01:59:42 PM »
For almost all of western history, it was one male and one female.  By this logic, polygamy and polyamory are ok too....





Were there to be a single, agreed-upon definition of "marriage," the debate would certainly be different from what it is now.

(?) Trump Realist    (*) Trump believer   (?) Never Trump,   Which are you ?

Offline Mrs Don-o

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 33
Re: The Bulverism of Same-Sex Marriage Supporters
« Reply #24 on: June 16, 2016, 02:37:12 PM »
Here's a gem from the article:

Instead of an argument they will just continue to insult him.

@RAT Patrol  @don-o @LonestarDream

Yeah, "consent" makes everything  A-OK: consent, plus legality and social acceptance.

I just read an article about the culturally diverse and enriching  Afghan custom of abusing boy sex-slaves for amusement:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/taliban-honey-trap-boys-kill-afghan-police-034032649.html?ref=gs

edit: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,212105.0.html
   For a thread on that.


And keep in mind these are "our" "Afghan" "allies"

Our supposed allies, the "good" guys, are raping the boys---

The BAD-BAD guys, the Taliban, are using the raped boys for suicide bombers ----

The U.S. military who try to put a stop to it, are busted, court-martialed.

Here's the thing:  as long as we are saying that "consent" makes anything OK (and I'm pretty sure the boys can be brought to consent if it means they are fed and protected by a warlord for the duration:  hey, it's a win/win) -- and as long as all cultures are equal and this practice has been going on for generations, and it "works" for them---

Then it's OK.

And U.S. military men must tolerate it, or be busted.

Yes, yes, there is a strong argument to be made against this, via Natural Law.  But frankly, who actually is willing to live by Natural Law, especially if it's going to require sacrifice, risk, or even inconvenience --- if the cost is going to be rather severe on themselves, --- except those who are already God-fearing and willing to die for what is right?
« Last Edit: June 16, 2016, 03:15:23 PM by don-o »


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf