Friday, March 07, 2014

It's Not Bigotry. It's Biology

Race has no impact on your behavior but homosexuality is a behavior, so if he’s gonna say it’s a civil right to get married because of a particular behavior, by that same logic anybody with any behavior could claim they have a right to marry say five people. Then that is the behavior they want to engage in so that would be a civil right. 

This is very sloppy thinking to say that because somebody has a desire to marry somebody that if you deny them the right to marry that person then you are denying them some sort of civil right. I mean, everyone puts limits on marriage. If marriage had no definition, it wouldn't be anything. 

I think even most SSM proponents want to define marriage in such a way so that groups cannot marry and relatives can’t marry. Are those homosexual activists bigots when they advocate that marriage not include groups, relatives, or other parties?

I mean, I don’t think so. They are not violating anyone’s rights. And so, a conservative who wants to advocate that marriage not include same sex relationships are not violating anyone’s right either because they are defining marriage in accordance with the facts of nature…it’s not bigotry, it’s just biology. Frank Turk


Kwame E. said...

«This is very sloppy thinking….»

Context might make a difference, but if this quote is legit then Mr. Turk seems to engage in some sloppy thinking of his own. Race does have an impact on behavior, as should be obvious to anyone after 2 seconds’ worth of reflection on the matter; I won’t even bother to give an example of this unless someone presses me on this.

Secondly, SSM proponents base their arguments and social activism on “homosexuality” as opposed to “homosexuality”. IOW, SSM proponents base their arguments and social activism on homosexuality qua characteristic/attribute/property/quality as opposed to homosexuality as behavior, in accordance with the two common, different meanings of the word at issue (one of them nearly being a part of Christianese). The starting point of these proponents is not their sexual practices but rather the foregoing attraction to members of the same sex. It’s like Mr. Turk is using a four-term fallacy to argue his case; I’m surprised anyone could mistakenly begin to spoil his own argument by speaking to his interlocutor in a language which is not that person’s own.

D.B. said...

It was a quote from a radio clip (of a larger conversation). I know Turk is one of the top thinkers in this topic, so I would give him the benefit of the doubt.

I think he would say that race would have no impact on one's moral behaviors.

And we don't simply allow anyone who have a particular behavior get married just because they really want to or really desire it. Just because we can doesn't mean we should.

Just because we feel strongly about something or someone doesn't mean we get to act out on that or that it is a civil right just because I really want it.

Kwame E. said...

It’s fine to give people the benefit of the doubt. It’s also true that even the top minds of this world make mistakes and have their shortcomings, even obvious ones. Even the redoubtable Steve Hays, whose work I am constantly referring people to, has both an Achilles’s heel and a vulnerability to kryptonite; the one post he had months back about AOMIN’s copyright philosophy would be just one example.

“Take no heroes, it’s no good.”