What the world needs now: A response to Senator McCaskill

It makes for a sappy song lyric when the answer is “love, sweet love,” but it makes for a perilously shaky framework for law.  So what happens when it makes the centerpiece of an appeal for redefining marriage? Continue reading

Advertisements

The Boy Scouts, Freedom, and Morality

Yesterday morning, a petition bearing 275,000 signatures on a petition protesting the removal of an openly homosexual den leader from a Cub Scout Pack was delivered to the BSA’s annual meeting.

These signatures were delivered by none other than Zach Wahls, an Eagle Scout of some notoriety, who recently (last year, I think?) gave an impassioned and interesting speech to the Iowa legislature on the issue of same-sex marriage and civil unions, and argued that he was living proof that SSM would be, and indeed was, beneficial to society.

I came across two different articles at two very different websites about the delivery of the petitions, and they both quoted Wahls differently, and their highlights were probably intentional.  Continue reading

The real reason we oppose same-sex marriage?

(Seen on Facebook)

Perplexed about all the concern from some quarters about gay sex / marriage. Speculating that those fulminating against it spend more time doing that than having sex themselves. Could be the real problem. . . .

Really.

Exactly how much sex does a person need to have before they’re capable of making an ethical judgment call on that?  Is that a sliding scale?  Or could it be that this person has gone and made the usual category fallacy and treated SSM as a simple matter of “morals are nothing more than personal preference?”

Or better yet, let’s take that same reasoning and apply it to anything else.  Perhaps if the people who speak out about abortion had more abortions, then they wouldn’t worry about them as much.  Or those who vigorously oppose drunk driving should just go and spend a fair amount of time driving drunk and they won’t have such a hangup with it.

But to take this ‘argument’ through to its absurd conclusion, if both a virgin and non-virgin come to the same conclusion about same-sex marriage, and conclude it is both immoral and against the best interest of those individuals and the interest of the state to regulate the institution of marriage, is one person’s conclusion less valid than the other?  If so, why?  If not, why not? And if not, does the amount of sex a person has had have any impact on their ability to make a reasoned moral judgment about the matter?

Why should I consider this anything other than an ad-hominem attack on those who did not agree with the person who said that?