Fannie, is repeating her fallacies...

Despite the fact that thousands and thousands of LGBT people and allies peacefully assembled in cities all over our nation this past weekend, some in the "marriage defense" movement have mocked and vilified us for doing so. In the wake of all of the post-Prop 8 protest and anger, those who oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians have been calling us "sore losers," "spoiled children," "homofascists," "bigoted," "intolerant," and yes even "terrorists."

Yet, as we pointed out before, it is not the peaceful protesters who are called homofascists and intolerant.

[Continued...]

She is right, on one point. The protests are exercising the right to free speech and free assembly. So are denouncing such protests. And no one denies their or our right to do so. Yet some go even further then that, including vandalism and physical violence which has caused the Police to take action. Many are especially displeased with how those right being used to call for a witch hunt against people who supported Prop 8. Including asking for vindictive actions against people in groups who have suffered such persecution in the past, Mormons and Blacks.

Her continued use of this outright lie goes beyond an insular recitation of how she and her friends can't possibly imagine such a thing as happening. She know full well of the white powder mail, people being fired from their jobs for supporting Prop 8 (and many more being lobbied to lose their jobs enforced with boycotts) and mob violence and intimidation that we've been documenting here. She has renounced some of those actions, but that does not rectify her juggling the facts in this case.

In that last confrontation, she admitted to not seeing her own fallacy. And I told her I'm ready to accept that she won't. Why? Well the answer comes from a commenter at one of the sites I linked to below. In reply to the question, "Do you admit that there may be a principled basis for your opponent’s argument . . ."?

Unfortunately, this requires a level of effort that a lot of people aren’t willing to give. Because then I have to go through the hassles of finding supporting evidence to refute the opposition’s arguments, often needing to string more than three words together. Or you have to be mature enough to gracefully bow out, even if you aren’t convinced of the validity of the opposition’s arguments.

It’s easier to just categorically mark the other side as evil, and then we don’t need to refute their arguments. If they are evil, so are their arguments and can be ignored. Plus, as we see here, it leads to a loosening of the bounds of proper interpersonal behavior. If they’re evil, then we don’t have to treat them as civilly, etc.

Until society gets to the point where we punish harshly this type of behavior on the ideological front, it will keep happening. It is an easy way to (I’d say improperly) claim the high ground.

Fannie, in a very twisted logic, concedes that she is calling no one evil. We are just speaking "dishonest, delusional, and arrogant poison". Perhaps good people do that in her book (something to seriously consider in light of her position).

This is important to note, because she makes the same mistake in interpreting other's actions.

These dishonest generalizations have no place in this oftentimes heated discourse. For, it would be quite easy to go to comment sections throughout the pro-gay and anti-gay blogosphere and find examples of "marriage defenders" saying (*)(*)(*) this and (*)(*)(*) that and then perpetuate this idea that all "marriage defenders" are hateful and intolerant.

Poor Fannie. This is what makes her ranting a tempest in a teacup. The generalization is entirely on her part, and fueling her own emotional outburst on the subject. It is hard to believe that she doesn't see a distinction being made, yet she claims to be just as oblivious as to the real damage people on her side are doing. Especially for someone so flagrantly misapplying the term anti-gay to people who are very pro-gay but are against her narrow activism on the subject.

I have to say I appreciate that Fannie wants to see peaceful protests, and denounces actions which are intimidating and violent. I respect that for the most part the protests have been peaceful, albeit lying and calling people anti-gay, intolerant, anti-equality who are not, and bigots who are not. I think for peaceful protests she could use more reasoned rhetoric, and stop the vilifying name calling. Because as many at Patterico's site noted those names thrown off in a fit of self-righteousness is just adding fuel to the fire, and as I will add is simply spreading lies.

We have denounced violence on both sides. We've denounced supporting marriage as a way to make homosexuals suffer. We've denounced any actions which would limit the free exercise of homosexuals. We simply support marriage on the firm grounds of reason and human dignity.


At this point she likes to point out Jose who actively discusses homosexuality as a vile practice. Jose and I may have our disagreements, but his reasons for supporting marriage are good. His breadth of knowledge in the liberal arts is unmatched by anyone who I've seen come here to discuss it with him. And his love for people is unfeigned. I do not like the pain that calling something they hold precious to be vile. I do not support it. But I support Jose in his fight for marriage equality, that precious balance between a man and a women that ensures commitment and support for each other and their children.
And I have asked Jose's stance on government involvement in homosexuality. He supports their request for rights in an honest forum that calls homosexual relationships what they are, not aping what others have accomplished through the institution of marriage in society.

I would rather stand with Jose's wisdom, intellect, and even tolerant (though personally strong) stance on homosexuality, than those that are intolerant of what marriage equality is. I would rather stand with Jose's discussion of an action being vile, than vilifying marriage's expectation of one man and one woman as anti-gay or even anti-equality. Something to be stamped out by the government jackboot.



(Source Link)