Posted on 03/27/2004 11:38:51 PM PST by Polycarp IV
Godwin's Law and the homosexual marriage debate
by Brian Kopp, Vice President, CFAA
3/27/04
Commonly invoked in Internet debate, Godwin's Law states that as a debate grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 100%. When this occurs the debate is automatically over. In comparing an opponent to Nazis obviously one has lost whatever argument was in progress by employing indefensible insult rather than rational and ethical debate.
A similar situation has emerged in the cultural debate over homosexuality. It is obvious to all that to resort to ad hominem terms such as "faggot" or "queer" must be and is roundly condemned. Just as with comparisons to Nazis, resorting to such offensive language ends the debate, proof that the individual is substituting indefensible insult for substance. Fortunately, those defending traditional marriage rarely if ever resort to such, and if they do their peers soundly rebuke them. There is simply no place in this debate for such indefensible behavior.
On the other hand, the opposition appears to have decided that they need not refute the issues advanced by those defending traditional marriage. Instead they resort to meaningless ad hominem attacks, employing such indefensible words as "homophobe" and "gay hater."
When such indefensible terms are employed, it is purposely done to impugn the motives and character of anyone who has the temerity to make a sincere defense of traditional marriage, based upon overwhelming scientific, sociological and Natural Law evidence.
It is time that the use of such ad hominem attacks are relegated to the same status as using words such as Nazi, Hitler, faggot, or queer. When the opposition refuses to address the overwhelming evidence of those opposing homosexual marriage, and instead resort to "homophobe" and "gay hater" labels, it is a clear admission that they have no rational refutation of these verified facts and that they have lost the debate.
Ping. As usual, if you would like to be added to or removed from my conservative Catholic ping list, please send me a FReepmail.
Religious Group One beliefs that “A” is right, has always believed that way; they also belief that “B” is wrong, that it is a religious sin, and they have always believed that way.
Religious Group Two beliefs that “A” is right, has always believed that way; they also belief that “B” is right, that it is not a religious sin, and they have only recently begun to believe that way.
Whose position on “B” can government endorse considering the 1st Amendment? If government makes “B” illegal, they have made Religious Group Two the outsider, they have interfered with the free exercise of Two, and they have taken steps toward establishing Religious Group One as the insider. If government makes “B” legal, they have done the same thing, and only the roles of One and Two has changed.
I know; I noticed. Congress and the Supreme Court and the President made that clear with BCFR.
The three-prong Lemon test of the Supreme Court applies and the wording of the following is taken from a SCOTUS case:
"secular legislative purpose. This requirement is aimed at preventing the relevant governmental decision-maker from abandoning neutrality and acting with the intent of promoting a particular point of view in religious matters."
So legalizing or banning same-sex marriage would violate this prong of the test.
"Lemon's second requirement that the challenged law have a principal or primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.A law is not unconstitutional simply because it allows churches to advance religion, which is their very purpose."
With two sides to the issue, government taking a side violates this prong, as well.
"The third part of the Lemon test is also satisfied since 702 does not impermissibly entangle church and state. Rather, it effects a more complete separation of the two."
Again, taking a stand on the matter one way or another clearly entangles government in the issue.
But you're right, the First Amendment doesn't matter.
This conclusion is childish. It is just as childish as the use of the homophobe, gay hater or Nazi labels. The author might just as well just say "I am rubber and you are glue."
Homophobe is no different. It should be expunged from rational debate. It is a label intended to belittle and undermine the moral authority and motives of those to whom it is applied.
As such, we need to make it a verboten term also.
| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda |
|
|
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
|
|
| The Stamp of Normality |
(Some) Satanists believe that human sacrifice is right and should be allowed. However we ban murder in this country because it is hazardous to the publics health and safety.
The behavior commonly known as homosexuality can and should be banned as it is hazardous to those involved in it and those they come in contact with. Same as murder or child molesting (in this way)
There are cases where Godwin's Law is inapplicable. Sometimes, as with abortion, the historical analogy is entirely appropriate
Cordially,
The essence of the 1st Amendment if a belief in the power of truth, if left free, to overcome error. Perhaps the essence of the truth is that God has given them over to do what ought not to be done, but instead of turning to God, we prefer to turn to government—give us kings and wise men—our hubris blinding us to our enslavement to the law, rejecting the Passion, and relying instead on our own lofty opinions of ourselves.
Hence, even wrong views are serviceable to enable the right to accomplish the goal of more governmental control and in the end, any governmental control could be deemed legitimate. How about parenting without a license?
The argument that homosexuality will cause global warming makes more sense.
Nice idea but doesn't work. Some behaviors, such as murder, child molesting, sexual deviancy must be controlled as they are hazardous to all involved (or nearby) and have no benefits to outweigh the costs
I disagree with the notion that is same-sex marriage, union, whatever they want to call it, is going to lead to the downfall of society. We hear on the one hand that it is an aberration, that it's not natural, that it's an addiction, and on the other hand (both hands are waving a warning) that it is going to influence society in such a way that it is the end of society.
If homosexuality is as abhorrent as we believe (and I don't find the thought of homosexual sex flattering) then how in the world is it going to have such dastardly effects? How many children have been molested and maimed by deviants, harmed for the greater part of their life, because it simply wasn't talked about?
Would you hazard a guess that if the behavior is learned or an addiction, that by being more open and honest about it we may be able to stop the cycle of evil?
But it's not a first ammendment issue. It is a behavior issue. Murder is bad for society no matter what religion says about it. Likewise child molesting. Likewise homosexual behavior.
I disagree with the notion that is same-sex marriage, union, whatever they want to call it, is going to lead to the downfall of society.
Look at the decay already seen in The Netherlands (holland) since they legalized perversion. The numbers are in and they support what we (conservatives) have been saying all along.
Would you hazard a guess that if the behavior is learned or an addiction, that by being more open and honest about it we may be able to stop the cycle of evil?
That's what we are trying to do. Get the truth out. But every time you mention the truth the 'homosexuals' or their enablers scream "hate speech"
Being honest and open about it is stopping the behavior by whatever means you can. Just as you would stop murder or child molesting
Anything that enables the behavior is hazradous to the health of society
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.