I’ve considered this one a good test of mendacious jerk factor ever since I ran into a particularly loathsome creep on Usenet named Steve Fordyce, whose favorite hobby horse it was…<\/p>\n
The marriage laws do not discriminate against homosexuals.
\nThey have the same right to marry a person of the opposite
\nsex that heterosexuals do.<\/p>\n
Now, everybody…including the bigots who make this argument by the way…know that this is a bogus argument. Let’s apply it to a different set of people…\n<\/p>\n
Laws that prohibit the practice of Judaism do
\nnot discriminate against Jews, since
\nChristians have to obey those laws too.\n<\/p>\n
The problem is it sounds perfectly logical. How can you argue that treating people the same is discrimination?<\/em> But it’s a fallacy of ambiguity. To say that you are treating everyone the same is not to say you are treating everyone equitably. The trick here is that a word is being used in two different senses at the same time. Look at this again…<\/p>\n The marriage laws do not discriminate<\/strong> against homosexuals. The problem is with the word ‘discriminate’. In this statement, it is being used in two difference senses at the same time. Let’s look at its definition. This one I took from The Free Dictionary…\n<\/p>\n discriminate<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n So in the one sense, yes, the law makes no distinction between gay and straight. But it does not follow then, that the second sense of the word ‘discriminate’, to make a distinction against or in favor of a particular person or group<\/em> is also not true. Let’s rephrase it…<\/p>\n The marriage laws do not distinguish between homosexuals This statement is both true and much clearer now as to adverse discrimination, in the first sense of the word, that homosexuals endure even though they are not being discriminated in the second sense of the word. Let’s try it another way.<\/p>\n The marriage laws treat homosexuals and heterosexuals Here the ambiguity is on the word ‘equally’. Once again, it is being used in two difference senses at the same time…<\/p>\n Equally<\/strong> ‘Equally’ is being used to mean both Having the same privileges, status, or rights: equal before the law<\/span><\/em> and<\/strong> Impartial; just; equitable<\/em>. But one does not necessarily follow from the other. Let’s rephrase it…<\/p>\n The marriage laws treat homosexuals as if they were heterosexuals Now the problem is more clearly understood. The marriage laws deny that gay people even exist.<\/p>\n The fallacy is one of equivocation. It is using a word in two different senses, to prove a conclusion that does not follow from the stated premise, simply because the same word appears in both the premise and the conclusion.<\/p>\n A feather is light. See how that works? Now look at this…\n<\/p>\n Marriage laws do not discriminate between homosexuals and heterosexuals. It simply does not follow. Yes, the law does not discriminate between gay and straight. It does not follow that the law does not discriminate against gay people. \n<\/p>\n Nobody makes this argument honestly. Nobody. This is bad faith on its face. When you hear someone making this argument, you know you are dealing with either a bigot or an ass, and usually both.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I’ve considered this one a good test of mendacious jerk factor ever since I ran into a particularly loathsome creep on Usenet named Steve Fordyce, whose favorite hobby horse it was… The marriage laws do not discriminate against homosexuals. They have the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex that heterosexuals do. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[16,19,12],"class_list":["post-3014","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-marriage","tag-the-jackass-chronicles","tag-the-struggle-for-our-lives"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/brucegarrett.com\/brucelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3014","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/brucegarrett.com\/brucelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/brucegarrett.com\/brucelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/brucegarrett.com\/brucelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/brucegarrett.com\/brucelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3014"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/brucegarrett.com\/brucelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3014\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/brucegarrett.com\/brucelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3014"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/brucegarrett.com\/brucelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3014"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/brucegarrett.com\/brucelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3014"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nThey have the same right to marry a person of the opposite
\nsex that heterosexuals do.<\/p>\n\n
\nand heterosexuals. They give homosexuals the same
\nright to marry a person of the opposite sex they give
\nto heterosexuals.<\/p>\n
\nequally. Both groups have exactly the same right to marry
\na person of the opposite sex.\n<\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n
\nand give them the same right to marry a person of the opposite
\nsex that they give to heterosexuals.<\/p>\n
\nWhat is light, cannot be dark.<\/p>\n
\nTherefore marriage laws do not discriminate against homosexuals.\n<\/p>\n