Skip to main content

View Diary: OMG, NOM. Not Even I Was Prepared For This Level Of Stupidity. (161 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  They would perhaps have been better off (11+ / 0-)

    arguing that there is a Platonic ideal of a chair, the perfect chair, that may or may not exist.  This concept then should be applied to marriage as there is only one perfect form of marriage.

    However even this attempt fails at the start gate.  Marriage means many different things to many different people so we recognize religious marriages, civil marriages and common law marriages.  I note for example, that many religions prohibit marriage to a nonbeliever and do not recognize such marriages.  Does this mean in the NOM universe that such marriages are void as civil unions since their religion does not recognize its validity

    •  it's classic fundamentalist thinking: (6+ / 0-)

      Fundamentalism is the extreme of concrete thinking applied to religion.

      Thus "Truth" become a concrete object, and only one such object can occupy any given coordinate.  

      The well-known aggressiveness of fundamentalism and its use of warlike metaphors ("capture the seven mountains") is based on this: the world becomes "turf" to be "conquered" and "occupied," and there is room for nothing else.

      We got the future back. Uh-oh.

      by G2geek on Mon Aug 04, 2014 at 05:09:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is a Christian version of Platonism (0+ / 0-)

      The ideal form of anything is then the idea of it in the mind of God, but the ideal form of God is the one in the mind of the bigot in question. Thus only that idea of God's idea of marriage can be entertained, and Human Rights come only from God, so that there cannot be a right to anything sinful like abortion or same-sex marriage. Those would be Human Wrongs, ha-ha.

      The other form of this argument comes from the Logical School of classical Chinese philosophy, in the work known as White Horse is Not Horse. The argument is that a horse can be red or yellow or white, but a white horse can only be white.

      Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

      by Mokurai on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 12:48:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is of a piece with 'Right Reason'... (0+ / 0-)

        ... whose use,  by definition,  cannot when applied to accurate data and premises result in a conclusion inimical to the Church's teachings...which brings to mind the anti-modernist Popes who criticised the notions of freedom of speech and of religion fof grwating Truth and Error equally.

        (...much as most modern conservatives criticise social welfare schemes for resulting in a world in which virtuous rich folk and damned  moochers alike don't fear starvation.)

    •  More of an essence than an ideal (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aratinga, dragonwerx

      First, I will vigourously assert my opposition to N.O.M., and not just because their name redefines the institution of imitating the noise a cat makes when it eats.

      That being said, I thnk the original poster somewhat misses the point of the Chesterton argument, that there is a chair-ness common to all chairs, with or without there being some external ideal form.   The NOMser is pretty obviously saying that judges or none, majorities or none, there were an essential nature to 'marriage' that includes that there be two people of opposite gender.

      I can't criticise this argument on its own terms, as I would hold that there is an essence of marriage discoverable from extant examples, and that this essence cannot include procreation as the main goal because of all the recognised marriages for which this were not the case, as surely as that essence cannot include exact equality of age, since very few marriages fit this.

      And I have some sympathy with the fear of legislative redefinition: I'd hate the First Amendment's 'press' to be defined such that it were limited to late-{Eighteenth Century} communications technologies (and I'd spread that hate via heliograph). But the N.O.M.nard  fails to distinguish between a universal redefinition and the appropriate extension of a given definition...there is an analogy to the extension of a function defined on the 'real' numbers to the complex plane---without getting too far into the details,  now the function is defined for places beyond where it ever before had a definition, but it's unchanged in that older domain.   Another bad analogy:the recipe for hard-boiling eggs must be changed for mountain-tops, but that doesn't change it for the plains and shallow valleys for which it was developed.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site