There are many stupid arguments against gay marriage. In fact, most of them are stupid, especially since there are no good arguments against it.
But the one that has to take the cake is the one that an actual lawyer argued last week before — get this — the United States Supreme Court.
“Marriage has to be between only men and women because, you know, kids. Gays can’t make kids and so their marriage can’t be real.”
How bad do your legal arguments have to be if you’re relying on that? Or, alternatively, how bad of a lawyer must you be?
And how much of an insult is that to people like me and my wife, happily married now for 30 years and childless by choice? What, our marriage isn’t real? It’s not legitimate?
Fortunately, there are some actual smart people on the Supreme Court who are very good at cutting through this bullshit. Let’s all hope they can get through the heads of the bigots that are there, too.
I see a lot of outrage lately about horses being used in meat.
I do understand the outrage in one respect — If you think you are buying beef and find out that it’s not, you have every right to be mad. That’s just fraud.
But on the other hand, I don’t quite understand how some people can get tremendously upset about certain animals being used for meat and not others. These people cry about cruelty to dogs or horses being used for meat while they’re happily downing their steaks and pork.
Why is it cruel to eat some animals but perfectly fine to eat others?
Doctor: “Based on my examination of you and my experience, I can say with a degree of professional accuracy that you have the flu.”
Patient: “Thank you, doctor, you obviously know best.”
Auto Mechanic: “I’ve been studying cars for years and know them backwards and forwards, and can say without fear of error that the problem is the starter.”
Car Owner: “You certainly know your work better than I do.”
Lawyer: “I’ve spent years getting my law degree, studying the Constitution and the laws and taking constant continuing education classes. I can say with certainty, having studied the cases and history, that the Supreme Court has declared that the 2nd amendment is not absolute and reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and use are perfectly Constitutional.”
Citizen: “Oh yeah? What do you know? I know that the exact opposite is true and there’s nothing you can say that will change my mind.”
That was something I posted on my Facebook page a few months ago that generated a bit of conversation (including notice from my US Representative who “liked” it).
Some folks tried to read more into this than was intended. I am not saying that every “expert” is always right, or that you should never question authority — far from it. My point was that when you personally have little or no knowledge of something, paying attention to an expert is not a bad thing. And disagreeing without having any evidence to support your view won’t get you far.
Doing some research, educating yourself, and presenting an argument based on facts is different. It is certainly possible to make yourself into someone knowledgeable.
However, discounting an expert’s opinion simply because he or she disagrees with you doesn’t seem like the best way to win an argument.
Note that disagreeing with what the law is is not the same as denying the law exists. There are lots of laws I disagree with. I think laws denying gays the right to marry should be declared unconstitutional, in my opinion. But they currently are not.
My problem is when I say “Here is what the current law on the Constitution is” and have someone respond “No it isn’t” and be absolutely wrong and unwilling to accept that. Currently, the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment allows for individual ownership of guns but also that this right is not absolute. That’s the law. There should be no debate over that. It’s clear cut and in black and white for anyone to read. When gun lovers say “Nuh uh! The 2nd amendment is absolute!” they are merely giving their opinion and are, therefore, wrong. They’re as wrong as people who deny that evolution is real simply because it goes against what they personally want.
I guess, in a roundabout way, I’m agreeing with Isaac Asimov: “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”
I haven’t been updating this blog the last few days because of flu… So here’s a cartoon.
ventrellaquest.com 