• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A response to a local editorial

A_Feeble_Mind

Thinker
A_Feeble_Mind
Joined
Jun 26, 2002
Messages
218
I was just frustrated by an opinion piece in the local newspaper, and was inspired to write a counter piece. Since I am a bit angry, it is difficult to ensure that what I have written makes sense, so I am asking for a proofread from the forum. Any suggestions would be great. Also, I am limited to 700 words or less and this is currently at 567, so I have some space to add, if needed.

John Van Buren's April 24th Viewpoint article opposing gay marriage is full of irrelevancies, contradiction as well as outright bigotry.

Several times, he makes reference to a "natural moral law." Additionally, he claims that gay marriage "contradicts natural law" and that it is an absolute contradiction. My question for John is, who defines this natural moral law? Who gets to decide the morality of the nation? Perhaps we should take a cue from the extremist Islamic nations in the mideast and consider eating pork immoral, and women who do not cover themselves from head to toe immoral. Further, he asserts that gay marriage will result in "social, civil and cultural chaos." What evidence does he present for this? None. The assertion that gay marriage will usher in a new order of prosperity and will bring world peace is equally valid without any supporting evidence.

Regarding civil rights, John's article claims that the civil right laws were instituted to "protect a person from discrimination based on one's race, gender, handicap and age" because they are conditions which cannot be controlled. From his attack on why homosexuality is a choice, it can be inferred that other choices should not be afforded protection from discrimination. Shall we discriminate against all Christians and not acknowledge a civil union between two of them? They chose to be Christians, after all.

John cannot find any evidence that supports the "big lie that gays are born gay." He also attacks the "10 percent lie" that "10 percent of the population is gay." Both of these issues are irrelevant; rights of minorities are protected regardless of how many or few of them there are, regardless of whether it their choice to be in that minority or not.

John misleads us with an attack on same sex benefits. The issue is not benefits for the individual, but for the rights of the partner. When a member from a gay union dies, benefits are not extended to the partner. Additionally, tax benefits, including the exemption of death taxes, are not extended in the same way to gay partners as they are to married individuals. He claims that the taxpayers of Kalamazoo were "suckered into approving same-sex benefits," even though "the average wage (for gays) is much higher than the average non-gay person." Again, no evidence is provided; we are simply supposed to take this at face value without being provided any reason to. And, again, even if it is true, why does it matter how much money a gay person makes? Should we disallow benefits for spouses of millionaires? I do not understand the point.

He concludes with a claim that gay marriage is a "vast social experiment that not only puts our children as (sp) risk but the basic fiber of our society." It amazes me how much meaningless, unsupported, emotionally based nonsense John was able to cram into his article. How does this put our children at risk? Are married gays suddenly going to be allowed to eat children? No, in reality, allowing gay marriages will likely have no social impact on our children; there are gay couples who already act like married individuals and would not act differently if they were officially allowed to marry. And, how does gay marriage risk the basic fiber of our society? Oh no! Gays can marry; I guess we should go riot in the streets and loot stores.
Click to expand...
 
He claims that the taxpayers of Kalamazoo were "suckered into approving same-sex benefits," even though "the average wage (for gays) is much higher than the average non-gay person." Again, no evidence is provided; we are simply supposed to take this at face value without being provided any reason to.
Click to expand...

He'd also have to prove the point that recognising same-sex relationships from the point of view of tax and benefit is likely to have a significant draining impact on Kalamazoo's budget.

The death of a partner in a marriage in which the remaining partner is left destitute can place a large burden on social welfare. That burden exists whether or not the marriage is recognised.

In a conventional marriage the partners can (and frequently do) make provisions for each other in the event something unfortunate happens to one of them. This may mean a reduced tax revenue due to reliefs or allowances, but also reduced liabilities.

I've no idea of the balance in this, but then neither has your leader writer and he's making the assertion.

Can you post his original, or a link to it?
 
His English isn't too great for a journalist.

What is this natural (moral) law he is banging on about? I might understand if he was talking about Mosaic law or something. I know you've sort of said that, but to me it seems a convenient shield from behind which to exercise his prejudices.

The real frightening part was this;
"John Van Buren of Kalamazoo retired from the Department of Mental Health of the state of Michigan. "

Yikes! there's a real irony there somewhere.
 
Benguin said:
His English isn't too great for a journalist.

What is this natural (moral) law he is banging on about? I might understand if he was talking about Mosaic law or something. I know you've sort of said that, but to me it seems a convenient shield from behind which to exercise his prejudices.

The real frightening part was this;
"John Van Buren of Kalamazoo retired from the Department of Mental Health of the state of Michigan. "

Yikes! there's a real irony there somewhere.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I found the mental health part amusing, as well.

He isn't a journalist. He wrote an opinion piece in response to an opinion written by someone else. So, what I wrote is a response to a response. :)

Thanks for you suggestions. I will try to incorporate some of them. Would you mind if I copied and pasted some of your stuff?
 
AFM -

I think for the most part that you've done extremely well, but I object to much of your final paragraph, specifically:

"How does this put our children at risk? Are married gays suddenly going to be allowed to eat children? No, in reality, allowing gay marriages will likely have no social impact on our children; there are gay couples who already act like married individuals and would not act differently if they were officially allowed to marry. And, how does gay marriage risk the basic fiber of our society? Oh no! Gays can marry; I guess we should go riot in the streets and loot stores."

1) I agree with you, let's get that out of the way.
2) You might want some data re: children who are adopted by gay parents or
3) data re: crime rates etc in European coutries where gay marriage is recognized or
4) crime rates etc in San Francisco both before and after the short-lived recognition of gay marriages.

Because the first part of your article is a factual bonanza, whereas the last para is only going to reinforce the taking of sides; your typical bigot will say "we never said that gay marriage will cause rioting, therefore you are wrong." That is because these people are insane, but that's another post entirely.

Anyway, the best way to convince those who can be convinced is with data; there is no other way. Those who just hate gays because of Jesus will never be swayed and we have to wait until they are all dead, and your/our target are those in the middle.

Well done and good luck.
 
You're right; I probably need to change that final paragraph, since sacarsm rarely changes minds. But, I was trying to have my opinion be more about him not providing info, which is why I didn't research data from Europe (that and I'm lazy;).) Although, it definately would provide a much better finish to have some facts. Do you have any suggestions for websites where I could find statistics regarding this? Thanks.
 
Feel free to use anything I've said, and the best of luck to you.

LFTKBS is right .. I think the author's comments stem from the old idea that all gays must be child-molesters and/or on a mission to 'convert' every impressionable juvenile they can get their hands on.

Whatever he thinks he is protecting children from he hasn't stated it. The problem is I suspect him and his ilk desperately believe a risk is present without being able to clearly identify what that risk is. It's a cunning ploy to avoid direct criticism ("I didn't mean gays eat babies, as you well know") leaving himself an evasive backdoor for any skeptical enquiry, whilst characterising pro-marriage people as having disregard for the interests of children. A ridiculous claim, but one that would be believed by people who think like him.
 
(1)
A flaw in the 'natural morality' approach is that it is not the simplest solution to human social need. The view is unnecessarily complex (Occam's Razor) probably due to a personal bias.

Humans evolved as social beings, not solitary ones that only became social later. Social behavior is part of our human nature. The simplest social relationship is between two people.

Sometimes that basic 'natural' relationship results in children, sometimes it does not.

The 'slippery slope' he might get into with his 'natural morality' argument being based on 'man and woman', is that it argues for similar discrimination against couples who cannot bear children. After all, if children could not result from the union, what 'natural' reason could they have for being married? People actually DO believe this, so maybe he would not perceive it as a problem.

(2)
Maybe more important - Attack the argument not the person. Whether you agree with my reasoning above or not (and I did not provide evidence), I have attacked his argument without attacking him. If you feel a need to call him an idiot, use the technique like spice (for flavor not substance).

good luck!
 
A_Feeble_Mind said:
Do you have any suggestions for websites where I could find statistics regarding this? Thanks.
Click to expand...

hrc.org has some quick stats, based on our 2000 census (1st link I think).

I’ve also brought up some research in the moderated gay marriage thread.

I’ve found it’s kind of difficult to fit data and research into an editorial--something about the format--but it’s doable.

I must say, thank you very much.
 
A flaw in the 'natural morality' approach is that it is not the simplest solution to human social need. The view is unnecessarily complex (Occam's Razor) probably due to a personal bias.

Humans evolved as social beings, not solitary ones that only became social later. Social behavior is part of our human nature. The simplest social relationship is between two people.

Sometimes that basic 'natural' relationship results in children, sometimes it does not.
Click to expand...

Also, one could easily add that homosexuality is pervasive, though in a necessary minority, among many other species. I swear the vast gay conspiracy hasn’t gotten around to corrupting penguins and chimps….. yet. So, if it’s “unnatural” why is it in 100% non-human nature?

Check out the book Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl.

There are a number of theories as to why this might be, but none yet with sufficient evidence. Still, he has catalogued many examples of homosexuality in many species, birds, primates, insects, and so on, even among “adoptive” parents.

edited to add link.
 
LFTKBS said:
... there are gay couples who already act like married individuals and would not act differently if they were officially allowed to marry.
Click to expand...

Just a quibble but I bet I can find more than a few yellowpage-listed lawyers that would disagree.
 
Thanks, all. I have tried to take all suggestions into consideration, and have toned down my attack on the writer. I have added reference to gay marriage in other countries, but have decided against actual stats. Also, I am going to avoid bringing up points that were not clearly spelled out in his article. The revised edition is below.

John Van Buren's April 24th Viewpoint article opposing gay marriage is full of irrelevancies, contradiction as well as outright bigotry.

Several times, he makes reference to a "natural moral law." Additionally, he claims that gay marriage "contradicts natural law" and that it is an absolute contradiction. My question is, who defines this natural moral law? Who gets to decide the morality of the nation? Perhaps we should take a cue from the extremist Islamic nations in the mideast and consider eating pork immoral, and women who do not cover themselves from head to toe immoral. Does this "natural morality" come from observing the animal world? If so, homosexuality is part of the natural morality since various species of animals have members which are gay. Further, it is asserted that gay marriage will result in "social, civil and cultural chaos." What evidence is presented for this? None. The assertion that gay marriage will usher in a new order of prosperity and will bring world peace is equally valid without any supporting evidence.

Regarding civil rights, John's article claims that the civil right laws were instituted to "protect a person from discrimination based on one's race, gender, handicap and age" because they are conditions which cannot be controlled. From his attack on why homosexuality is a choice, it can be inferred that other choices should not be afforded protection from discrimination. Shall we discriminate against all Christians and not acknowledge a civil union between two of them? They chose to be Christians, after all.

John cannot find any evidence that supports the "big lie that gays are born gay." He also attacks the "10 percent lie" that "10 percent of the population is gay." Both of these issues are irrelevant; rights of minorities are protected regardless of how many or few of them there are, regardless of whether it their choice to be in that minority or not.

We are mislead by an attack on same sex benefits. The issue is not benefits for the individual, but for the rights of the partner. When a member from a gay union dies, benefits are not extended to the partner. Additionally, tax benefits, including the exemption of death taxes, are not extended in the same way to gay partners as they are to married individuals. He claims that the taxpayers of Kalamazoo were "suckered into approving same-sex benefits," even though "the average wage (for gays) is much higher than the average non-gay person." The death of a partner in a marriage in which the remaining partner is left destitute can place a large burden on social welfare. That burden exists whether or not the marriage is recognised. In a conventional marriage the partners can (and frequently do) make provisions for each other in the event something unfortunate happens to one of them. This may mean a reduced tax revenue due to reliefs or allowances, but also reduced liabilities. Meaning, the Kalamazoo "suckers" are potentially saving themselves money. Regarding average income, even if it is true, why does it matter how much money a gay person makes? Should we disallow benefits for spouses of millionaires? I do not understand the point.

He concludes with a claim that gay marriage is a "vast social experiment that not only puts our children as (sp) risk but the basic fiber of our society." This statement is meaningless, unsupported and emotionally based. How does this put our children at risk? The Netherlands and Belgium both provide equal rights for gay marriages. How have the children in those countries been harmed, or even put at risk, since the first gay marriage in 2001? In reality, allowing gay marriages will likely have no social impact on our children; there are gay couples who already act like married individuals and would not act differently if they were officially allowed to marry. And, how does gay marriage risk the basic fiber of our society? The answer is, it doesn't.
Click to expand...
 
Well done; excellent revision.

My final recommendations are in bold, if you're interested.

"He concludes with a claim that gay marriage is a "vast social experiment that not only puts our children as (sic) risk but the basic fiber of our society." This statement is meaningless, unsupported and emotionally based. How does this put our children at risk? The Netherlands and Belgium both provide equal rights for gay marriages. How have the children in those countries been harmed, or even put at risk, since the first gay marriage in 2001? In reality, allowing gay marriages will likely have no social impact on our children; there are gay couples who already act like married individuals and would not act differently if they were officially allowed to marry. How does gay marriage risk the basic fiber of our society? The answer is: it doesn't."

On preview/edit, for some reason the colon with which I replaced your comma (in the final sentence) is not showing up in bold. So.
 
Thanks. I updated with your corrections. Here is what I am going to send to the paper.

John Van Buren's April 24th Viewpoint article opposing gay marriage is full of irrelevancies, contradictions as well as outright bigotry.

Several times, he makes reference to a "natural moral law." Additionally, he claims that gay marriage "contradicts natural law" and that it is an absolute contradiction. My question is, who defines this natural moral law? Who gets to decide the morality of the nation? Perhaps we should take a cue from the extremist Islamic nations in the mideast and consider eating pork immoral, and women who do not cover themselves from head to toe immoral. Does this "natural morality" come from observing the animal world? If so, homosexuality is part of the natural morality since various species of animals have members which are gay. Further, it is asserted that gay marriage will result in "social, civil and cultural chaos." What evidence is presented for this? None. The assertion that gay marriage will usher in a new order of prosperity and will bring world peace is equally valid without any supporting evidence.

Regarding civil rights, John's article claims that the civil right laws were instituted to "protect a person from discrimination based on one's race, gender, handicap and age" because they are conditions which cannot be controlled. From his attack on why homosexuality is a choice, it can be inferred that other choices should not be afforded protection from discrimination. Shall we discriminate against all Christians and not acknowledge a civil union between two of them? They chose to be Christians, after all.

John cannot find any evidence that supports the "big lie that gays are born gay." He also attacks the "10 percent lie" that "10 percent of the population is gay." Both of these issues are irrelevant; rights of minorities are protected regardless of how many or few of them there are, regardless of whether it their choice to be in that minority or not.

We are mislead by an attack on same sex benefits. The issue is not benefits for the individual, but for the rights of the partner. When a member from a gay union dies, benefits are not extended to the partner. Additionally, tax benefits, including the exemption of death taxes, are not extended in the same way to gay partners as they are to married individuals. He claims that the taxpayers of Kalamazoo were "suckered into approving same-sex benefits," even though "the average wage (for gays) is much higher than the average non-gay person." The death of a partner in a marriage in which the remaining partner is left destitute can place a large burden on social welfare. That burden exists whether or not the marriage is recognised. In a conventional marriage the partners can (and frequently do) make provisions for each other in the event something unfortunate happens to one of them. This may mean a reduced tax revenue due to reliefs or allowances, but also reduced liabilities. Meaning, the Kalamazoo "suckers" are potentially saving themselves money. Regarding average income, even if it is true, why does it matter how much money a gay person makes? Should we disallow benefits for spouses of millionaires? I do not understand the point.

He concludes with a claim that gay marriage is a "vast social experiment that not only puts our children as (sic) risk but the basic fiber of our society." This statement is meaningless, unsupported and emotionally based. How does this put our children at risk? The Netherlands and Belgium both provide equal rights for gay marriages. How have the children in those countries been harmed, or even put at risk, since the first gay marriage in 2001? In reality, allowing gay marriages will likely have no social impact on our children; there are gay couples who already act like married individuals and would not act differently if they were officially allowed to marry. How does gay marriage risk the basic fiber of our society? The answer is: it doesn't.
Click to expand...
 
Just a few quick comments/suggestions:
A_Feeble_Mind said:
John's article ...
Click to expand...
"Mr. Van Buren's article" is preferable.
A_Feeble_Mind said:
[R]ights of minorities are protected ... regardless of whether it their choice to be in that minority or not.
Click to expand...
The word "is" (or perhaps "was") seems to be missing before "their choice", and the inclusion of "or not" is superfluous. But at any rate, your observation risks being slightly misleading. At least under federal law, there is no such thing as a "protected minority" per se. There are certain protected categories of non-discrimination, but those categories are not defined by reference to whether the persons falling within them constitute a minority or not. And incidentally, one of the major rationales behind the establishment of those categories (race or color, gender, age, national origin, religion and disability) is, in fact, the absence of deliberate participation in them (religion being an unusual exception to this rule, and one with a special history in jurisprudence).
A_Feeble_Mind said:
We are mislead by an attack ...
Click to expand...
You mean "misled".
 
ceo_esq, good catches; shame it's a bit too late. I'm a little rusty on the editing front still.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom