Sometimes, our critics, in reacting to our posts, end up making our points for us. As Bruce puts it, in his comment to my latest post, “All one needs to do is read the comments from ‘outraged’ liberals in this post to reinforce Dan’s point.
In that post, I wondered why some gay marriage advocates brand all gay marriage opponents haters rather than engage their arguments.Â In the thread following that post, many such advocates didn’t even bother to acknowledge my argument, but instead resorted to insult.
One critic even trotted out the standard insult used by gay liberals to slander gay conservatives, “self-loathing” while assuming we came by our ideas via “religious teaching/indoctrination” and ignoring facts.Â And while busy making assumptions about us, he accused us (and our defenders) of being impervious to “reasoned discussion”!Â WOW.Â Well, he did make me smile.Â 🙂
And if, as another critic put it, “anyone using the traditional’ definition of marriage as the bulwark of their argument is arguing a losing case,” why then do so many opponents of that definition resort to ad hominem? If it were a losing argument, couldn’t then they easily rebut it via reasoned discussion?
To be sure, some of our critics do make valid points, a number of which echo things I have said on this blog, notably about “no-fault divorce [being] a greater threat to social cohesion than gay marriage.”
It was, however, one critic whose comment really caught my eye:
You have no idea what this student presented in his speech. It was enough to get an experienced professor as well as two students rather riled up. He could have been saying hateful things about homosexuals, which for some reason you gloss over and assume that because he was defending traditional marriage that he must have been arguing in good faith. (Really, can’t you just learn to love the big gay homo that you are?)
First, note his last snide aside, assuming yet again (yawn!) this particular gay conservative is self-hating (as it seems we all must be to fit into his narrow world view).Â Yeah, maybe the guy did say hateful things about homosexuals, but does that justify the reaction of the professor, calling him a “fascist bastard”?
As to getting the experienced professor and students riled up, well, just look at the thread and this man’s own comment.Â He does get riled up pretty easily, doesn’t he? In the post, I didn’t engage in any ad hominem attack, merely wondered why some gay marriage advocates use such tactics against their ideological adversaries.Â And here, we get him accusing me of self-hatred!
Now, yo see why I assumed the student opposing gay marriage was doing so in good faith.Â I posted that piece in good faith.Â Still, it managed to get my ideological adversaries (well not so much adversaries if they bothered to familiarize themselves with my thoughts on gay marriage) riled up.Â Some leftists do seem to get riled up merely by the expression of an opposing point of view, as that comment confirms.
To that unhappy man, the outrage of the professor and students (“riled up”) becomes proof of conservative hate speech.Â In reality, however, their outrage is more a projection of their own inner anxieties than a commentary on the arguments of their intellectual opponents.