The loutishness and substancelessness of Prop 8 proponents

Things sure do change. I seem to recall that, for many years—at least in my lifetime—Republicans embraced a particular paradigm of the responsible citizen and voter. It was the Rational and Prudent Conservative. Very staunch, very sensible. Think of George Will or, say, Peggy Noonan. Such people always seemed to have some importance among Republicans.

No longer. They now seem marginalized in the GOP. They're even irrelevant. (And bewildered.)

As you know, the new paradigm is the Smirking Jerk. Think of Sean Hannity—and now even John McCain, what with his, well, smirk and eye-rolling, and his 24-hour revolving wheel-o'-sophistry and pandering.

You see the new dominance of the Smirking Jerk at all levels.

"WE HATE FAGS." Consider the debate over California’s Proposition 8, which proposes to eliminate the right of marriage for same-sex couples in the CA Constitution. Here in Orange County, it’s a big deal. People feel strongly about it. They’re standing on corners, holding signs, stealing signs, shouting slurs, wielding Bibles.

I’ve been reading the latest letters to the OC Reg regarding Proposition 8. Most of the anti-8 letters are unremarkable. (See for yourself.) 

It's the pro-8 letters I wanna zero in on. They're special.

One letter-writer, Steve, opines: “Many people believe in the importance of both traditional marriage between a man and a woman and tolerance for all people. Opponents of Prop. 8 believe these two ideas are in conflict. They are not.”

As a logic guy, I've gotta say: Steve’s sentences make my brain hurt. Obviously, an opponent of Prop 8 need not find any conflict between these ideas. The conflict, obviously, arises when one conceives of marriage as excluding homosexual unions (when, that is, homosexuals desire such unions), for such exclusion fails to accord a right to some people that is accorded to other people. That is, thus conceiving and restricting marriage entails discrimination between types of persons and against a particular type of persons. 

Steve offers no argument that this discrimination is not also unjustified and unwarranted discrimination. None. 

How can this be? Can you imagine George Will failing to come through with an argument--to leave, as we say in the logic biz, a big fat logical lacuna? Not me. Nope.

Another letter-writer, Mark, asserts that anti-8 “activists” have agenda items, including to “Recruit children to believe homosexuality is a legitimate lifestyle.” The “Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network” is coordinating with the NEA, he says, “on guidelines for inculcating sex and homosexuality into school curriculum nationwide.”

Mark chooses to use the word “recruit,” for it suggests enlistment in some activity or project. —Such as “gayness,” perhaps? 

But his sentence is really about teaching students to be tolerant, i.e., to embrace an attitude or philosophy according to which homosexuality is a “legitimate lifestyle.”

Mark engages in sophistry here. Evidently, he has nothing of any consequence to offer.

How can that be? (I mean, I could do better than these guys arguing against same-sex marriage!)

And what’s this business about “inculcating sex and homosexually into…[curricula]”? First, one inculcates something (an idea or habit) in a person, not in curricula. Mark is having trouble stringing words together coherently.

So what is he trying to say? Is he suggesting that, unless 8 passes, an attempt will be made to teach school kids to be gay? 

C'mon. He's suggesting exactly that without literally saying it. That's sophistry. It's flimflammery.

But there is no reason to think that any such inculcation program is being contemplated by anyone (obviously, if we were to attempt it, it would likely fail). 

The idea is to inculcate tolerance, not gayness. So saith the voice of reason, which used to come in the color "conservative." But now? Not so much.

The pro-8 forces don’t have much to say for themselves at least among these OC Reg letters. That's clear.

READER COMMENTS:

Naturally, I also read further--into “reader comments,” a step that, in the case of the OC Reg, is always disconcerting, like walking into a neighborhood of thugs and louts and tattooed rednecks (pace other-necked tattoo fans). You've gotta keep your head down low.

One reader, Daegon, comments that “Meatpipe worshippers want to be considered legitimate. They are not.” 

Meatpipe? Hmmm. Deagon’s “point” reminds me of the erudite logical stylings of some of Dissent’s right-wing commenters. Daegon offers no argument. Just an assertion. Plus colorful and offensive terms. (I would forgive the "meatpipe" business if Daegon had anything going for him at all. "Meatpipe" is kinda funny. --A pipe of meat. Sure.)

Another reader, Starrynite, notes that, to understand what will happen if 8 does not pass, one need only look to the state of Massachusetts. “What is happening in Massachusetts CAN and WILL happen in California if Proposition 8 does not pass,” declares Starrynite.

But then the poor fellow fails to explain what is happening in Massachusetts. Nevertheless, to prove his point about the CA/MA analogy, he provides an example, not of an event in MA, but an event in CA, namely, a teacher passing out cards provided by the “Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network” to kindergartners. 

What did the cards say? Starrynite fails to tell us. 

What's the matter with these people? Were they born in a barn? I realize that we can't expect much from letters to the Reg, but shouldn't we at least encounter some cut-rate version of the Prudent and Rational Conservative? Where did that guy or gal go? I don't see him here, and I don't seem him in the streets. I don't meet 'im at my college. Nope.

Just louts and fools with no arguments.

HOME INVASION: