Reductio ad Absurdum9 May, 2009
Over the years, I have heard religious fruitcakes (usually Christian as they are the dominant theists in America) use reductio ad absurdum quite often. Rick Santorum claimed that gay marriage would lead to man-on-dog sex. Not to be outdone, professional asshat Pat Robertson has tossed his ass into the ring.
On 06 May, Robertson spoke about Maine’s approval of human rights for all humans, and of New Hampshire’s governor’s agonizing over signing a gay marriage bill. That is, of course, one of the perks of owning your own network: no matter how stupid the drivel dropping from your lips, you can get on TV.
Of course, he did face a hostile interviewer. Well, not really. It was his own employee who tossed him this softball over the center of the plate (you can see the video at Media Matters (not recommended (it is, after all, Robertson)) or read a transcript provided by Think Progress):
HOST: Meanwhile, the New Hampshire legislature has also voted in favor of gay marriage, but Pat, the governor there still isn’t sure if he will approve that bill.
And Robertson stepped up to the plate and hit a nice, fat, reductio ad absurdum right out of the studio:
ROBERTSON: Lee, we haven’t taken this to its ultimate conclusion. You got polygamy out there. How can we rule that polygamy is illegal when you say that homosexual marriage is legal. What is it about polygamy that’s different? Well, polygamy was outlawed because it was considered immoral according to biblical standards. But if we take biblical standards away in homosexuality, what about the other? And what about bestiality and ultimately what about child molestation and pedophilia? How can we criminalize these things and at the same time have constitutional amendments allowing same-sex marriage among homosexuals. You mark my words, this is just the beginning in a long downward slide in relation to all the things that we consider to be abhorrent.
Wait. What? Polygamy “was considered immoral according to biblical standards”? So then the bible is fallible? After all (from the Skeptics Annotated Bible):
Genesis 4:19 And Lamech took unto him two wives. Genesis 16:1-4 Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai … gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived. Genesis 25:6 But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had…. Genesis 26:34 Esau … took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite. Genesis 31:17 Then Jacob rose up, and set … his wives upon camels. Exodus 21:10 If he take him another wife….
Click to the site to read many more examples. Odd. The bible seems to have no problem at all with polygamy.
Of course, he then refers to the biblical injunctions against homosexuality (I would assume from Leviticus). Is that a wool-blend suit you are wearing, Mr. Robertson? Do you eat shrimp or clams, Mr. Robertson? Do you work on the sabbath? Damned hypocrite. That damned Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are the only part of Leviticus that the fundogelical asshats even notice.
Apparently, relativism concerning shellfish, mixed fabrics, polygamy and working seven days a week is okay. But realizing that myths from 2500 years ago are just as applicable to homosexuality as they are to the rest of the abominations is beyond imagination. Why? Well, because it will lead to the legalization of “bestiality and ultimately what about child molestation and pedophilia.”
Check me on this: Robertson equates a relationship between two consenting adults, legally binding, is the same as an adult taking advantage of an animal or a child who cannot legally give consent? Is he out of his fucking mind? Okay, I think I know the answer to that one.
Listen up, Pat. Marriage is a civil contract recognized by the state. It is only a religious ceremony if the couple desires it (my (((Wife))) and I were married by a Justice of the Peace in her parents living room (no god(s) or religion involved)). It is a contract between consenting adults. There is no reason to discriminate against a group of people because of sexual orientation. And to equate a civil contract, recognized by the state, between two adults, with bestiality or paedophilia is scare-mongering, religious abuse, dishonest, and reprehensible.