False major premise
In logic, the major premise must be true and exclusive or what follows in the minor premise and ergo will be false. A lawyer for a gay coalition contends that there is an "increase in human happiness and social stability that comes from permitting people to marry for love." This statement would be true if not for the ‘fact’ that the marriage in this premise ‘is’ not a marriage when it involves the wrong, unnatural and ergo, sinful combination of two members of the same sex. Love has nothing but everything perverse to do with it. What sounds good, as usual, to non-thinkers, is usually bad logic and morality. I am reminded of H.L. Mencken’s phrase, Boobus Americanus for emotional followers and advocates of stupid or illegitimate causes. An example might be the careless use of the word icon today. Virtually any person, usually recently deceased, becomes an icon. To posit that some person is an icon, the term must not be narrowly defined as an image or likeness, but re-defined to apply to any famous person one chooses to venerate. A writer, Joe Queenan, makes the point cleverly with words: " This is just another case of hyperventilating journalists hijacking an otherwise admirable language because they are desperate to insert an infectious banality into their work and don’t care if it belongs there. ... The English language (is) flexible, but it’s not stupid."
Boobus Americanus away they go!
posted by CAROLYN @ 6:34 PM
1 Comments:
You provide your readers a lesson in logic and yet you then proceed to violate your own rule. Your major premise, that a same sex couple cannot be considered as "married" be cause it involves "the wrong, unnatural and ergo, sinful combination of two members of the same sex", is as wrong as you can possibly get. Use of the word "wrong" is purely a subjective term, for those who happen to be Lesbian or Gay, falling in love with and wanting to spend one's life with someone of the same sex, although perhaps seemingly "wrong" to someone who is heterosexual, would actually be quite "right" for who they are as a person. Use of the word "unnatural" implies something that does not occur in nature, but zoology tells us that not only homosexual behavior, but homosexual pairs occur quite routinely among some 1500 species of animals and human history tells us that homosexuality and same sex love has been around as long as we have been keeping track of ourselves and probably even longer, calling it "unnatural" would be a logical fallacy. Use f the word "sinful" is also quite subjective, as there is no faith which has a consensus on that point. While many of any given faith have chosen to believe that same sex relationships and marriages are to be considered as "sinful", not all adherents to ANY faith have made that same choice. There are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and followers of many other faiths who have chosen to believe that being homosexual and even homosexual love and relationships are not only acceptable to their beliefs, but should be encouraged by them. While you may want out of ignorance or just plain meanness, want to consider love between two people of the same sex as something "perverse", that doesn't mean that it is. So what you have provided readers here is bad logic and morality and for that, I award you the Boobus Americanus for advocating a stupid and completely illegitimate cause based solely on an extremely ugly emotion. You call your blog, "Uncommon Sense", we can only hope for the sake of humanity that's true, if your sense were common we'd all be in trouble...
Post a Comment
<< Home