Friday, June 15, 2012

NOM's flow chart reveals organization's empty arguments

I'm not saying that the National Organization for Marriage is ducking the heat regarding the recent fraudulent study bought and paid for by one of its founders and chairman emeritus Robert George, but I find it hilarious that NOM hasn't talked about the study on its blog as much as it did when the study first came out.

However, NOM is spotlighting a flow chart created by university research assistant (who shall remain nameless because with his name out there, NOM will no doubt claim that his life is being threatened even though no one will probably do so) on marriage equality. In all honesty, I have no idea what this young man's stance is on the issue. He could have created the flow chart as a class exercise.

NOM claims that the flow chart proves the duplicity behind marriage equality.

I disagree. The flow chart doesn't refute marriage equality, but it does reveal the empty animus of some of those who don't agree with marriage equality:

So according to this flow chart, marriage equality is similar to gladiator games and sterile couples can still procreate.

It has to be a joke, really. This chart is mere philosophical tripe which has no bearing on real world situations. It doesn't speak out the millions of same-sex couples who are leading happy lives and it certainly doesn't say a word about the same-sex couples raising children.

Best of all, what was the whole point of this thing? I would love to see someone present this trash in court just to see the judge either die laughing or choke in anger while espousing how his time has been wasted.

This is not to say that this chart doesn't have its uses.

It is nice to see the empty arguments of those against marriage equality in living color so they can be easily refuted.

By all means, please do so. And feel free to comment here.

Bookmark and Share


Kat said...

I love the use of the term "begs the question". Does NOM even know what this term means? Logic has never been NOM's strong suit. What I find interesting here is the attempt to dress up logical fallacies in a logic based diagram. The same tactic the Creation Museum uses to present their warped views in a way that visitors who've bought into the system view as objective and unbiased. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....unless someone has already drank the kool-aid, then graphs and charts validate anything and everything.

Rob P said...

In regards to same sex marriage not fufilling any human function, it fufills the function of companionship. If they then say "well you can have companionship without marriage" The response is "You can get procreation without marriage, but procreation is given as one of the "functions" of marriage"

Regarding sterile couples being procreative in type, if procreation is so vital to marriage then the ability to procreate must be in effect, not just in type.

Regarding allowing multiple partner marriage if you allow same sex marriage, the government may have a compelling state interest in prohibiting multiple partner marriage that just is not applicable to same-sex marriage. Also, prohibiting same sex marriage would not be a legitimate reason to prohibit multiple partner marriage.

That same sex marriage harms society. Please give specifics. Saying that same sex marriage harms society is a conclusion, not an argument.

The children deserve a mother and a father argument. If you argue first that gay couples can't procreate, then this is a moot argument. If you still feel that children deserve a mother and a father then 1) ban divorce, 2) require all widows, and widowers with children to remarry within a month of their spouse dying, 3) force single mothers to marry the father of the child, and 4) prohibit adoption by gay couples. (obviously, I don't agree with any of those 4 things to "give children a mother and a father")

David said...

My sweetheart and I were delighted to learn from this chart that our lives "fulfill no human function". We always appreciate all the love that anti-gay Christians throw our way.

Chris said...

Seriously? Gladiator games? Not all participants in gladiator games were consenting. The majority of gladiators were slaves! The rest were condemned criminals trying to gain their freedom! What MORON came up with this bullshit?

Journey into Love said...

As someone who uses REAL flowcharts on a daily basis in the course of my career as a Sr. BI Analyst, this is one of the most poorly put together flow chart (if you can call it that) I have ever seen. If it was truly a university research assistant who put this together, they ought to have their funding removed (of course if NOM funded it or the Catholic Bishops funded it, we know why it looks the way it does). It doesn't follow any generally accepted diagramming methodology that I am aware of that uses logic as a framework. It completely leaves out the logic that there are merged paths between the two 'paths'. And that's just for starters...I could go on but honestly this thing is so puny and ridiculous it's not worth my time to 'teach' a university grad student how to do his/her job. FAIL

David said...

This is laughable. "Sterile couples are still procreative in type, even if not in effect". That's translates to: "He has a penis, she has a vagina. Therefore, they should be able to marry." Yeah, try that lame reasoning in a court of law.

"Harms society at large by promoting an incorrect view of human nature." -- Human nature includes homosexuality. So actually marriage equality would mirror human nature.

"Same-sex marriage fulfills no human function, so it is not a human right." -- Rush Limbaugh's four, count them... FOUR marriages did not result in procreation. Therefore all of those marriage did not fulfill a human function. So he did not have a right to marry and divorce all those times.

Yeah, this flowchart would get an F in debate class. These people are complete idiots. They can't use the argument they want, which is: God says marriage is between a man and a woman. Because they're trying to make their position secular in nature. But they fail when they try to do that.

felidstar said...

Biblical Marriage has always been to formalize relationships between kin-groups and solidify chain of inheritance. Whether the two (or 4 or 200) people involved were in love was moot to the actual "marriage". Many men loved and their concubines and slaves more than their actual wives. And it was that way from pre-history right until the Victorian times! So it strikes me as hilarious that 1) Most Christians now firmly reject arranged marriage, when that is the basis of a "traditional" marriage; 2) They use the slippery-slope argument of marriage equality/marriages based on love opening the door to multiple marriage, when the bible is PACKED with references to mulitple marriages. That is also "traditional" marriage; and 3) The marriages now accepted in this nation are far from traditional - based on love, allowed to dissolve at will, and are not permitted between close family members or old men and pre-pubescent girls. And a woman is free to marry whoever she wants after her husband dies - she is not kept chained to her husband's family by a quick arranged marriage to someone else in the clan. They've done away with so much "tradition", why deny some of the most fervent believers in the institution of marriage the right to partake in it??

JesterKatz said...

Why two people? Justifies union of any number of persons

If you can define marriage as 1 man + 1 woman, you can also include marriage as between 1 man + 1 man or 1 woman + 1 woman. Or if you wish to be more simple, marriage being between two adults regardless of gender. And don't give me that slippery slope bull, because:
A. We're talking about marriage between two people, not marriage between three or more people.
B. That slippery slope can also be used against heterosexual marriage.

Harms society at large by promoting n incorrect view of human nature

You ask 100 people about human nature, you get 100 different answers. We have no strict definition of what our “nature” is, so how can we be so sure what's destructive or not? And if you're going with what the Bible says, then you're admitting that our nature is to be slave-owners, to kill whomever God tells us to, to have polygyny marriages, etc.
In fact, just by how ambiguous “human nature” is, should make this a fallacy.

Consenting to something does not make it just

This one actually has fair point. True, if two consenting adults are in love, they have a right to be together. However, consents, aka agreements, can lead to involuntary harm for someone. This isn't a bad argument, it's just weak, and something I feel shouldn't be used as very frequently. You can call me heartless, but groups like NOM are worse, and they're not afraid to use your loving relation against you, and even try to make is seem like just owning a home together will bring destruction to the neighborhood.

JesterKatz said...

Part 2
Sterile couples are still procreative in type, even if not in effect

So...they're pretty much saying that infertile couples may marry because they are opposite-sex, which is the only way to make babies, despite not being able to make children between themselves. In other words, it's the structure that counts, regardless if the couples can make children. This is quite ridicules, considering homosexuals are more able to procreate then infertile people (no offense), via surrogate or in-vetro. And if anyone argues that same-sex couples having children in such a manner is “wrong”, or any similar arguments, what they're really saying is, “That's cheating!!”

Begs the question by assuming a right to a same-sex marriage.

This is a right, because, despite what you may think, ability to procreate does not correlate to parental skills. Here's the low down:

Reproduction is a physical ability, of getting his sperm to her eggs.

Parental skills is a mental ability, using social skill to raise the baby successfully into an adult.

The point I'm getting at here is that procreation is gender specific (note: gender specific, not orientation), but parental skills are all in the mind, your gender is highly irrelevant. Hell, just about anyone can be a parent, but it takes a real effort to be a good parent. It's no secret that there have been parents rotten to their biological children, is NOM going to deny this? Kids don't merely need a mom and dad, they need responsible caretakers willing to take the task not everyone is cut out for. Additionally, NOM keeps stating that children need a mother and a father, but I don't recall them ever stating why.

Same-sex marriage fulfills no human function, so it is not a human right

I may not follow NOM as strictly as Alvin or Jeremy (Good As You), but I'm familiar enough with their arguments to know that this is a loaded question. By “human function”, NOM really mean it from a biblical perspective. Since the Bible is (questionably) anti-gay, of course NOM is going to go against it. That being said, even if NOM meant it from a secular point, SSM does fulfill a human function: social health. Not to mention that, just as Americans alone, gays have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

David said...

I'd also like to add that they actually dispute their own position, which is that marriage's sole purpose is to link children to their parents. But then they give permission to sterile couples to get married, simply because they are the right gender. In other words, marriage really ISN'T about children, since having children isn't a requirement for some couples that happen to get a "free pass". Free passes are also given out to senior citizens and those straight couples that have decided not to raise children. They fail to explain why same-sex couples aren't eligible for those free passes that have NOTHING to do with children.

They also say that "Children deserve a mother and father." But they aren't trying to ban divorce or adoptions. Both of which, separate children from one or both parents. They also don't seem to mind that millions of single (straight) parents are raising children. Shouldn't those deprived children be placed in "mother and father" homes? ...or does that rule only apply when the parents happen to be gay?

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Max Voltage SF said...

1) The fight is not really for "Same-Sex" marriage. It's for "Gender Neutral".

2) The Flow chart utterly ignores the existence and marriages of trans folk & intersex folk. (or as I like to say to street side preachers "I am just as Gawd and or nature made me. I don't have an opposite sex. What is your moral justification for preventing me from marrying?"

(reposted to show name)

Trevor Kroger said...

But what about us couples who aren't sterile and choose not to reporduce? Help me, NOM! Is my heterosexual union acceptable or not!?

Nadine said...

I'm with Trevor on this one. Is heterosexual marriage invalidated because they CHOSE not to have children? *gasp!* But, but... EVERYONE knows that marriage is "for the children". Nope. It's a contract, companionship, validation by society (which, by the way, we still have some way to go on this) and friends, love (for many) and a whole lot of other reasons.
Plus I'm surprised that in this logical fallacy, the oft-used quote: "God created Adam & Eve, not Adam and Steve." Got news for NOM on this argument-- GOD DID create Adam & Steve or there would be no such thing as Adam & Steve.

Greg B. said...

The general concept of a flow chart is that it leads the user to a logical conclusion. Evidently the bottom of this image was cut off.