Hypocrisy or the Lowest Common Denominator? Dangers in Selectively Denying Moral Norms

The area of moral teaching in which Christians seem to be most hated is the area of sexuality.  Persons who act on certain inclinations become angry when told that those sexual acts are evil.  Christians are called hateful and judgmental people because they say that certain acts are always wrong.  Now, while there can be people who say they are wrong in a grossly inappropriate way (The Westboro Baptists come to mind), the badly expressed message does not take away from the fact that certain acts are wrong.

The anger and hostility directed against Christians is accompanied by some rather bad reasoning.  The argument that if people choose to live in a certain way, nobody should tell them otherwise.  In other words, we are not allowed to have moral judgments on these activities.

Then these individuals get furious when you employ a reductio ad absurdum and apply that argument to other moral issues which they do find offensive.

That anger is revealing though.  It shows that the individual does recognize that certain things are wrong.  That individual just refuses to accept that their own behaviors can be part of the group [Things that are morally wrong].  Basically, it means "Other people do evil things, not me."

The problem is, those "other people" can often use the same arguments to justify their own deplorable acts.  For example, the same arguments used to justify homosexual "marriage" can also be used to justify incestuous marriage and polygamy: free and mutual consent between people who profess some level of affection for each other.  That isn't hypothetical, by the way.  I've personally encountered proponents of "polyamory" relationships who get offended when people say it is immoral, using the same arguments the proponents of homosexual relationships – and the same demand not to be judged.  These proponents got extremely angry when I pointed out that the concept of "polyamorous marriage" is an oxymoron.

Yet the fact that advocates of homosexual "marriage" do get offended when a Catholic Bishop makes that comparison shows that these advocates do think these things are wrong.  So, essentially, that means they believe a moral line exists.  Otherwise, when the comparison with polyamory and consensual incestuous relationships came up, they'd probably just shrug and say, "So what?"  Their anger then just want to draw the line differently, including their own preference in the list of "acceptable behavior."  People don't normally get offended when their beliefs are compared to something which doesn't offend them after all.

But that leads to the question of who draws the line?  Either there is a line to be drawn, or else we have no choice but to accept the lowest common denominator.  Take Pedophilia for example.  NAMBLA argues that the modern age of consent laws are artificial and that consensual relationships can exist between adults and children.  Most people find the existence of this group as well as their proposals horrific, but they use the same arguments that are used to justify other sexual activities condemned by Christian moral teaching.  They merely add the condition that the age of consent should be lower than 18 and invoke the ancient Greeks and Romans to justify their views.

It also demands a justification for drawing a different line.  If people want to say absolutes exist, but want to include homosexual acts as morally acceptable, they need to show how their absolute is justified while other consensual relationships are not.  Otherwise they become guilty of what they accuse Christians of: forcing their own view of morality on others.  In other words, why draw the line HERE and not THERE?

Actually, when it comes to showing justification for an absolute, Christianity has the advantage – and not from saying "God says so," either.  The belief in marriage as a lifelong exclusive relationship between a man and a woman which is open to the possibility of having and raising children has the biological data (pregnancy comes from sex) and sociological data showing the family as the foundation of a society and that societies with strong family ties also tended to have strong societies.

Eliminating the elements of lifelong, exclusive and being open to the possibility of having and raising children makes stopping at "gay marriage" an arbitrary decision by who is in charge.  That's the irony of it all.  Those people who get offended at this reductio ad absurdum have contradicted themselves.  By drawing the line at "gay marriage" but going no further is to make an arbitrary imposition – which is what they have accused Christians of in the traditional view of marriage.

This is the problem with "selective morality."  If a person demands that the traditional understanding of marriage be set aside in the case of one preference, then it leads one to ask, "Who has the authority to determine where the law may be redrawn and where the new absolute lies?"  Why should it be drawn to only include "homosexual marriage" and not incestuous marriages or polyamorous relationships?  Why should the age of consent be 18 instead of 15 or even 11?  After all, we can point to a time in the past when such things were seen as acceptable?  Of course we can also point to times when slavery and torture and other things we condemn today were considered acceptable, so maybe it's not always such a good idea to point to the morals of the past indiscriminately… it opens up the doors to the reductio ad absurdum.

You can see the problem which those who would change morality tend to avoid.  People don't want to permit things they believe are wrong, but they want to justify their own wrong by making themselves the "victim," claiming that the people who say their own vice is wrong are "judgmental" and "hate-filled" people.  But then they can't explain why others can't take their same principles and demand to have them applied in a way that goes even further than they want to go.

It's quite clear.  Without a rational basis for why a limit should be drawn (a basis Christian moral teaching does possess), one is forced to choose between hypocrisy and the lowest common denominator.

Hypocrisy or the Lowest Common Denominator? Dangers in Selectively Denying Moral Norms

The area of moral teaching in which Christians seem to be most hated is the area of sexuality.  Persons who act on certain inclinations become angry when told that those sexual acts are evil.  Christians are called hateful and judgmental people because they say that certain acts are always wrong.  Now, while there can be people who say they are wrong in a grossly inappropriate way (The Westboro Baptists come to mind), the badly expressed message does not take away from the fact that certain acts are wrong.

The anger and hostility directed against Christians is accompanied by some rather bad reasoning.  The argument that if people choose to live in a certain way, nobody should tell them otherwise.  In other words, we are not allowed to have moral judgments on these activities.

Then these individuals get furious when you employ a reductio ad absurdum and apply that argument to other moral issues which they do find offensive.

That anger is revealing though.  It shows that the individual does recognize that certain things are wrong.  That individual just refuses to accept that their own behaviors can be part of the group [Things that are morally wrong].  Basically, it means "Other people do evil things, not me."

The problem is, those "other people" can often use the same arguments to justify their own deplorable acts.  For example, the same arguments used to justify homosexual "marriage" can also be used to justify incestuous marriage and polygamy: free and mutual consent between people who profess some level of affection for each other.  That isn't hypothetical, by the way.  I've personally encountered proponents of "polyamory" relationships who get offended when people say it is immoral, using the same arguments the proponents of homosexual relationships – and the same demand not to be judged.  These proponents got extremely angry when I pointed out that the concept of "polyamorous marriage" is an oxymoron.

Yet the fact that advocates of homosexual "marriage" do get offended when a Catholic Bishop makes that comparison shows that these advocates do think these things are wrong.  So, essentially, that means they believe a moral line exists.  Otherwise, when the comparison with polyamory and consensual incestuous relationships came up, they'd probably just shrug and say, "So what?"  Their anger then just want to draw the line differently, including their own preference in the list of "acceptable behavior."  People don't normally get offended when their beliefs are compared to something which doesn't offend them after all.

But that leads to the question of who draws the line?  Either there is a line to be drawn, or else we have no choice but to accept the lowest common denominator.  Take Pedophilia for example.  NAMBLA argues that the modern age of consent laws are artificial and that consensual relationships can exist between adults and children.  Most people find the existence of this group as well as their proposals horrific, but they use the same arguments that are used to justify other sexual activities condemned by Christian moral teaching.  They merely add the condition that the age of consent should be lower than 18 and invoke the ancient Greeks and Romans to justify their views.

It also demands a justification for drawing a different line.  If people want to say absolutes exist, but want to include homosexual acts as morally acceptable, they need to show how their absolute is justified while other consensual relationships are not.  Otherwise they become guilty of what they accuse Christians of: forcing their own view of morality on others.  In other words, why draw the line HERE and not THERE?

Actually, when it comes to showing justification for an absolute, Christianity has the advantage – and not from saying "God says so," either.  The belief in marriage as a lifelong exclusive relationship between a man and a woman which is open to the possibility of having and raising children has the biological data (pregnancy comes from sex) and sociological data showing the family as the foundation of a society and that societies with strong family ties also tended to have strong societies.

Eliminating the elements of lifelong, exclusive and being open to the possibility of having and raising children makes stopping at "gay marriage" an arbitrary decision by who is in charge.  That's the irony of it all.  Those people who get offended at this reductio ad absurdum have contradicted themselves.  By drawing the line at "gay marriage" but going no further is to make an arbitrary imposition – which is what they have accused Christians of in the traditional view of marriage.

This is the problem with "selective morality."  If a person demands that the traditional understanding of marriage be set aside in the case of one preference, then it leads one to ask, "Who has the authority to determine where the law may be redrawn and where the new absolute lies?"  Why should it be drawn to only include "homosexual marriage" and not incestuous marriages or polyamorous relationships?  Why should the age of consent be 18 instead of 15 or even 11?  After all, we can point to a time in the past when such things were seen as acceptable?  Of course we can also point to times when slavery and torture and other things we condemn today were considered acceptable, so maybe it's not always such a good idea to point to the morals of the past indiscriminately… it opens up the doors to the reductio ad absurdum.

You can see the problem which those who would change morality tend to avoid.  People don't want to permit things they believe are wrong, but they want to justify their own wrong by making themselves the "victim," claiming that the people who say their own vice is wrong are "judgmental" and "hate-filled" people.  But then they can't explain why others can't take their same principles and demand to have them applied in a way that goes even further than they want to go.

It's quite clear.  Without a rational basis for why a limit should be drawn (a basis Christian moral teaching does possess), one is forced to choose between hypocrisy and the lowest common denominator.

The Logic That Discredits a 'Gay Marriage' argument

In the news, there have been some cases of the media or activists taking offense when a high ranking official in the Church points out that if homosexual 'marriage' was permitted, there was no reason to deny polygamy and incestuous marriage between consenting partners.  The result is to watch the supporters of so-called 'gay marriage' hit the ceiling as they angrily deny such a claim, while accusing us of saying hateful things.  How dare they say homosexual relationships are the equivalent to incest and polygamy?

Well, they didn't make that comparison.  These were not statements of moral equivalence.  Nor were they examples of the "slippery slope" fallacy (which argues if X happens, then Y and Z must also happen). 

What the cardinal and the bishop did was to employ the logical tool of reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity).  This tool shows that the consequences of taking an argument to its logical end are so absurd or offensive that the argument itself must be rejected as absurd or offensive.  (The reductio can sometimes be confused for the slippery slope, but the two are not the same)

The reductio can be broken down this way.

1. IF a person accepts the claim that feelings of affection between people, able to give consent, are the only necessary conditions for marriage (and those who insist it is intolerance to claim that marriage between a man and a woman is the only valid form of marriage)
2. THEN any similar feelings of affection between people able to give consent must also be granted the right to 'marry.'
3. THUS absurd results like polygamy and incestuous marriage must also be accepted for the same grounds "gay marriage" is accepted (that is, you can't accept one and deny the other without being arbitrary).

"Sorry dear, I'm leaving you and marrying our 18 year old daughter… we love each other and it is bigoted of you to try to restrict who we can marry."

The point is NOT to say "homosexuality = incest."  The point is this argument for so-called "gay marriage" cannot exclude incestuous marriage and polygamy as well.  Since the angry reactions show us that even supporters of "gay marriage" are offended by this comparison – an indication that the consequences of taking the argument to it's logical end are absurd or offensive, it follows this argument to justify "gay marriage" is absurd (or else opponents of incestuous marriage are "incestophobic.")

Far from being a comparison of "gay marriage" and polygamy or incestuous relationships, this reductio ad absurdum points out that this argument put forward to defend "gay marriage" actually also justifies behavior that goes too far even for the supporters.  If the supporter of "gay marriage" wants to accuse us of 'homophobia' because we believe marriage should be between a man and a woman only, then the supporter of polygamy or incestuous 'marriage' can accuse the person who wants to limit marriage to two people who are not related to each other can also be accused of intolerant bigotry.

So here is the problem for those who attack the Catholic Church as "intolerant" because she defines marriage between a man and a woman only.  Because they recognize the openness to possibility of life as one of the requirements of marriage and the unity of two people as another, it is not intolerance that marriage be made up of only two people and between a man and a woman.

BUT, for anyone who claims that it is only the affection between people that is the basis of marriage – and therefore homosexual "marriage" should be allowed IS bigoted if they refuse to allow other unions which fall under this criteria.

Remember, by expressing outrage at this claim, the proponents of "gay marriage" have already demonstrated that they find the possibility of polygamy and incestuous "marriage" offensive by being outraged at what the bishop and the cardinal have said.  So their dilemma is:

1. Either they tolerate any sort of relationship which can be justified by the reductio ad absurdum
2. OR they must justify why they can draw the line to exclude these things and still rationally support "gay marriage."

Maybe that's why supporters are so prone to hurling ad hominems instead of explaining their position?

The Logic That Discredits a 'Gay Marriage' argument

In the news, there have been some cases of the media or activists taking offense when a high ranking official in the Church points out that if homosexual 'marriage' was permitted, there was no reason to deny polygamy and incestuous marriage between consenting partners.  The result is to watch the supporters of so-called 'gay marriage' hit the ceiling as they angrily deny such a claim, while accusing us of saying hateful things.  How dare they say homosexual relationships are the equivalent to incest and polygamy?

Well, they didn't make that comparison.  These were not statements of moral equivalence.  Nor were they examples of the "slippery slope" fallacy (which argues if X happens, then Y and Z must also happen). 

What the cardinal and the bishop did was to employ the logical tool of reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity).  This tool shows that the consequences of taking an argument to its logical end are so absurd or offensive that the argument itself must be rejected as absurd or offensive.  (The reductio can sometimes be confused for the slippery slope, but the two are not the same)

The reductio can be broken down this way.

1. IF a person accepts the claim that feelings of affection between people, able to give consent, are the only necessary conditions for marriage (and those who insist it is intolerance to claim that marriage between a man and a woman is the only valid form of marriage)
2. THEN any similar feelings of affection between people able to give consent must also be granted the right to 'marry.'
3. THUS absurd results like polygamy and incestuous marriage must also be accepted for the same grounds "gay marriage" is accepted (that is, you can't accept one and deny the other without being arbitrary).

"Sorry dear, I'm leaving you and marrying our 18 year old daughter… we love each other and it is bigoted of you to try to restrict who we can marry."

The point is NOT to say "homosexuality = incest."  The point is this argument for so-called "gay marriage" cannot exclude incestuous marriage and polygamy as well.  Since the angry reactions show us that even supporters of "gay marriage" are offended by this comparison – an indication that the consequences of taking the argument to it's logical end are absurd or offensive, it follows this argument to justify "gay marriage" is absurd (or else opponents of incestuous marriage are "incestophobic.")

Far from being a comparison of "gay marriage" and polygamy or incestuous relationships, this reductio ad absurdum points out that this argument put forward to defend "gay marriage" actually also justifies behavior that goes too far even for the supporters.  If the supporter of "gay marriage" wants to accuse us of 'homophobia' because we believe marriage should be between a man and a woman only, then the supporter of polygamy or incestuous 'marriage' can accuse the person who wants to limit marriage to two people who are not related to each other can also be accused of intolerant bigotry.

So here is the problem for those who attack the Catholic Church as "intolerant" because she defines marriage between a man and a woman only.  Because they recognize the openness to possibility of life as one of the requirements of marriage and the unity of two people as another, it is not intolerance that marriage be made up of only two people and between a man and a woman.

BUT, for anyone who claims that it is only the affection between people that is the basis of marriage – and therefore homosexual "marriage" should be allowed IS bigoted if they refuse to allow other unions which fall under this criteria.

Remember, by expressing outrage at this claim, the proponents of "gay marriage" have already demonstrated that they find the possibility of polygamy and incestuous "marriage" offensive by being outraged at what the bishop and the cardinal have said.  So their dilemma is:

1. Either they tolerate any sort of relationship which can be justified by the reductio ad absurdum
2. OR they must justify why they can draw the line to exclude these things and still rationally support "gay marriage."

Maybe that's why supporters are so prone to hurling ad hominems instead of explaining their position?

Propaganda and Lies: The Accusation that We View Homosexuality Like Pedophilia

Introduction to the Category

There is a war against the Christian faith in general, and against the Catholic Church in particular.  In the eyes of those who consider us enemies, we are a foe who must be opposed and isolated, if not eliminated.  These foes employ differing methods of attack and different tools, sometimes spiritual, sometimes physical.  One tool constantly employed in the West against us is the tool of propaganda.

The propaganda used is to make us seem hateful people seeking to harm who will not accept our views.  We are accused of trying to force our views on others.  Many labels are applied to us: Racist, sexist, homophobic, small minded, bigoted etc.  We are also called the antichrist, anti-Bible, Works alone, worshippers of Mary and other labels.

However we reject these labels as false and having nothing to do with our beliefs.  Those who hate us tend to refuse to ask whether the charges are true, and merely repeat them as a mantra that seems irrational to question.

It reminds me of a biography (Soldat) of a German officer (Siegfried Knappe) who was a Russian prisoner after WWII.  He describes some of the attempts of the Russians to instill a sense of anti-Americanism in the prisoners.  So they were constantly bombarded with slogans that "Americans were for war, Russia was for peace."  Knappe reports that even there was no evidence for it, a person questioning it was often viewed as irrational by other prisoners.

This is often the case today.  People are told we are people filled with hatred and error to the extent that people will think we are lying when we try to explain that this propaganda is false and try to explain what we truly do believe.

Articles in the Propaganda and Lies category are intended to deal with gross misrepresentations of what we believe done with the intent of discrediting us when we teach the truth of Christ.

Introduction

Homosexuality is a controversial topic in the West.  This is why I feel obligated to deal with it, though I would rather deal with other subjects.  In the West today, it is seen as a sexual preference just as valid as heterosexuality, and those who dare question that assumption are viewed as irrational or as suffering from "homophobia."

Christian values, once respected, are now treated as evidence of bigotry.  There are angry people out there who accuse us of being responsible for those thugs out there who attack homosexuals because of what they are.  They consider our message inflammatory and inciting acts of violence.  If we did not claim homosexuality is wrong, the argument goes, people would not perform acts of violence against them.  It doesn't matter that the Church commands that persons with homosexual tendencies must still be treated as persons.  Because some thugs do violence, we must be to blame.

Such people fail to distinguish between different groups of course.  The Westboro Baptist Church and the Catholic Church are thought to share the same hatred for persons with homosexual inclinations.  It is a lie of course, but the charge remains unquestioned.  What we as Catholics believe is often grossly misrepresented to make us seem hate-filled.

The Propaganda: Accusing us of Believing Homosexuality is the Same as Pedophilia

One common inflammatory bit of propaganda is the accusation that we see homosexuality as no different than pedophilia or bestiality.  Because we cannot distinguish between these things, it is obvious we must be blinded by hatred.

This is a gross distortion of the truth when it comes to this issue, though I don't doubt that some Christians through either a poor choice of words or a lack of proper understanding of the Christian faith do express it this way.

Defining Reductio ad absurdum

Actually, the truth behind the propaganda is that this is a reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity) and not an allegation.

Now a reductio ad absurdum is a logical tool which exposes the flaws in an argument.  It works this way.  It takes Position [A] which is put forward as a justification for behavior.  The person challenging [A] brings up the point that if [A] is true, then situation [B] must also be true.  But since [B] is either absurd or offensive, we can't accept [A] as a valid position.

A Look at the Real Argument

Now in this case, what we have is an argument that homosexual inclinations exist, and it is unjust to expect people not to act on them.  It is considered a sexual inclination no different than heterosexual inclinations.  This will be our Position [A].

This is where the reductio ad absurdum comes into play.  A person looking at this argument can validly point out, "Ah, but pedophilia, zoophilia and necrophilia are also sexual inclinations.  If we accept that because homosexuality is an inclination and it is unjust to prevent people from expressing that inclination, we can also apply the same argument to pedophilia, zoophilia and necrophilia."

Note this does not say that homosexuality is no different than pedophilia, zoophilia and necrophilia.  It merely shows that the "inclination" argument justifies far more than just homosexuality.  Since there are natural and unnatural inclinations, the person who wants to justify the homosexual inclination as natural needs to demonstrate why the homosexual inclination is natural.

In other words, they need to prove the inclination is natural and morally acceptable, and not merely assume it is.

Defining Red Herring

The Red Herring fallacy introduces a new tangent unrelated to the original issue under dispute.  It is done to derail the original argument and lead those arguing to a different topic.  We need to be aware of the common Red Herring which will be often used when we explain the above reductio ad absurdum.

The Red Herring of the "Consenting Adults" Defense

At this time, some will argue that since homosexuality involves consenting couples while pedophilia, zoophilia and necrophilia do not.  Therefore the comparison is wrong.

This is a Red Herring fallacy.  The issue being discussed is not consent, but whether or not the inclination is natural.  Pedophiles, necrophiles and zoophiles can never act on their inclinations except in their fantasies – but most people would recognize that the existence of those tendencies are unnatural whether they are acted on or not.

Actually, the "consenting adults" argument merely deals with the issue of whether an act is a crime, not whether it is a morally acceptable act.  Adultery between consenting adults may not be illegal, but most people would consider it morally wrong.

So to claim that homosexuality involves consenting adults while pedophilia, zoophilia and necrophilia merely says such an act is not a criminal act and says nothing about whether it is a moral act.

Conclusion

It should be clear at this point that the reductio ad absurdum used to refute a defense of homosexuality is not an act of homophobia seeking to equate homosexuality with pedophilia, zoophilia and necrophilia.  Rather it points out the defense is flawed and justifies a lot more than the person defending homosexuality would want, therefore the defense must be abandoned as failing to justify homosexuality.

The person of good will should recognize that even if they disagree with the Catholic Church over the issue of homosexuality, it should be clear that the attack on us that we are homophobic and think there is no difference between homosexuality and pedophilia is a gross distortion used as propaganda to demonize us.

To continue to repeat the "Christians believe homosexuality = pedophilia" propaganda is to speak falsely about us.

Propaganda and Lies: The Accusation that We View Homosexuality Like Pedophilia

Introduction to the Category

There is a war against the Christian faith in general, and against the Catholic Church in particular.  In the eyes of those who consider us enemies, we are a foe who must be opposed and isolated, if not eliminated.  These foes employ differing methods of attack and different tools, sometimes spiritual, sometimes physical.  One tool constantly employed in the West against us is the tool of propaganda.

The propaganda used is to make us seem hateful people seeking to harm who will not accept our views.  We are accused of trying to force our views on others.  Many labels are applied to us: Racist, sexist, homophobic, small minded, bigoted etc.  We are also called the antichrist, anti-Bible, Works alone, worshippers of Mary and other labels.

However we reject these labels as false and having nothing to do with our beliefs.  Those who hate us tend to refuse to ask whether the charges are true, and merely repeat them as a mantra that seems irrational to question.

It reminds me of a biography (Soldat) of a German officer (Siegfried Knappe) who was a Russian prisoner after WWII.  He describes some of the attempts of the Russians to instill a sense of anti-Americanism in the prisoners.  So they were constantly bombarded with slogans that "Americans were for war, Russia was for peace."  Knappe reports that even there was no evidence for it, a person questioning it was often viewed as irrational by other prisoners.

This is often the case today.  People are told we are people filled with hatred and error to the extent that people will think we are lying when we try to explain that this propaganda is false and try to explain what we truly do believe.

Articles in the Propaganda and Lies category are intended to deal with gross misrepresentations of what we believe done with the intent of discrediting us when we teach the truth of Christ.

Introduction

Homosexuality is a controversial topic in the West.  This is why I feel obligated to deal with it, though I would rather deal with other subjects.  In the West today, it is seen as a sexual preference just as valid as heterosexuality, and those who dare question that assumption are viewed as irrational or as suffering from "homophobia."

Christian values, once respected, are now treated as evidence of bigotry.  There are angry people out there who accuse us of being responsible for those thugs out there who attack homosexuals because of what they are.  They consider our message inflammatory and inciting acts of violence.  If we did not claim homosexuality is wrong, the argument goes, people would not perform acts of violence against them.  It doesn't matter that the Church commands that persons with homosexual tendencies must still be treated as persons.  Because some thugs do violence, we must be to blame.

Such people fail to distinguish between different groups of course.  The Westboro Baptist Church and the Catholic Church are thought to share the same hatred for persons with homosexual inclinations.  It is a lie of course, but the charge remains unquestioned.  What we as Catholics believe is often grossly misrepresented to make us seem hate-filled.

The Propaganda: Accusing us of Believing Homosexuality is the Same as Pedophilia

One common inflammatory bit of propaganda is the accusation that we see homosexuality as no different than pedophilia or bestiality.  Because we cannot distinguish between these things, it is obvious we must be blinded by hatred.

This is a gross distortion of the truth when it comes to this issue, though I don't doubt that some Christians through either a poor choice of words or a lack of proper understanding of the Christian faith do express it this way.

Defining Reductio ad absurdum

Actually, the truth behind the propaganda is that this is a reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity) and not an allegation.

Now a reductio ad absurdum is a logical tool which exposes the flaws in an argument.  It works this way.  It takes Position [A] which is put forward as a justification for behavior.  The person challenging [A] brings up the point that if [A] is true, then situation [B] must also be true.  But since [B] is either absurd or offensive, we can't accept [A] as a valid position.

A Look at the Real Argument

Now in this case, what we have is an argument that homosexual inclinations exist, and it is unjust to expect people not to act on them.  It is considered a sexual inclination no different than heterosexual inclinations.  This will be our Position [A].

This is where the reductio ad absurdum comes into play.  A person looking at this argument can validly point out, "Ah, but pedophilia, zoophilia and necrophilia are also sexual inclinations.  If we accept that because homosexuality is an inclination and it is unjust to prevent people from expressing that inclination, we can also apply the same argument to pedophilia, zoophilia and necrophilia."

Note this does not say that homosexuality is no different than pedophilia, zoophilia and necrophilia.  It merely shows that the "inclination" argument justifies far more than just homosexuality.  Since there are natural and unnatural inclinations, the person who wants to justify the homosexual inclination as natural needs to demonstrate why the homosexual inclination is natural.

In other words, they need to prove the inclination is natural and morally acceptable, and not merely assume it is.

Defining Red Herring

The Red Herring fallacy introduces a new tangent unrelated to the original issue under dispute.  It is done to derail the original argument and lead those arguing to a different topic.  We need to be aware of the common Red Herring which will be often used when we explain the above reductio ad absurdum.

The Red Herring of the "Consenting Adults" Defense

At this time, some will argue that since homosexuality involves consenting couples while pedophilia, zoophilia and necrophilia do not.  Therefore the comparison is wrong.

This is a Red Herring fallacy.  The issue being discussed is not consent, but whether or not the inclination is natural.  Pedophiles, necrophiles and zoophiles can never act on their inclinations except in their fantasies – but most people would recognize that the existence of those tendencies are unnatural whether they are acted on or not.

Actually, the "consenting adults" argument merely deals with the issue of whether an act is a crime, not whether it is a morally acceptable act.  Adultery between consenting adults may not be illegal, but most people would consider it morally wrong.

So to claim that homosexuality involves consenting adults while pedophilia, zoophilia and necrophilia merely says such an act is not a criminal act and says nothing about whether it is a moral act.

Conclusion

It should be clear at this point that the reductio ad absurdum used to refute a defense of homosexuality is not an act of homophobia seeking to equate homosexuality with pedophilia, zoophilia and necrophilia.  Rather it points out the defense is flawed and justifies a lot more than the person defending homosexuality would want, therefore the defense must be abandoned as failing to justify homosexuality.

The person of good will should recognize that even if they disagree with the Catholic Church over the issue of homosexuality, it should be clear that the attack on us that we are homophobic and think there is no difference between homosexuality and pedophilia is a gross distortion used as propaganda to demonize us.

To continue to repeat the "Christians believe homosexuality = pedophilia" propaganda is to speak falsely about us.

Reductio ad absurdum: Latin, English and Spanish at Mass

(Preliminary Note: This article is not written to take a doctrinal stand on anything.  Rather it is a reflection for people to consider what our motives are when we express dislikes over certain things.)

I've encountered in the region I live in a certain group of people who object to Spanish being used at Mass to reach out to the Hispanic members of the community.  They say things like, "We're in America.  They should speak English."

Many people of this group also champion the use of the 1962 missal, and saying that the Mass should be said in Latin.

Very well.

If we accept as a given their claim that the Latin is the best language for the Mass, we can argue the following:

Major Premise: The closer the Mass is to Latin, the better it is.

Minor Premise: Spanish is closer to Latin than English is.

Conclusion: Therefore, a Spanish Mass is better than an English Mass.

Now I am sure that nobody (I sure don't) would accept the conclusion of this argument.  But this is the point of a reductio ad absurdum.  It points out the problematic conclusions one could draw if one accepted an argument at face value.

Now, I'm not going to accuse these individuals who dislike Spanish within the Mass as being racist.  God knows what is in their hearts.  I don't.  However, I do believe that these individuals are dogmatizing what is mere preference for them.  They prefer the old Latin Mass because that is comfortable for them.  They prefer English over Spanish because that is comfortable for them.

Such individuals need to remember that those who speak a different language than we do are just as much members of the Catholic Church as we are, and they take comfort in hearing the Mass in their own language just as much as we do.

I don't write this to condemn any individual.  I merely ask every person to consider in their heart whether their attitudes show love for their brothers and sisters in Christ.

Reductio ad absurdum: Latin, English and Spanish at Mass

(Preliminary Note: This article is not written to take a doctrinal stand on anything.  Rather it is a reflection for people to consider what our motives are when we express dislikes over certain things.)

I've encountered in the region I live in a certain group of people who object to Spanish being used at Mass to reach out to the Hispanic members of the community.  They say things like, "We're in America.  They should speak English."

Many people of this group also champion the use of the 1962 missal, and saying that the Mass should be said in Latin.

Very well.

If we accept as a given their claim that the Latin is the best language for the Mass, we can argue the following:

Major Premise: The closer the Mass is to Latin, the better it is.

Minor Premise: Spanish is closer to Latin than English is.

Conclusion: Therefore, a Spanish Mass is better than an English Mass.

Now I am sure that nobody (I sure don't) would accept the conclusion of this argument.  But this is the point of a reductio ad absurdum.  It points out the problematic conclusions one could draw if one accepted an argument at face value.

Now, I'm not going to accuse these individuals who dislike Spanish within the Mass as being racist.  God knows what is in their hearts.  I don't.  However, I do believe that these individuals are dogmatizing what is mere preference for them.  They prefer the old Latin Mass because that is comfortable for them.  They prefer English over Spanish because that is comfortable for them.

Such individuals need to remember that those who speak a different language than we do are just as much members of the Catholic Church as we are, and they take comfort in hearing the Mass in their own language just as much as we do.

I don't write this to condemn any individual.  I merely ask every person to consider in their heart whether their attitudes show love for their brothers and sisters in Christ.

Reductio ad Absurdum: So Is it OK for A Child To Dress Up as Dan White?

Preliminary Note

In this time of Political Correctness, I entirely expect someone to miss the point of the article below and accuse me of holding the views which I merely provide as demonstrating what is wrong with the logical conclusion the attitude the article cited suggests.

So let me be clear, no I don't think the attitude of "it's none of your damn business" is a valid one, and this article is intending to show why it is not valid.

So let me be clear: My answer to the question asked in the title of my article is, "NO, it is NOT all right."

I suspect the accusations may fly anyway, but at least I have the preliminary note to point to when I suggest such a person has not read my article before replying.

Introduction

When it comes to dealing with logical claims in the blogosphere, it's hard to do a reductio ad absurdum anymore.  Somebody is actually advocating a thing you were about to propose as why an idea is ridiculous to begin with.

(The reductio ad absurdum is to point out the flaws in an argument by taking it to the logical extreme if we grant that the argument is true).

However, I will attempt to employ the reductio ad absurdum all the same and hope that someone has not already seriously proposed what I offer in refutation.

The Article In Question

The jumping off point is this example of an article, which someone linked on Facebook and showed up on my page.  I'm sure the intent was to promote tolerance, but the article seems to be nothing more than a showcase for illogic by the author of the piece.

The premise is a blogger's 5 year old son decides he wants to go to a Halloween as Daphne from Scooby Doo.   As far as it goes, this is not too unusual.  Children of that age are really too young to understand the connotations of dressing up as a different gender.  So the mother obliges him and gets him a costume.

The Initial Questionable Decision  

The blog's author describes it as follows:

So a few weeks before Halloween, Boo decides he wants to be Daphne from Scooby Doo, along with his best friend E. He had dressed as Scooby a couple of years ago.  I was hesitant to make the purchase, not because it was a cross gendered situation, but because 5 year olds have a tendency to change their minds. After requesting a couple of more times, I said sure and placed the order. He flipped out when it arrived. It was perfect.

Then as we got closer to the actual day, he stared to hem and haw about it. After some discussion it comes out that he is afraid people will laugh at him. I pointed out that some people will because it is a cute and clever costume. He insists their laughter would be of the ‘making fun’ kind. I blow it off. Seriously, who would make fun of a child in costume?

So in other words, the child impulsively chooses a costume and then begins to have second thoughts.  His mother overrides him, asking "who would make fun of a child in a costume?"

Anyone who remembers that age in school knows that anyone who goes out of the norm tends to get mocked by their peers.  It is a natural thing, and has no such motivations such as "homophobia."  But essentially, she overrides him and goes to the Party as Daphne.

The problems she has is not with the children (again, not entirely unexpected.  5 year olds are still young enough to not think about this too much), but with some parents.

Taking Offense With Offense

Mother gets offended with the fact some other mothers are put out, and calls them bullies.  She describes their actions in what is essentially a Straw Man argument:

But here’s the point, it is none of your damn business.

If you think that me allowing my son to be a female character for Halloween is somehow going to ‘make’ him gay then you are an idiot. Firstly, what a ridiculous concept. Secondly, if my son is gay, OK. I will love him no less. Thirdly, I am not worried that your son will grow up to be an actual ninja so back off.

If my daughter had dressed as Batman, no one would have thought twice about it. No one.

But it also was heartbreaking to me that my sweet, kind-hearted five year old was right to be worried. He knew that there were people like A, B, and C. And he, at 5, was concerned about how they would perceive him and what would happen to him.

Given that the author-mom did not describe anyone as saying that dressing as Daphne would make her son gay, we have to either assume she is omitting important information relevant to the story or else that the author-mom is merely attributing this view to them without actually knowing this to be a fact… in other words projecting her own concerns to others.

Essentially, the mother is declaring that her standards are all that matter, and anyone who voices disapproval over her standards is being intolerant

And Now… The Reductio Ad Absurdum

So lets look at the Reductio ad absurdum.  A South Park episode from the 1990s entitled "Pinkeye" features character Eric Cartman dressed up like Hitler for Halloween because he asked his mother for the costume.  You can see a brief clip HERE.  (Some readers might find the language offensive).

Back then, people could laugh at the poor taste of Eric Cartman's mother.  Today… someone might actually try to defend such a costume on the grounds that the mother is the one who calls the shots, and the problem is, using this author-mom's comments, they could. 

So let's apply the reductio ad absurdum to her argument.

Logically Speaking, if "None of Your Damn Business" is True, it means NOBODY can Complain

If it is "none of your damn business," then it is none of your damn business if a child wants to dress up as Hitler, or, perhaps closer to the title of the blog I am commenting on ("My Son is Gay"), dressing up as Dan White (who killed Harvey Milk in 1978).  If a woman wants her son to dress up in a costume as someone from Westboro Baptist Church, complete with sign and if we accept the "it is none of your damn business" argument as acceptable, there is nothing we can say.

I suspect most of you (and hopefully the author-mom) would object to a parent who had such a lack of judgment.  However I suspect some of you might say "That's different!"  However, when pressed, I suspect the argument would be "It's different to dress up as Daphne than it is to dress up as Hitler!"  Quite true… but entirely missing the point.

The mother's argument is essentially that she is not bothered by her son dressing up as Daphne, therefore it is nobody's business that he does, and anyone who is offended is intolerant.  If we accept this as an absolute norm, then perhaps people should have cut Prince Harry some slack for dressing as a Nazi.  After all, to apply the logic of this author, if he didn't mind, what gives anyone else the right to object?

Nobody believes "None of Your Damn Business" as an Absolute, so who decides where the line is drawn?

However, we don't accept this as an absolute norm, and rightfully so.  We do recognize that there are certainly standards, and that parents who fail to use good judgment when it comes to what their children do, especially in public, will trouble others.

So who decides where the line is drawn?  Remember, if there are no objective standards and all is subjective, then dressing like Hitler, dressing like Daphne… it's all the same, it depends on the individual choice.

However, if there is an objective sense of right and wrong, then one does have the right to get offended if a mother sends her son to school in such a way that strikes others as problematic — provided this offense is grounded in objective values and not personal taste. 

It is personal taste if I object to someone coming to school dressed all in white.  It is not merely personal taste if the student coming to school all dressed in white is dressed as a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

By What Standards?

So what the author of this "My Son is Gay" piece does wrong here is to give the impression that so long as she is all right with a thing, nobody has a right to complain.  However, it is not merely enough to say "Whatever society sanctions" either.  Apartheid in South Africa was sanctioned by those who were in power.  Exploitation of illegal aliens is largely sanctioned here in the United States.  I could go on, but I think these are enough to demonstrate the problem with assuming that what society approves of or tolerates is not necessarily acceptable.

Arguing from Truth, Not Emotion

You'll notice I haven't really said anything of approval or disapproval about the child's choice of costume.  This is intentional.  The point is, if we want to discuss whether a thing is appropriate or inappropriate, let's begin with seeking to establish what is true.  What were the exact position's of these mothers the author-mom objects to?  On what basis do they hold it?  For that matter, what is the motive of the author-mom in letting the child dress up in this costume to begin with?  Indulgence?  A belief in allowing the child maximum self expression?  Using her child to promote her own ideas of tolerance?

Who knows?  The author has really given us no information which would allow us to make an informed decision over who is in the right.  To attempt to make such a determination is the fallacy known as hypothesis contrary to fact: Treating a theory as fact, when in fact we would be merely assuming a motive).

Unfortunately, either the author-mom has left out crucial information or else she does not know either and is merely assuming.  So much outrage without actually asking "What exactly do you mean by this?"  Everyone assumes they know what this is about, and mothers only identified as "A", "B" and "C" are mocked and ridiculed without us ever knowing whether it is right to ridicule them or not.

You can call this what you like.

Just don't expect me to call it logical or rational.

Reductio ad Absurdum: So Is it OK for A Child To Dress Up as Dan White?

Preliminary Note

In this time of Political Correctness, I entirely expect someone to miss the point of the article below and accuse me of holding the views which I merely provide as demonstrating what is wrong with the logical conclusion the attitude the article cited suggests.

So let me be clear, no I don't think the attitude of "it's none of your damn business" is a valid one, and this article is intending to show why it is not valid.

So let me be clear: My answer to the question asked in the title of my article is, "NO, it is NOT all right."

I suspect the accusations may fly anyway, but at least I have the preliminary note to point to when I suggest such a person has not read my article before replying.

Introduction

When it comes to dealing with logical claims in the blogosphere, it's hard to do a reductio ad absurdum anymore.  Somebody is actually advocating a thing you were about to propose as why an idea is ridiculous to begin with.

(The reductio ad absurdum is to point out the flaws in an argument by taking it to the logical extreme if we grant that the argument is true).

However, I will attempt to employ the reductio ad absurdum all the same and hope that someone has not already seriously proposed what I offer in refutation.

The Article In Question

The jumping off point is this example of an article, which someone linked on Facebook and showed up on my page.  I'm sure the intent was to promote tolerance, but the article seems to be nothing more than a showcase for illogic by the author of the piece.

The premise is a blogger's 5 year old son decides he wants to go to a Halloween as Daphne from Scooby Doo.   As far as it goes, this is not too unusual.  Children of that age are really too young to understand the connotations of dressing up as a different gender.  So the mother obliges him and gets him a costume.

The Initial Questionable Decision  

The blog's author describes it as follows:

So a few weeks before Halloween, Boo decides he wants to be Daphne from Scooby Doo, along with his best friend E. He had dressed as Scooby a couple of years ago.  I was hesitant to make the purchase, not because it was a cross gendered situation, but because 5 year olds have a tendency to change their minds. After requesting a couple of more times, I said sure and placed the order. He flipped out when it arrived. It was perfect.

Then as we got closer to the actual day, he stared to hem and haw about it. After some discussion it comes out that he is afraid people will laugh at him. I pointed out that some people will because it is a cute and clever costume. He insists their laughter would be of the ‘making fun’ kind. I blow it off. Seriously, who would make fun of a child in costume?

So in other words, the child impulsively chooses a costume and then begins to have second thoughts.  His mother overrides him, asking "who would make fun of a child in a costume?"

Anyone who remembers that age in school knows that anyone who goes out of the norm tends to get mocked by their peers.  It is a natural thing, and has no such motivations such as "homophobia."  But essentially, she overrides him and goes to the Party as Daphne.

The problems she has is not with the children (again, not entirely unexpected.  5 year olds are still young enough to not think about this too much), but with some parents.

Taking Offense With Offense

Mother gets offended with the fact some other mothers are put out, and calls them bullies.  She describes their actions in what is essentially a Straw Man argument:

But here’s the point, it is none of your damn business.

If you think that me allowing my son to be a female character for Halloween is somehow going to ‘make’ him gay then you are an idiot. Firstly, what a ridiculous concept. Secondly, if my son is gay, OK. I will love him no less. Thirdly, I am not worried that your son will grow up to be an actual ninja so back off.

If my daughter had dressed as Batman, no one would have thought twice about it. No one.

But it also was heartbreaking to me that my sweet, kind-hearted five year old was right to be worried. He knew that there were people like A, B, and C. And he, at 5, was concerned about how they would perceive him and what would happen to him.

Given that the author-mom did not describe anyone as saying that dressing as Daphne would make her son gay, we have to either assume she is omitting important information relevant to the story or else that the author-mom is merely attributing this view to them without actually knowing this to be a fact… in other words projecting her own concerns to others.

Essentially, the mother is declaring that her standards are all that matter, and anyone who voices disapproval over her standards is being intolerant

And Now… The Reductio Ad Absurdum

So lets look at the Reductio ad absurdum.  A South Park episode from the 1990s entitled "Pinkeye" features character Eric Cartman dressed up like Hitler for Halloween because he asked his mother for the costume.  You can see a brief clip HERE.  (Some readers might find the language offensive).

Back then, people could laugh at the poor taste of Eric Cartman's mother.  Today… someone might actually try to defend such a costume on the grounds that the mother is the one who calls the shots, and the problem is, using this author-mom's comments, they could. 

So let's apply the reductio ad absurdum to her argument.

Logically Speaking, if "None of Your Damn Business" is True, it means NOBODY can Complain

If it is "none of your damn business," then it is none of your damn business if a child wants to dress up as Hitler, or, perhaps closer to the title of the blog I am commenting on ("My Son is Gay"), dressing up as Dan White (who killed Harvey Milk in 1978).  If a woman wants her son to dress up in a costume as someone from Westboro Baptist Church, complete with sign and if we accept the "it is none of your damn business" argument as acceptable, there is nothing we can say.

I suspect most of you (and hopefully the author-mom) would object to a parent who had such a lack of judgment.  However I suspect some of you might say "That's different!"  However, when pressed, I suspect the argument would be "It's different to dress up as Daphne than it is to dress up as Hitler!"  Quite true… but entirely missing the point.

The mother's argument is essentially that she is not bothered by her son dressing up as Daphne, therefore it is nobody's business that he does, and anyone who is offended is intolerant.  If we accept this as an absolute norm, then perhaps people should have cut Prince Harry some slack for dressing as a Nazi.  After all, to apply the logic of this author, if he didn't mind, what gives anyone else the right to object?

Nobody believes "None of Your Damn Business" as an Absolute, so who decides where the line is drawn?

However, we don't accept this as an absolute norm, and rightfully so.  We do recognize that there are certainly standards, and that parents who fail to use good judgment when it comes to what their children do, especially in public, will trouble others.

So who decides where the line is drawn?  Remember, if there are no objective standards and all is subjective, then dressing like Hitler, dressing like Daphne… it's all the same, it depends on the individual choice.

However, if there is an objective sense of right and wrong, then one does have the right to get offended if a mother sends her son to school in such a way that strikes others as problematic — provided this offense is grounded in objective values and not personal taste. 

It is personal taste if I object to someone coming to school dressed all in white.  It is not merely personal taste if the student coming to school all dressed in white is dressed as a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

By What Standards?

So what the author of this "My Son is Gay" piece does wrong here is to give the impression that so long as she is all right with a thing, nobody has a right to complain.  However, it is not merely enough to say "Whatever society sanctions" either.  Apartheid in South Africa was sanctioned by those who were in power.  Exploitation of illegal aliens is largely sanctioned here in the United States.  I could go on, but I think these are enough to demonstrate the problem with assuming that what society approves of or tolerates is not necessarily acceptable.

Arguing from Truth, Not Emotion

You'll notice I haven't really said anything of approval or disapproval about the child's choice of costume.  This is intentional.  The point is, if we want to discuss whether a thing is appropriate or inappropriate, let's begin with seeking to establish what is true.  What were the exact position's of these mothers the author-mom objects to?  On what basis do they hold it?  For that matter, what is the motive of the author-mom in letting the child dress up in this costume to begin with?  Indulgence?  A belief in allowing the child maximum self expression?  Using her child to promote her own ideas of tolerance?

Who knows?  The author has really given us no information which would allow us to make an informed decision over who is in the right.  To attempt to make such a determination is the fallacy known as hypothesis contrary to fact: Treating a theory as fact, when in fact we would be merely assuming a motive).

Unfortunately, either the author-mom has left out crucial information or else she does not know either and is merely assuming.  So much outrage without actually asking "What exactly do you mean by this?"  Everyone assumes they know what this is about, and mothers only identified as "A", "B" and "C" are mocked and ridiculed without us ever knowing whether it is right to ridicule them or not.

You can call this what you like.

Just don't expect me to call it logical or rational.