Please, call me a Heatherophobe. People who devalue and ostracize large groups of human beings based only on the sexual orientation of those humans scare me ("The Trouble with Adam and Steve" 10/16). What really gets me is when these people use conflicted logic, false conclusions, and claims of spiritual authority to support their ill-willed ignorance. It is one thing to personally condone hate speech and socially ignorant ideas, but when you bring G-d into it, you begin defiling the very integrity you base your "logic" on. I am a Christian; however, I am not a homophobe. That's because when I read my Bible, I happen upon verses like "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment"(1 John 4:18). I'm sure that this concept must seem completely foreign to these "Blanders," but it is an obligation of the Christian faith to love those who you may disagree with and in fact, the presence of fear is evidence of a lack of one's faith in G-d (Romans 12:9, 1 Cor 5:9, Hebrews 13). That being said, I should probably clarify my opening statement. I do not fear Heather Blandford, nor do I feel she is not loved by G-d. What I fear is the machinery of ignorance at work behind her suppositions.
She begins her argument by calling for support for the President's "Marriage Protection Week" by connecting the unilateral support of civil unions to a proverbial "them" stealing her church and now, her reverence for marriage. I'm sorry, but whoever "they" are, they must be extremely cunning, because through allowing civil unions "they" have managed to destroy her ability to revere a personal, religious, and social institution. This is where the logic gets sloppy. The first logical fallacy she employs is a "Red Herring" argument, by linking the supposed degradation of civil unions to the destruction of the institution of marriage and Church. She also seems to assume that "they" were responsible for the recent shortcomings of priests in the church. Apparently homosexual priests molesting young boys, breaking from the church, and going to prison is a victory for the gay rights movement ... please note my sarcasm. She continues her tirade by appealing to public opinion (Argumentum ad Populum, in case you are interested): "In a time when traditional values are shunned...." At this point, I become confused.
When she says traditional values, I assume that, given her Judeo-Christian moral background, she means values like love of fellow man, helping the poor, healing the sick, sharing possessions, not judging people, forgiveness ... you know, the things Jesus did when he was on earth. Apparently these "traditional values" she's talking about are more akin to Al Francken's "Supply-Side Jesus," who advocates a Protestant work ethic, being left alone, despising people who you don't agree with, and blaming "them" for ruining your wedding day. She also states that, "Little girls will no longer dream about their weddings...." This is like saying that, because it is legal to eat a banana, no one will want an apple.
I say, why not expose this to the beloved free market! If little girls stop wanting to get married, and (gasp) realize that perhaps they are more than a "compliment to a man" what will happen? Well, obviously humanity will end, because people will stop procreating, because "they" told us to (again, sarcasm). Blandford quotes, "G-d created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." I'm sorry, but I read somewhere that G-d created everyone! Isn't equality one of those traditional values we are losing? She continues by reminding the reader that she has no authority to determine the quality of love between different relationships, but that it was determined "thousands of years ago." Hmm, value based on tradition and age. Let's see where that takes us.
Apparently physicist Brian Greene's recent breakthroughs in String Theory and Quantum Gravity should be rejected in determining the positions of planets, because it seems that Ptolomey and Socrates had it figured out a long time before. The earth is flat, and slavery is justified, because heck, that's the way it's always been! She, surprisingly, follows this claim up with the only statement of her entire article that I can agree with. "Marriage is a commitment between two people and the higher spiritual authority that the couple ascribes to." If this is the self-proclaimed paradigm by which Ms. Blanford evaluates marriage, her entire argument is moot.
I agree with her when she says, "this is where the bond of marriage is created and maintained." She spirals rather inexplicitly at this point into a brief discourse on big government, employing logic that would effectively find issue with every piece of legislation handed down since 1776. After conceding that she is ignoring new ideas and progress, she concludes with a brilliant combination of two of my favorite logical fallacies, Argumentum ad Baculum and Ad Populum. She appeals to the readers respect for "the One who created marriage in the beginning," and "the values of those around her." One problem - civil unions are a part of a social contract. Meaning, unless we consider "W" our benevolent leviathan, the "one" she is referring to must be understood as the society.
I believe Heather Blandford is entitled to her opinions. By all means, if you want to be a homophobe, go right ahead. I only wish that, in the future, those who share such opinions would come to the forum of debate with real arguments, rather than a desperate attempt to capture moral high ground, effectively dragging the name of G-d down the hill with them. G-d doesn't need defending - it's your backward, disrespectful, and loveless opinions that do.
