Comments on: Tonight: “Can you be gay & Christian”

By: Casey

Casey — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:26:39 +0000

Oh, and Matt? I read the case about McDonald’s coffee, and amusingly enough, the plaintiff had a good point. Because pressure in the machines was negligently allowed to heat the coffee way, way beyond its natural boiling point, it dispensed much hotter than the customer could reasonably expect, and caused some serious damage. Actually, that’s not a bad parallel to our conversation – unnaturally hot and dangerous coffee was legitimately punished, but there’s no reason to hold liable coffee of a normal temperature. The question is, what’s the thermometer have to say about gay relationships – and as far as I can see, the jury’s in, and we’re pleasantly normal. *grins* What can I say? I couldn’t resist. Have a good day, my friend.

By: Casey

Casey — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:12:57 +0000

Sir, I am a law student at UCLA – of course I am aware of the many sorts of crazy arguments that can be made in a court of law… in a free society, there are very few restrictions as to what you can say. What is restricted, and frankly, what matters, is what will be found persuasive by that court. In the United States, so long as there is a compelling state interest and the law is narrowly tailored to protect that interest, even a fundamental right such as marriage can be restricted.

What we have been arguing about thus far is whether there is a compelling state interest that bars incest after the “interest” which bars same-sex marriage is debunked. I have made several substantive claims as to important interests in protecting the stability of families that the state can and does use in banning incestuous relationships, which will exist even when same-sex marriage is legal. I have now asked you twice to reply to the merits of these substantive issues – and both times, you’ve ducked, this time basically claiming that I’m being mean to ask such questions.

Gay and lesbian families have been faced with such questions for a long time – we’ve been expected to prove that our relationships are harmless, and not only that, provide a positive benefit to society – and rather than just claim that society is mean and unfair to be asking, many of us have risen to the occasion and demonstrated exactly that. It is not unloving to justly place a burden on people – it is unlovely to do so unjustly, for no good reason. That is the difference between the same-sex marriage ban and the ban on harmful relationships like incest.

Our families are well known for taking in unwanted, “unadoptable” children; our communities are renowned for rejuvenating dying neighborhoods; gays and lesbians are found in service professions everywhere from teachers to nurses to the clergy. Straight people have come to know us as their beloved and respected friends and family. Rather than breaking families apart, by living openly and honestly, we bring people together, creating larger and stronger families (just as straight marriages do). Study after study shows that we do no harm. That is why as time progresses, we as gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are winning this struggle for equality, and your side is left without a logical leg to stand on.

Because of the fact that you cannot truly make a strong, logical argument that allowing gay marriage must necessarily lead to incestuous marriages, or any other harm – if you could, you would have done so, rather than ducking, twice – I would hope that you would be honest and say that the slope is not nearly as slippery as you have previously implied. To do anything else is to bear false witness – something that even this homosexual knows to be a sin. Be well.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:34:09 +0000

Dr. Brown, there have been legal arguments made that McDonalds coffee is too hot and dangerous to consumers. Does that mean that we should ban all coffee served everywhere by everyone? Stupid and crazy legal cases make it in to the courts all the time. Your current arguments are exactly the kind of non-sensical “slippery slope” argument Jarred was talking about (stress on the word “non-sensical”).

By: Dr Michael Brown

Dr Michael Brown — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:09:56 +0000

Casey,

I’m just returning from several days on the road and my comments from two days ago just got posted. I’m trying to catch up on dozens of emails, but as time permits, I will gladly reply. I assume, of course, that you’re aware of legal cases both in Germany and America where arguments are being made in favor of incest based on the legalization of same-sex marriages in certain countries. Correct? Also, I trust you can see that these adults wanting to have their incestuous relationship recognized by the courts could say that you are not being loving in your response, just as Matt and others found my response to him to be unloving.

Thanks again for your posts, and I do hope time permits to answer them in a worthy manner.

In Him,

Dr. Brown

By: Casey

Casey — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 02:41:15 +0000

So you tell me you have the books, and you point me to other authors who Rauch and others – Dale Carpenter, for example – have intellectually beaten into the ground. But what you don’t do, sir, is acknowledge that the claim that same-sex marriage opens the door to incest has been effectively deflected because the two concepts do NOT rest on the same foundations. So, am I wrong in saying that there are other clear and very strong reasons to keep incest illegal than those reasons used to bar same-sex marriage? Or am I right in that the slippery slope ain’t so slippery after all? You’ve been accused of not fighting fair, sir – so quit being slippery, and let’s have a fair answer.

By: InterstateQ.com » Anti-gay group hosts “Can you be Gay & Christian” forum

Sat, 22 Sep 2007 02:34:28 +0000

[...] family members engaging in such activity help to contribute to the breakdown of the family unit. As put by InterstateQ.com reader Casey: Briefly, one of the best arguments against permitting adult incest is the destabilizing effect [...]

By: Dr Michael L Brown

Dr Michael L Brown — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 02:21:44 +0000

Dear Jared and Casey,

Thanks for the questions! No time for an immediate reply but I hope to soon.

Two quick comments: For Jared, Is it ever right to apply the slippery slope argument? Do we ever rightfully use it as parents or legislators? For Casey, Of course, I have the the Rauch book, and he’s one of the best spokesmen. And of course, I categorically differ. I believe that both Stanley Kurtz and David Blankenhorn have effectively refuted Rauch’s views. (BTW, the charts in the back of Blankenhorn’s new book on the marriage are very telling.)

Again, thanks for the good questions!

Dr. Brown

By: Casey

Casey — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:27:39 +0000

Dr. Brown – one thing I always find interesting about people who make the claim that after recognizing same-sex marriages, that “there is no reasonable basis” not to continue on to a parade of horribles is just how little research these people have made into the actual justifications against said horribles. In the case of incest, polygamy, etc., I would strongly recommend reading Jonathan Rauch’s book “Gay Marriage: Why it is good for gays, good for straights and good for America.” Briefly, one of the best arguments against permitting adult incest is the destabilizing effect that having family members as potential sexual conquests would have on the trusting intimacy of the family setting. For example, if adult incest was legal, how could I as a daughter trust that my Dad was just being protective when he encouraged me to “wait until it’s right”… as opposed to just trying to save me for himself? Things like that truly would destabilize the family unit in a way that is much more logical than the claims that having two mommies confuses kids. Thus, there is a very clear line and an entirely separate rationale for keeping incest illegal – it isn’t about sexual liberty, it’s about genuine family stability. Not to mention the concerning genetic aspects.

By: The Musings of a Confused Man

The Musings of a Confused Man — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:37:01 +0000

The Most Slippery Slope?

InterstateQ blogger Matt has a post advertising the Can you be gay and Christian forum hosted by Michael Brown and the Coalition of Conscience. I’m looking forward to reading Matt’s thoughts on the forum, as he went to it. In…

By: Jarred

Jarred — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:52:18 +0000

Dr. Brown:

So where do we draw the line on when we use the slippery slope argument. Do we prohibit everything that might lead to something bad or worse? At what point does the slippery slope argument for prohibiting things become a slippery slope in itself?