This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← The Right’s Righteous Frauds

Akaei's Avatar Jump to comment 26 by Akaei

I don't even know why I responded to this...

Haters are gonna hate. If people attack you you are allowed to ignore it most of the time. If people attack what you say, your ideas... that's fair game.

"...that’s not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage."

Serious question: What would be a good reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage? Hopefully no one would suggest that tradition is an adequate reason to continue stepping on the freedom of minorities in America. We had traditions in America that barred women from voting (and running for office) and kept blacks in bondage (then at the back of the bus). Tradition is not enough.

Is marriage sacred? If it is then the government shouldn't have anything to do with it. But it's too late for that. Marriage (though we could choose to call it something else) is very much under the purview of civics and government. Given the conditions and status of most religiously recognized marriages it is impossible to believe that marriage is sacred, even to believers.

(I should add female Republican candidates –liberal women don’t get the same kind of questions.)

Bachmann says that Americans should follow the Bible. That raises the irony that a married female PotUS would be required by the Bible to submit to her husband. If a liberal woman running for President (or whatever) espoused a slavish devotion to the Bible and proposed that secular government should be beholding to Christianity or the Bible then it would be equally appropriate (and perhaps necessary) to ask the same question. How can anyone not see that?’s a heroic act if the President made a massive change in a policy position that could affect the entire nation after consulting with his teenage daughters?

Is that really what happened? President Obama was chatting with his daughters and did a 180 on gay marriage? That's a dishonest suggestion. Remember when I said ideas are fair game but attacks on people doesn't mean much? That's just as true for the President as it is for you. Even if his daughters did talk him into it the bottom line is the quality of the ideas, not their source. If you're attacking an alleged source, that suggests your attack against the idea is even weaker.

I don't know who writes this blog but they should be congratulated on fooling some of the people most of the time. Confirmation bias for the win!

Sun, 20 May 2012 05:37:38 UTC | #942352