Lindsay Beyerstein’s Gay Rage

Posted on | May 5, 2010 | 30 Comments

Lindsay Beyerstein tells us that she is “an award-winning investigative journalist,” but she’ll win no awards for this:

By definition, bigots are people with unshakable baseless prejudices. There is absolutely no reason, besides blind prejudice, to deny same sex couples the right to civil marriage.

According to Beyerstein, then, “blind prejudice” has defined human society since the dawn of history, and continues to do so except in a relative handful of industrialized Western democracies.

While sic semper hoc may not be a conclusive argument against same-sex marriage, it ought to suffice to defend traditional marriage against Beyerstein’s peremptory condemnation of it as the product of “baseless prejudice.” Granted that the defense of tradition qua tradition generally invites this sort of attack, are our prejudices really as blind and as baseless as Beyerstein says?

You see, that in this enlightened age I am bold enough to confess, that [the English] are generally men of untaught feelings; that instead of casting away all our old prejudices, we cherish them to a very considerable degree, and to take more shame to ourselves, we cherish them because they are prejudices; and the longer they have lasted, and the more generally they have prevailed, the more we cherish them. . . . Prejudice is of ready application in the emergency; it previously engages the mind in a steady course of wisdom and virtue, and does not leave the man hesitating in the moment of decision, skeptical, puzzled and unresolved. Prejudice renders a man’s virtue his habit; and not a series of unconnected acts. Through just prejudice, his duty becomes a part of his nature.
– Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France

Yet I suppose Beyerstein is a latter-day Jacobin, worshipping in the Temple of Reason, who acknowledges neither duty nor nature and will permit no reference to divine authority:

And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
— Mark 10:-2-9, KJV

Marriage works because men and women are different. (Did I mention it’s National Offend a Feminist Week?) As I wrote in January 2009:

Are men and women equal in the fullest sense of the word? If so, then equality implies fungibility — the two things are interchangeable and one may be substituted for the other in any circumstance whatsoever. . . . Therefore, it is of no consequence whether I marry a woman or a man. . . .
This is why so many of those who would defend traditional marriage find themselves unable to form a coherent argument, because traditional marriage is based on the assumption that men and women are fundamentally different, and hence, unequal. Traditional marriage assumes a complementarity of the sexes that becomes absurd if you deny that “man” and “woman” define intrinsic traits, functions, roles.

The arguments for same-sex marriage are rooted in the implicit androgyny of egalitarianism, as well as the rejection of divine authority — both of which premises we may just as well call “baseless prejudices.”

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
— 2 Timothy 4:3-4, KJV

Truly Paul’s counsel to Timothy was prophetic, and Beyerstein turns truth on its head when she says of religious opponents of same-sex marriage:

They have the Constitutional right to make up whatever crazy rules they want for marriage within their own religions.

Got that? The notion that marriage involves one man and one woman is one of those “crazy rules” that you just “make up.” Beyerstein seems ignorant of the self-evident fact that marriage existed before there was any government or constitution to recognize or regulate it.

People create governments, and not the other way around. Courts and legislatures are not instituted for the purpose of radically reordering society to fit the intellectual whims of philosophes, nor to satisfy the petulant demands of every unruly faction. (See, “Gay Rights, Gay Rage,” The American Spectator, Nov. 17, 2008.)

A radical reordering of society is exactly what the egalitarian advocates of androgyny are atttempting to accomplish. They are fanatics, and their contemptuous dismissal of opponents as motivated by “blind prejudice” shows what kind of treatment we might expect from them when, having written their preferences into law, they wield the whip hand.

(Hat-tip: Professor Donald Douglas at American Power.)

UPDATE: Noting the rather recent nature of the same-sex marriage crusade, Da Tech Guy asks some relevant questions.

Category: Gays

Comments

30 Responses to “Lindsay Beyerstein’s Gay Rage”

Guest
May 5th, 2010 @ 1:12 pm

First; if you engage in homosexuality then you are not banned from marriage-for example former Gov McGreevy married twice, divorced twice and now is in a relationship with another male.

Second; what is the meaning of same-sex union between opposite sex? I am to believe ‘egg-egg union between egg and sperm’ is a rational premise?

Third; what about Yin and Yang (feminine-masculine)-which existed long before Christianity came into the picture-as applied to the Laws of Nature ?

That said; forget Western religion for a moment-when I am required to accept ‘Yin-Yin union between Yin and Yang’ then I am being forced to deny the Laws of Nature. In order to deny the Laws of Nature then irrational Laws of Man must be dictated by force; this is how totalitarian tyranny rules.

Now do tell who is controlling whom?

Who is bigoted towards whom?

And why is Lindsay Beyerstein so prejudice against the Laws of Nature which brought her to existence? Is she so self-loathing she’d rather not exist?
Guest
May 5th, 2010 @ 8:12 am

First; if you engage in homosexuality then you are not banned from marriage-for example former Gov McGreevy married twice, divorced twice and now is in a relationship with another male.

Second; what is the meaning of same-sex union between opposite sex? I am to believe ‘egg-egg union between egg and sperm’ is a rational premise?

Third; what about Yin and Yang (feminine-masculine)-which existed long before Christianity came into the picture-as applied to the Laws of Nature ?

That said; forget Western religion for a moment-when I am required to accept ‘Yin-Yin union between Yin and Yang’ then I am being forced to deny the Laws of Nature. In order to deny the Laws of Nature then irrational Laws of Man must be dictated by force; this is how totalitarian tyranny rules.

Now do tell who is controlling whom?

Who is bigoted towards whom?

And why is Lindsay Beyerstein so prejudice against the Laws of Nature which brought her to existence? Is she so self-loathing she’d rather not exist?
Robert Stacy McCain
May 5th, 2010 @ 1:17 pm

And why is Lindsay Beyerstein so prejudice against the Laws of Nature which brought her to existence?

“You’ve got to be carefully taught.” But there I go quoting show tunes again, eh?
Robert Stacy McCain
May 5th, 2010 @ 8:17 am

And why is Lindsay Beyerstein so prejudice against the Laws of Nature which brought her to existence?

“You’ve got to be carefully taught.” But there I go quoting show tunes again, eh?
I’ll loan Stacy my question list « DaTechguy's Blog
May 5th, 2010 @ 8:53 am

[…] loan Stacy my question list By datechguy So he can ask my questions to Lindsay Beyerstein too. According to Beyerstein, then, ”blind prejudice” has defined human society since the dawn […]
Roxeanne de Luca
May 5th, 2010 @ 2:10 pm

Stating the obvious: the “opponents” who are “blindly prejudiced” are Christians, priests, and theology professors, never people like Barack Obama, whose opposition to gay marriage is actually without merit. If you have a real reason for opposing gay marriage, then you’re a bigot; if you do it for political opportunity and you’re a Democrat, then you’re acceptable.
Roxeanne de Luca
May 5th, 2010 @ 9:10 am

Stating the obvious: the “opponents” who are “blindly prejudiced” are Christians, priests, and theology professors, never people like Barack Obama, whose opposition to gay marriage is actually without merit. If you have a real reason for opposing gay marriage, then you’re a bigot; if you do it for political opportunity and you’re a Democrat, then you’re acceptable.
Roxeanne de Luca
May 5th, 2010 @ 2:25 pm

The arguments for same-sex marriage are rooted in the implicit androgyny of egalitarianism, as well as the rejection of divine authority – both of which premises we may just as well call “baseless prejudices.”

Um, how about a rejection of science, economics, and sociology? If we want the human race to continue, we need children. Those children are best born in a stable, 2-parent home. While not every straight married couple has children, no gay couples can transform their love for each other into new life. (In fact, even with the incredible technology we have now, no gay couple can have offspring of their, plural, own.)
Roxeanne de Luca
May 5th, 2010 @ 9:25 am

The arguments for same-sex marriage are rooted in the implicit androgyny of egalitarianism, as well as the rejection of divine authority – both of which premises we may just as well call “baseless prejudices.”

Um, how about a rejection of science, economics, and sociology? If we want the human race to continue, we need children. Those children are best born in a stable, 2-parent home. While not every straight married couple has children, no gay couples can transform their love for each other into new life. (In fact, even with the incredible technology we have now, no gay couple can have offspring of their, plural, own.)
Jules Crittenden » In Praise of Blind, Baseless Prejudice
May 5th, 2010 @ 10:46 am

[…] The Other McCain, incorrigible as usual, observing National Offend a Feminist Day and taking it an agenda item […]
Robert Stacy McCain
May 5th, 2010 @ 11:52 am

Um, how about a rejection of science, economics, and sociology?

Wait a minute, Roxeanne: You expect liberals to be persuaded by facts?

This is the basic problem, you see. No amount of factual argument will persuade a fanatic. The same-sex marriage debate isn’t really a debate, it’s a demand, and conservatives who think they can negotiate a reasonalbe compromise end up like Chamberlain at Munich, where “compromise” amounts to selling out the Czechs and giving Hitler the Sudetenland.
Robert Stacy McCain
May 5th, 2010 @ 4:52 pm

Um, how about a rejection of science, economics, and sociology?

Wait a minute, Roxeanne: You expect liberals to be persuaded by facts?

This is the basic problem, you see. No amount of factual argument will persuade a fanatic. The same-sex marriage debate isn’t really a debate, it’s a demand, and conservatives who think they can negotiate a reasonalbe compromise end up like Chamberlain at Munich, where “compromise” amounts to selling out the Czechs and giving Hitler the Sudetenland.
Roxeanne de Luca
May 5th, 2010 @ 5:27 pm

Wait a minute, Roxeanne: You expect liberals to be persuaded by facts?

But they are always telling us that we are science-phobic hicks! Surely, they are on the side of reason, intelligence, and facts.

No, I don’t expect the fanatics to be persuaded, but I do expect that the non-fanatics who just don’t do much thinking for themselves can be persuaded. The fanatical, insane 10% of the country that are family-hating progressives can’t do a damn thing (pardon my language) about their agenda unless at least another 41% of the remaining 90% of us consent.
Roxeanne de Luca
May 5th, 2010 @ 12:27 pm

Wait a minute, Roxeanne: You expect liberals to be persuaded by facts?

But they are always telling us that we are science-phobic hicks! Surely, they are on the side of reason, intelligence, and facts.

No, I don’t expect the fanatics to be persuaded, but I do expect that the non-fanatics who just don’t do much thinking for themselves can be persuaded. The fanatical, insane 10% of the country that are family-hating progressives can’t do a damn thing (pardon my language) about their agenda unless at least another 41% of the remaining 90% of us consent.
TW
May 5th, 2010 @ 7:13 pm

“Traditional marriage assumes a complementarity of the sexes that becomes absurd if you deny that “man” and “woman” define intrinsic traits, functions, roles.”

Back when I forced in taking that senior seminar in college, that argument would have been used to argue against any form of marriage. Since the only instrisic value Beyerstein acknowledges is equality, how is marriage between anyone an advantage for the egalitarian? The old argument was that traditional marriage creates an artificial inequality between husbands and wives. This inequality forces women into taking subservient roles. Moreover, the traits that men and women assume are defined by society. Even when men and women desire an equal status in marriage, the old patriarchal roles are impossible relinquish and are entrenched in social and political institutions. How is placing monogamous homosexual relationships on legal par with heterosexual relationships an advantage to homosexuals? Does it actually make homosexual partners any more equal to each other? Beyerstein might want to make marriage what she wants, but traditional Feminisism argues against that notion. I’m not arguing in favor of Feminist ideals, but I don’t see how they aid the cause of marriage in any form.
TW
May 5th, 2010 @ 2:13 pm

“Traditional marriage assumes a complementarity of the sexes that becomes absurd if you deny that “man” and “woman” define intrinsic traits, functions, roles.”

Back when I forced in taking that senior seminar in college, that argument would have been used to argue against any form of marriage. Since the only instrisic value Beyerstein acknowledges is equality, how is marriage between anyone an advantage for the egalitarian? The old argument was that traditional marriage creates an artificial inequality between husbands and wives. This inequality forces women into taking subservient roles. Moreover, the traits that men and women assume are defined by society. Even when men and women desire an equal status in marriage, the old patriarchal roles are impossible relinquish and are entrenched in social and political institutions. How is placing monogamous homosexual relationships on legal par with heterosexual relationships an advantage to homosexuals? Does it actually make homosexual partners any more equal to each other? Beyerstein might want to make marriage what she wants, but traditional Feminisism argues against that notion. I’m not arguing in favor of Feminist ideals, but I don’t see how they aid the cause of marriage in any form.
Robert Stacy McCain
May 5th, 2010 @ 7:59 pm

“[T]raditional marriage . . . forces women into taking subservient roles”

Admit it, ladies: Merely reading the phrase “subservient roles” makes you hot, doesn’t it?

And, hey, I said fresh coffee, OK?
Robert Stacy McCain
May 5th, 2010 @ 2:59 pm

“[T]raditional marriage . . . forces women into taking subservient roles”

Admit it, ladies: Merely reading the phrase “subservient roles” makes you hot, doesn’t it?

And, hey, I said fresh coffee, OK?
Paul A'Barge
May 5th, 2010 @ 9:51 pm

That first link is bad. Here is the Beyerstein piece where she calls an awful lot of people bigots:
http://bigthink.com/ideas/19952

Of course, she throws down the term “teabagger” almost immediately.

So much for calling other people bigots, huh?
Paul A'Barge
May 5th, 2010 @ 4:51 pm

That first link is bad. Here is the Beyerstein piece where she calls an awful lot of people bigots:
http://bigthink.com/ideas/19952

Of course, she throws down the term “teabagger” almost immediately.

So much for calling other people bigots, huh?
Mr.G
May 5th, 2010 @ 11:20 pm

I have a gay child, but be that as it may, I’m against homosexual marriage. They already have the right to be on their partner’s health insurance, ect. The thing is we, traditional folks, give these radicals a little and a little more and they still want more. Hell, if we gave them the Moon, they’d want Mars, then Jupiter, yada yada yada.
Mr.G
May 5th, 2010 @ 6:20 pm

I have a gay child, but be that as it may, I’m against homosexual marriage. They already have the right to be on their partner’s health insurance, ect. The thing is we, traditional folks, give these radicals a little and a little more and they still want more. Hell, if we gave them the Moon, they’d want Mars, then Jupiter, yada yada yada.
SDN
May 6th, 2010 @ 1:46 am

“They have the Constitutional right to make up whatever crazy rules they want for marriage within their own religions.”

Except of course when they don’t, as a preacher in Britain found out recently.
SDN
May 5th, 2010 @ 8:46 pm

“They have the Constitutional right to make up whatever crazy rules they want for marriage within their own religions.”

Except of course when they don’t, as a preacher in Britain found out recently.
Estragon
May 6th, 2010 @ 10:40 am

It’s really all about Conor Friedersdork’s personal David Brock journey, with guest appearances by Ellen Degeneres and Larry Craig.

In which he discovers himself, and that conservatives are mean, and that life really really sucks. For him.
Estragon
May 6th, 2010 @ 5:40 am

It’s really all about Conor Friedersdork’s personal David Brock journey, with guest appearances by Ellen Degeneres and Larry Craig.

In which he discovers himself, and that conservatives are mean, and that life really really sucks. For him.
Jordan
May 8th, 2010 @ 6:27 am

I fully support legal marriage of gay couples. Heterosexuals don’t want a level-playing field, they want to always have advantages over gay people. Heterosexuals throw out that you “need to have children” to get married yet none of the heterosexual-only marriage amendments say anything about children and no heterosexual couple is denied legal marriage because they don’t have kids. Richard Ramierez who killed at least 12 people got married to a woman while on death row. This whole marriage debate is about heterosexuals forcibly trying to keep it heterosexual-only.
Jordan
May 8th, 2010 @ 1:27 am

I fully support legal marriage of gay couples. Heterosexuals don’t want a level-playing field, they want to always have advantages over gay people. Heterosexuals throw out that you “need to have children” to get married yet none of the heterosexual-only marriage amendments say anything about children and no heterosexual couple is denied legal marriage because they don’t have kids. Richard Ramierez who killed at least 12 people got married to a woman while on death row. This whole marriage debate is about heterosexuals forcibly trying to keep it heterosexual-only.
Bob Belvedere
May 8th, 2010 @ 8:50 pm

Quoted from Linked to at:
Offend A Feminist: Love Honor And Obey
Bob Belvedere
May 8th, 2010 @ 3:50 pm

Quoted from Linked to at:
Offend A Feminist: Love Honor And Obey