Faux Outrage

 Stupid Ignorant False Stuff

Regular readers of our blog will know that the New Zealand parliament is going to consider a bill to baptise homosexual relationships as marriage.  Protagonists have lined up on either side and public debate has been joined.  The leader of the Conservative Party, Colin Craig has asserted that homosexuality is a choice--an ethical and lifestyle choice.  Dismissing behaviourism, Mr Craig rejects the "I was born this way, therefore what I desire must be a human right," meme. 

This has outraged proponents of homosexual "marriage".  It is amusing to witness the outpouring of splenetic indignation.  One blogger, David Farrar makes an earnest effort to re-frame Mr Craig's position.  Mr Craig, apparently, is holding a "view"; he is not arguing from "facts".  The flip side is the Mr Farrar and his cohorts purport to be arguing from evidence based, factual reality.  Using assumptive language, they portend that homosexuals are both born and made, and that homosexuals have no choice about what they are.  The upshot is that homosexuals cannot be condemned for their homosexuality any more than a human being can be condemned for sexual desires of the heterosexual sort. 

Here is Mr Farrar in high moral dudgeon:

Aaargh – I wanted to leave this topic alone until next week, but Colin Craig opens his mouth again. He has responded to an article by Josh Drummond in the Waikato Times:

So to help Mr Dummond out and set the record straight here are some facts.
First Fact: I do hold the view, based on research, that adopting a gay lifestyle is a choice.

Is adopting a gay lifestyle like adopting a pet? Or is it more like adopting a favourite sports team?  And can someone tell me (sic) Craig that him holding a view is not a fact!

Mmmm.  If Mr Craig holds a view, that is either a factual and true statement, or it is not.  It seems to us that Mr Craig is pretty definitive that he holds the view that homosexuality is a choice and therefore it is is factually correct to claim that he does.

Ah, but that's not what Mr Farrar is really objecting to, as he goes on to make clear:

But what I do not respect is someone who says such ignorant stupid and false stuff, such as people choose to be gay.  It reflects a detachment from reality, and is like arguing that the earth is flat.

I have said that to believe that all gays were born that way is narrowminded and ignores the facts and research.

This is a fallacious argument, and a red herring. It is not a binary choice between “born that way” and “choice”. I have constantly said that most gay people have no choice about whom they are attracted to, and fall in love with. Research shows it appears to be a combination of genetics and environmental factors at a very very early age.

Note the argumentum ad hominem (slurs of ignorance and  stupidity against Mr Craig).  Note also the implication that Mr Craig is a tiresome slow witted fellow, a slow learner: "I have constantly said that . . . " Aren't you listening, Mr Craig to my superior wisdom and insight into these matters.  I know more than you do.  I have constantly said so.  Aren't you listening.  How many times to I have to say it before it gets through to you . . . etc.  Assumptive browbeating at its best. 

Oh, but here's a pearler: "Research shows (homosexuality) appears to be a combination of genetics and environmental factors at a very very early age."  Oh dear, may we explore that a bit further?  Are you now expressing a "fact" or a "view", Mr Farrar.  How come Mr Craig expresses mere views, whilst you deem yourself to be expressing "facts"--research based, nonetheless.  Oh, hold on, that's exactly what Mr Craig was claiming for his position.  Notice how Mr Farrar has speciously turned it into an ad hominem slanging and slurring of Mr Craig, all the while using assumptive language about how his position is factual and Mr Craig's is not. 

Mr Farrar doubles down on his outpouring of hatred:

But arguing being gay is a lifestyle choice is ignorant bigotry, and I detest it. I can understand people having that view 30 years ago – but not today. It is simply degrading to gays and lesbians who have never ever had the slightest degree of choice about their sexual orientation, to have Colin Craig insist it it.

Argue against same sex marriage on the basis of marriage is a religious ceremony, or marriage should remain in its traditional form – fine. I’ll argue back, but as they say still respect you in the morning. But if you argue against same sex marriage on the basis that all gays and lesbians can merely “choose” to stop being gay or lesbian – then you are deluded.

"I detest it". Wow.  It's degrading to homosexuals.  Well, well.  Mr Farrar is getting mighty warm on his soapbox now.  He has assume the full throated roar of the homosexual marriage lobby: those who imply that homosexuality is a choice, a lifestyle choice, are detestable, evil people. 

Whoa.  Back up the horses.  Let's just assume Mr Farrar's world-view for a moment.  Mr Craig cannot help holding the views he does--surely.  The positions he holds, the desires in his breast are a combination of his own genetics and his environmental factors.  According to Mr Farrar he can no more help who he is and what he believes than homosexuals can.  So why get all steamed up about it?  Why the opprobrium? 

Here's a suggestion: we suspect that Mr Farrar does not really believe his own position.  Otherwise he would grant that rational argument and human choices and moral perspectives are meaningless or worthless constructs for everyone.  Either that or he would have to hold that homosexuals are somehow lacking in these facilities and faculties and to that extent are sub-human in some way--which would be a bit of an embarrassment for him.  But you cannot have it both ways: if homosexuals cannot choose what they think and believe, neither can Mr Craig, nor Mr Farrar himself for that matter. 

Here's the problem Mr Farrar faces which no amount of huffing and puffing in faux moral outrage can disguise: every human action and condition can be said to be a combination of genetics and conditioning, a combination of nature and nurture.  What else could there be in Mr Farrar's world?  If Mr Farrar is therefore claiming that homosexuals cannot exercise moral control of their desires and urges because of their particular confluence of natural and nurturing conditioning factors, neither can anyone. 

Take this recent example:

Those of you who know me well will know that I am not the monster that many will portray me to be. I am, however, the unwilling host of a most terrible disorder.  It is my great hope that all who have suffered because of me will now be able to get the help they need. It is also my desperate wish that I too will be able to receive help for this sickness within me. (James Parker, predatory paedophile, former deputy principal, Pamapuria School)

No doubt Mr Farrar will rise to the task of consoling Mr Parker--somewhat along the lines of, "My dear chap.  Don't beat up yourself.  Don't get involved in a downward spiral of self-degrading, self-loathing, self-detesting  bile.  You are a perfect combination of genes and conditioning.  Celebrate your differences.  The "terrible disorder" is you.  It's the way you are.  But it's not a disorder.  It's the way you were made.  Research shows this to be the case.

Let's just imagine what outpourings of passion await us as soon as Mr Farrar can get near his typewriter:  

But what I do not respect is someone who says such ignorant stupid and false stuff, such as people choose to be paedophiles.  It reflects a detachment from reality, and is like arguing that the earth is flat.

I have said that to believe that all paedophiles were born that way is narrowminded and ignores the facts and research.

This is a fallacious argument, and a red herring. It is not a binary choice between “born that way” and “choice”. I have constantly said that most paedophile people have no choice about whom they are attracted to, and fall in love with. Research shows it appears to be a combination of genetics and environmental factors at a very very early age.

And if Mr Farrar does not rise to the task, what then?  We think he would be being hypocritical, guilty of the fallacy of special pleading.  It would be just another evidence that Mr Farrar does not believe his own press.  Not really.  His high moral outrage against Mr Craig would appear to be faux. 

Fallacious arguments and red herrings.  We have to concede that Mr Farrar is an expert in such matters.