10 comments so far
Mr. Bowman, why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
To suggest that Tony Jones must really have in mind loveless sex acts when he uses the term “love” seems rather biased. Though that may not be a logical fallacy on your part, it’s still dishonest, uncharitable, and intellectually irresponsible.
CT,
What “plank” is it that you think I need to remove?
Nowhere did I say, suggest, or imply that Jones had in mind “loveless sex acts” when he used the term “love.” Let’s stipulate that the sexual relationships to which he referred usually or even always are accompanied by loving feelings and intentions. My point still stands, namely, that using the term “love” confuses the issue. The problem is not that Bill “loves” (cares for) Bud; that’s fine. The problem is that Bill “loves” (has a sexual relationship with) Bud. The pro-homosexual polemic gets its rhetorical power by confusing the issue through its use of the word “love.” Pointing this out does not mean that gay people in sexual relationships don’t have loving feelings toward one another; they often do. But again, that isn’t the issue.
I see. So it’d be fine to speak of gays loving each other if they only did so in a way that you approved. Are you aware that don’t own the word ‘love’?
Besides, if you were defending, let’s imagine, the permissibility of the particular sexual expressions of love between you and your wife, would you be inclined to use terms that captured the precise physical details? Let’s be honest.
My approval is not the issue here. My point is that reasoned discussion depends on clarity and forthrightness of expression.
To answer your second question, if the issue were the propriety of some specific form of sexual activity, we would have to refer to it in some clear way (though not necessarily in a crude or graphic manner) to have such a discussion. So yes, let’s indeed be honest.
Mr. Bowman, what is your criteria for determining when the “euphemism fallacy” is committed, as opposed to an author’s reasonable hesitation to use language referring specifically to the sexual components of the love relationship? Remember that we are talking about rather personal and intimate issues here.
In order to later create an analogous situation that may shed some light on our present discussion, let me first ask you two questions. The details are essential. First, do you think that it is morally permissible for a husband to perform cunnilingus on his wife? Second, do you think that it is morally permissible for a husband and wife to copulate in any positions other than the classic “missionary position”?
CT,
Your first question is answered in my post: “It is a kind of rhetorical fallacy in which a euphemism is used in such a way as to confuse the issue.”
I do not think that your subsequent questions are relevant. If you will notice, while I criticized the misleading use of euphemisms to obscure the issues, I did not call for discussions of specific sexual acts in anatomical or graphic detail. If you proceed further down this road, I may have to censor your comments, and that would be unfortunate. If you think you can express whatever analogy you have in mind tastefully and show its relevance to my post, go ahead and try.
Mr. Bowman, I am asking for your criteria for how you decide when “a euphemism is used in such a way as to confuse the issue” and when it is instead used quite reasonably to avoid reference to sexual components of the love relationship.
If a gay man describes his relationship with his partner as a “love” relationship, would you be tempted to accuse him of the “euphemism fallacy” if he fails to make explicit the sexual component of his love? At what point do you begin accusing him of “confusing the issue”?
The questions you refuse to answer are intended to help me test your position. You will notice that my word choice reflects an effort on my part to avoid crudeness without avoiding the specific detail, which, as I noted, is essential for use I intend make of your answers. You will also notice that all either question requires from you is a yes/no answer.
CT,
A gay man describing his relationship with his partner as a “love” relationship is not necessarily fallacious. The problem arises when the subject is the morality of a same-sex union and the subject is clouded by using the word “love” as a way of avoiding addressing the issue directly. Do you really not understand this?
Since you have not shown the relevance of your questions (merely stating that you are testing my position doesn’t do so), I choose not to open up another topic that could easily distract from the issue. Don’t assume by this that you know what my view is. You ought to be able to make your point without cross-examining me on my views on an unrelated subject.
Mr. Bowman, you seem to be unaware of the possibility that you are requiring your interlocutor to walk an arbitrary line between your criticisms of the “euphemism fallacy” and your threat of censorship.
You continue to dance away from providing criteria for determining when a euphemism is used to cloud the subject, as opposed being used quite reasonably for dealing with intimate issues of a sexual nature.
CT,
You claimed you would not need to use crude or graphic language to make your point. I suggested you go ahead and try. It’s your move.
I utilized very specific criteria for determining when a euphemism clouds the subject. Here, I’ll state them for you more formally. (1) The euphemism is used in the context of a polemic. (2) The use of the euphemism creates a presumption in favor of a particular conclusion that would not exist if plainer language was used. Get it?
3 Trackbacks/Pings
Leave a reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[…] removing the Scripture from the conversation, Tony doesn’t make a very solid argument for why he or anyone else should change their mind on this […]
[…] Jones’ Rhetoric Stripped Bare | Same Sex Debates Rob Bowman offers a penetrating critique of the rhetoric featured in Tony Jones’ recent posting about same-sex marriage, concluding […]
[…] Bowman responds to Tony Jones logic in his arguments for gay marriage; “Fallacies of Same-Sex Marriage Polemics” (HT: […]