A mother duck has an interesting way of defending her young. If a predator approaches her nest too closely she will feign a broken wing, tempting the predator with the hope of easy prey. She hobbles along the ground, drawing the intruder away from her young, only to fly away to safety once the danger to her children has passed. The French word for duck is canard. It is from this behavior that the word "canard", used to describe a false or misleading argument designed to distract from the central issue, is derived.
In my first post on gay marriage I stated that most of the standard arguments and persuasions which one hears in favor of gay marriage are either more sentimental than logical, or peripheral peripheral than central. Many of these standard arguments are (whether intentionally or unintentionally) mere canards, drawing our attention and energies in myriad directions, but rarely ever focusing on the critical issue. The central questions concerning gay marriage are clear and simple (although the answers may not be). They are: What is marriage? What is the role of marriage in our society? Can gay "unions" truly be considered as marriage? What is the resulting effect upon our society if we redefine marriage? But we will here little about these questions. We will hear about bigotry, religious fanatics, love and commitment, equal rights, civil rights, and so on. Before probing the central questions in this matter in future posts, I would like to use this post to take a quick look at some of the common canards which you and I may encounter on any given day. To do this I am making use of political cartoons. I feel that these express the popular thoughts and attitudes on the topic of gay marriage with simplicity and precision.
1. The Religion Canard:
This is a three-pronged persuasion, and to my mind, one of the more dangerous and insidious. First, it draws a clear battle line against religion. Gay marriage is seen as acceptable, rational, and just; religion is stupid, unjust, and therefore unacceptable. Secondly, it indicates that the only opposition to gay marriage is blind, religious absolutism. The case against gay marriage (according to the cartoon) rests upon revelation, not reason, not natural law, not social concerns. Thirdly, and perhaps most dangerously, it leads us to the borderland of separation of church and state. By indicating that opposition to gay marriage is purely one of religious belief, we are given to understand that we have no right to legislate our religious beliefs. Thus the voice of the religious person is effectively silenced.
2. The Comparative Marriage Canard:
This one is common, reasonably effective, but rather easy to see through. Since those who oppose gay marriage also voice their support of traditional marriage, these cartoons attempt to demonstrate to immorality and degradation which exist within traditional marriage. This is something of a hybrid between a red herring argument and an ad hominem attack. The answer of course is simple: you simply cannot make something good, true, or wholesome, merely by showing something else to be bad, false, and degenerate. Of course, as a Catholic Christian, I do not consider divorce and drunken Vegas marriages to be a valid part of the sacred institution of traditional marriage any way, Yet even if they were, please remember that a bad apple is still an apple, not a pear or a walnut.
3. The Partisan Canard:
This is really just a variation of the Religion Canard, except that in this case the opposition to gay marriage (which once again is given no rational arguments) is grounded not in blind belief but in blind adherence to a conservative party.
4. The Civil Rights Canard:
The message here is clear. Gay marriage is viewed as the a civil rights issue comparable to those fought for by African-Americans and women in our country. But, again, this misses the point entirely. The issue is not whether homosexual persons have equal civil rights qua persons, but whether homosexual unions can validly be considered as marriage. Once again, the argument hits our emotions, striking us with memories of Jim Crow laws, bigotry, and segregation.
5. The Homophobe Canard:
There are few arguments more common on this issue than the ad hominem attack that somehow the majority of those who oppose homosexuality or gay marriage are automatically "homophobes". Let us remember that a phobia is an irrational fear. Again, we are given no credit for having rational arguments against gay marriage. I find this interesting, since we rarely ever hear of phobias connected with other major social or political issues. Those who are concerned with the national debt are not "debtophobes". Persons opposed to legalized marijuana are not generally labeled as "cannibuphobes." Yet the very word "homophobe" removes all credibility from the one who so labeled in the minds of all observers. On a psychological level it also hints that the phobia stems from insecurity, perhaps even an unconscious desire to "be gay." It is a nasty, below-the-belt attack, but like all such hits, it is extremely effective.
6. And a Few Other Canards: Here I leave you with an additional sampling of other political cartoons on this subject. You will notice how each and every one of them misses the key point of the debate, but focuses instead on stupidity, bigotry, homophobia, religious intolerance, etc. All of these strike our sentiments, emotions, and prejudices. None of them deals with the issue at stake.
No comments:
Post a Comment