Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Fox's Bill O'Reilly vs. Fox's Laura Ingraham

This is so good it has to be fattening.

Seriously though, I'll take issue with a particular thing that was said. Laura Ingraham says that this debate over marriage equality is new and if given time, those who support "traditional marriage" will come up with better reasons than just the Bible. That statement is factually incorrect all over. The Defense of Marriage Act is about 17 years old and we have been having this debate at least that long. This debate is, thus, not new. Those opposing equality have had decades to come up with a justification for their position beyond the Bible, and they have. The problem for them is that justification is based on "social science" from sources (these sources being primarily biased towards social conservatives) which have been debunked one by one by social science from sources of good repute. The Regnerus study for example is one that, since its publication, has been sited time and again by social conservatives. Unfortunately for them, this study is plagued by methodological problems, the fact that it was funded by decidedly conservative forces, and the man behind the study has said it was skewed to sway the Supreme Court when they took up the issue of marriage equality.

Despite the supposed justifications from social conservatives, people are less and less inclined to buy into their view on this issue. With the science demonstrably against them, thumping the Bible is pretty much the best thing social conservatives have left. It is too bad for them that it is not enough, and America is not a Christian theocracy.

No comments:

Post a Comment