Technically, a straw man is “an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.”
And boy do I have an example for you.
Gilles Bernheim, author of a new article against same-sex marriage, is the Chief Rabbi of France. That’s impressive. But just in case don’t you didn’t realize it, he spends the first 716 words of the article explaining how important he and his article are. Eventually, though, he gets to this (it’s long, but relish it):
The argument for marriage for all conceals a split between two existing visions of marriage. According to one worldview, which I share with a great number of people, both believers and nonbelievers, marriage is not only the recognition of a loving attachment. It is the institution that articulates the union between man and woman as part of the succession of generations. It is the establishment of a family—that is, a social cell that creates a set of parent–child relations among its members. Beyond the common life of two individuals, it organizes the life of a community consisting of descendants and ancestors. So understood, marriage is a fundamental act in the construction and the stability of individuals as well as of society.
According to another worldview, marriage is an obsolete and rigid institution, the absurd legacy of a traditional and alienating society. Is it not paradoxical to hear those who share this worldview raising their voices in favor of homosexual marriage? Why do those who reject marriage and prefer free unions demonstrate alongside activists in favor of homosexual marriage?
Whichever worldview you hold…
Yes! Because — obviously! — you must be holding one of these two views!
I can well understand how Bernheim is confused that we are fighting for marriage equality if we think marriage itself obsolete and absurd. It must baffle him that we spend time and money fighting for something he’s so certain we so despise. He must be flabbergasted that I and thousands of others have given up weekends to go knocking on door after door in unfamiliar neighborhoods to have personal chats with total strangers about the vital importance of marriage to our lives.
Why would we do this, when we give not one fig for marriage? It’s a paradox! Incomprehensible! Ridiculudicrous!
It’s every one of those things — to someone closing his eyes to what his opponents actually believe, to who they really are. Rabbi Bernheim characterizes us, tells us his characterization makes no sense…and then never bothers to wonder whether his characterization is true.
The irony is sad: The good rabbi needs to understand that we are not his caricatures; that we are not made of straw; that if he pricks us, we do bleed.
I wasn’t convinced that Bernheim was referring to all marriage-equality supporters when describing the second “worldview” on marriage. I had a feeling he was indeed trying to paint all of us as marriage-hating family-destroyers (it turned out he was), but I wanted to make sure myself, so I read parts of his article. Big mistake.
His essay is almost a cliche of fallacies, bigotry, and unfounded theories/conclusions. He commits the standard offense of referring to “gay parenting” as a myth while arbitrarily accepting non-bio heterosexual parenting. See if you can follow the logic here (I cannot):
He also counters the statement,
“What we hear: “Thousands of children are waiting for adoption, and it would be better for them to be adopted by a homosexual couple than to remain in an orphanage.”
by a) not addressing orphanage parenting at all, and b) using the–most–baseless, ridiculous, sexist reasoning I have read in a while:
(WHAT??)
At least I agree that adoption exists for the sake of children, but, *again* (because this warrants repeating), if you want to compare gay parenting to orphanage parenting, you have to mention BOTH THINGS.
Bernheim needs to understand that simply believing something does not make it true.
Most Americans don’t realize how socially conservative and backward France really is and how resistant it is to social change. (Women’s right to vote came decades after the US.) This debate over mariage pour tous with the endless succession of street demonstrations has even startled a lot of French gays by revealing the depth and virulence of the homophobia which still exists in France just under the surface. And the anti-gays are planning an even larger march on March 24 before debate in the
Senate begins. Unfortunately Brian Brown has been using the images of the Champs de Mars packed with French anti-gay protestors to rally and mobilize his forces here for their own march. He and his allies have also made sure the anti-gay forces there are familiar with the Regnerus “study” which they are alluding to freely.