Savage Exodus, ctd
Earlier this year Dan Savage upset the sensitivity of our future journalists by exposing them to views that differ from their own. Afterwards, Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage and self-appointed nanny of Christian teens, challenged Savage to a debate. Here’s the result:
The moderator Mark Oppenheimer asks Savage and Brown if there “is any evidence that could come that would cause you to change your mind and your positions in any way?” That question is the benchmark of reasonableness, as I’ve argued before. Savage would change his mind if the harms outweighed the benefits.
I disagree with your experiential Karl Popper analysis in the first place with something like this because this is an area of first principle. This is an area of basic reason. It’d be like saying, ‘would you find evidence… what would convince you that a square could be a circle?’
So, no, nothing would change his mind. To Brown and many like him, it doesn’t matter whether depriving citizens of the right to enter into a legally binding relationship with the person they love causes harm to those people. It doesn’t matter if children of gay parents suffer if their parents can’t get married. Marriage equality ought not happen and nothing can (even in principle) change his mind, according to Brown, because marriage is definitionally a union between the two halves of humanity and changing it would “fundamentally damage” the institution. Here we have a revealing illustration of same-sex marriage opponents’ priorities. They care more about lexicographical rigidity than the wellbeing of actual people.