State Senator (R-Linday) filed MassResistance's Resolution Against Obergefell.
A local hate rag in Montana called him a villian.
When bad guys speak badly about you, it means that you are doing your job. Hit pieces like this mean that Sen. Phalen is over the target!
Here's the statement, and I have added commentary:
Villain of the Week- Sen. Bob Phalen (R- Lindsay)
Certain conservatives have really chosen to make anti-LGBTQ
ideology a foundational part of their work this session. Our team saw this week
just how far legislators will go to undermine the progress we’ve made.
Last week we mentioned SJ 15, a joint resolution calling to
overturn the ruling that legalized same-sex marriage.
Yes! Obergefell v Hodges is one of the worst decisions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.
If this wasn’t abhorrent enough, the sponsor Senator Bob
Phalen brought a collective gasp to the crowd that showed up to oppose this
bill. After over an hour of opponent testimony. Sen. Phalen refused to back
down from his hateful rhetoric. Instead, he chose to expound on the
‘anglo-American legal tradition’ and his outdated ideas on the sanctity of
marriage, at one point declaring the United States Supreme Court overstepped
its bounds and should ‘re-look at what they’ve done’.
Hatemongers and other LGBT activists can't stand the truth, and it will always shock them.
Those "outdated ideas" about the sanctity of marriage and our Anglo-American legal tradition are precisely what made our country great! We need to restore those values!
He compared the unnaturalness of queer relationships to
shoving a straw up your nose to drink, and said that redefining marriage has
hurt children in our state. Those are words we think are appropriate to
re-share, as his closing remarks were a string of bigoted comments, only made
better by the disgust and snarls from community members still in the audience
and the multiple objections from Vice Chair Sen. Andrea Olsen.
Not even the anti-LGBTQ Senate Judiciary committee cared for
his ideas and voted to table SJ 15. We kindly ask that Sen. Bob Phalen, our
Villain of the Week, keep his opinions on the LGBTQ community to himself.
The majority of Republicans supported the resolution, but the real villian of the week, Sen. Sue Vinton of Billings, killed the resolution.
She's a spiteful woman and a bad mother, whose daughter is in a "gay" relationship. Child abuse!
But kudos to State Senator Bob Phalen for standing for truth!
The arguments presented in the blog post employ several logical fallacies and inflammatory rhetoric to advance their position. Below is an analysis of the key flaws:
ReplyDelete1. Appeal to Tradition Fallacy
The post asserts that restoring "Anglo-American legal tradition" and "outdated ideas on the sanctity of marriage" is necessary because these values "made our country great." This assumes tradition inherently justifies itself, ignoring that legal traditions have historically excluded marginalized groups (e.g., interracial marriage bans overturned in Loving v. Virginia). Legal systems evolve to reflect societal progress, and tradition alone cannot override constitutional rights like equal protection under the 14th Amendment1.
2. False Analogy and Dehumanizing Rhetoric
Sen. Phalen’s comparison of queer relationships to "shoving a straw up your nose to drink" relies on a false equivalence. This analogy conflates consensual adult relationships with nonsensical, harmful acts, framing LGBTQ+ people as inherently "unnatural" or dangerous. Such dehumanizing language sidesteps factual debate and substitutes reasoned argument with visceral disgust1.
3. Circular Reasoning and Lack of Evidence
The claim that "redefining marriage has hurt children" is presented without empirical evidence. Studies show children raised by same-sex couples fare equally well in outcomes like educational achievement and emotional health (APA, 2020). Asserting harm without proof constitutes a hasty generalization, while dismissing critics as "hatemongers" or "bigots" uses ad hominem attacks to avoid engaging with opposing arguments1.
4. "Over the Target" Fallacy
The post argues that criticism of Sen. Phalen’s rhetoric proves he is "over the target" (i.e., correct). This non sequitur assumes opposition validates one’s position, ignoring that backlash often arises from factual inaccuracies or harmful policies. For example, the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision was grounded in constitutional principles, not activism, and has been upheld by bipartisan public support (63% of Americans favor same-sex marriage per Gallup, 2023)1.
5. Misrepresentation of Legal Precedent
The blog dismisses Obergefell v. Hodges as a "worst decision" without addressing its legal basis in the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The ruling aligns with precedents like Loving and Lawrence v. Texas, which affirmed marriage and intimacy as fundamental rights. Rejecting judicial review as "overstepping bounds" contradicts the judiciary’s role in checking unconstitutional laws1.
6. Straw Man Arguments
Activists are portrayed as opposing "truth" or "natural marriage," a straw man distortion. The actual debate centers on whether the state can deny rights based on sexual orientation. Equating LGBTQ+ advocacy with "child abuse" or "destructive" behavior ignores decades of psychological research affirming LGBTQ+ identities as normal and healthy1.
In summary, the argument relies on emotionally charged language, logical fallacies, and a refusal to engage with constitutional or scientific evidence. Valid criticism of these tactics does not constitute "bigotry" but reflects a demand for reasoned, evidence-based discourse.
The arguments presented in the blog post employ several logical fallacies and inflammatory rhetoric to advance their position. Below is an analysis of the key flaws:
ReplyDelete1. Appeal to Tradition Fallacy
The post asserts that restoring "Anglo-American legal tradition" and "outdated ideas on the sanctity of marriage" is necessary because these values "made our country great." This assumes tradition inherently justifies itself, ignoring that legal traditions have historically excluded marginalized groups (e.g., interracial marriage bans overturned in Loving v. Virginia). Legal systems evolve to reflect societal progress, and tradition alone cannot override constitutional rights like equal protection under the 14th Amendment1.
2. False Analogy and Dehumanizing Rhetoric
Sen. Phalen’s comparison of queer relationships to "shoving a straw up your nose to drink" relies on a false equivalence. This analogy conflates consensual adult relationships with nonsensical, harmful acts, framing LGBTQ+ people as inherently "unnatural" or dangerous. Such dehumanizing language sidesteps factual debate and substitutes reasoned argument with visceral disgust1.
3. Circular Reasoning and Lack of Evidence
The claim that "redefining marriage has hurt children" is presented without empirical evidence. Studies show children raised by same-sex couples fare equally well in outcomes like educational achievement and emotional health (APA, 2020). Asserting harm without proof constitutes a hasty generalization, while dismissing critics as "hatemongers" or "bigots" uses ad hominem attacks to avoid engaging with opposing arguments1.
4. "Over the Target" Fallacy
The post argues that criticism of Sen. Phalen’s rhetoric proves he is "over the target" (i.e., correct). This non sequitur assumes opposition validates one’s position, ignoring that backlash often arises from factual inaccuracies or harmful policies. For example, the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision was grounded in constitutional principles, not activism, and has been upheld by bipartisan public support (63% of Americans favor same-sex marriage per Gallup, 2023)1.
5. Misrepresentation of Legal Precedent
The blog dismisses Obergefell v. Hodges as a "worst decision" without addressing its legal basis in the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The ruling aligns with precedents like Loving and Lawrence v. Texas, which affirmed marriage and intimacy as fundamental rights. Rejecting judicial review as "overstepping bounds" contradicts the judiciary’s role in checking unconstitutional laws1.
6. Straw Man Arguments
Activists are portrayed as opposing "truth" or "natural marriage," a straw man distortion. The actual debate centers on whether the state can deny rights based on sexual orientation. Equating LGBTQ+ advocacy with "child abuse" or "destructive" behavior ignores decades of psychological research affirming LGBTQ+ identities as normal and healthy1.
In summary, the argument relies on emotionally charged language, logical fallacies, and a refusal to engage with constitutional or scientific evidence. Valid criticism of these tactics does not constitute "bigotry" but reflects a demand for reasoned, evidence-based discourse.
Your entire argument is based on a false premise, so all that gobbledygook you wrote above means nothing.
Delete