It's quite an interesting exchange, which demonstrates, if nothing else, the vast epistemic distance between Brown and Savage. Of course, I'm with Savage all along the way, but I'm particularly struck by a moment near the end when Brown a) simply attempts to define gay marriage into the realm of impossibility and looks absurd doing so, and then b) asserts something along the lines of "if it were discrimination I'd be against it," with the implied circular conclusion that "since I"m not against it, it's not discrimination."
And that, in a nutshell, is the whole problem with the conservative arguments against gay marriage. They are entirely circular and insular, and are thoroughly immersed in the kind of question-begging that Brown engages in throughout the debate. No amount of evidence and no form of argumentation can shift their position as long as it's embedded in this ideological rigidity. At least Savage is able to offer examples of the kind of evidence that would lead him to question his position. Brown is incapable of doing so.
I listened to this yesterday and my thoughts ran to a flow chart I saw on the internet about how to tell if you are having a rational conversation: http://twentytwowords.com/2011/03/15/a-flowchart-to-help-you-determine-if-youre-having-a-rational-discussion/
Brown is guilty of breaking all the rules of a rational discussion, starting with the fact that regardless of the evidence produced he will never change his stance. And, I believe, that is the problem with all extreme (right or left) ideologies: the inability to have a rational discussion.
Posted by: Hailey | August 23, 2012 at 01:44 PM