Think about it.  If I disagree with someone on foundations, why should I believe them on the consequences they predict?  I’m going to use the above example for the purposes of discussion, but it could be any topic.

In the example, the speaker insists that the real reason for marriage equality is to destroy marriage. Unlike many people who have said that, no one has called for her to be boycotted, fired from employment, or excluded from the company of civilized people, so I’m using her for my example.

The example, given …. seriously?

I know a large number of married gay people.  All of them are married because they value the institution of marriage. So why believe the activists who insist that they can destroy the institution by making it inclusive? Especially given that the change, so far, seems to have made marriage more regarded and stronger.

That principle extends to a number of other areas. There is not always a good reason to agree with people who you think are wrong. Think about it. You disagree with them because you think they are wrong. Does that mean that you should suddenly agree with their conclusions?

If you were a communist and someone praised flat earth theory as a means of destroying communism, would you think they were any more correct about the results than they were about the earth being flat? Would you conclude that non-communist societies that adopted flat earth theory were the greatest challenge communism could face? Or would you snicker?

[Speaking of communists, the Russian communists thought that civil rights movements would destroy the United States and sent those movements financial and other support. Needless to say, they were wrong and civil rights movements actually strengthened the United States. There were people who believed that the Russians were right. That was a mistake.]

Cannabis sativa2.jpg

Or think about the people who predicted that wide spread access to marijuana would destroy capitalism and be an end to entrepreneurship.

That spreading drugs would lead to peace and an end to violence.

That effect does not seem to be occurring in places where marijuana has been legalized or to places where drugs have spread.

Questions for our readers:

  • When have you found yourself agreeing that someone you thought was otherwise crazy was right about the consequences of what they were arguing but wrong about everything else?
  • When did it turn out they were right, and when did it turn out they were wrong?
  • Where are other places where you might think people have fallen into the mistake of believing only the negative things that are predicted by those they disagree with?

Afterword. There was a very serious effort by people who wanted to destroy marriage and families to hijack the United Nations entities that they thought would aid them in that goal. It is a little known, and frankly bizarre in many ways, story that played out in New York at the United Nations headquarters.

But, most of their tools and methods, did not work. You don’t see an end to families or marriage as a result of their efforts (which were repulsed at the United Nations level but which were implemented other places). It is a fascinating case study.

Picture from wikimedia commons.