Dueling Deace III: Living in a Destructive Way?

Concluding my discussion with Steve Deace from his WHO 1040 program, “Deace in the Afternoon.” Deace continued:

And then the third tangible impact is, that by ratifying and validating these relationships, we would continue to tell people that are living in destructive ways that it’s okay. And we’re not only not going to oppose it, as any healthy society has done for the last several thousand years, we’re now going to enable you to continue down the path of self-destruction.

In regard to his third point, I responded, “There are plenty of destructive heterosexual relationships, destructive relationships of… uh… vast varieties. Why would you single out one ‘destructive’ relationship to vilify?”

Deace, after sighing in what I took to be exasperation at my dull wit, clicked me off the air before responding that my parting comment was a red herring, saying:

You’re talking to the wrong guy. I can’t speak for every other talk show host in America, but how much time on this show have I spent talking about divorce, talking about shacking up? I mean, for goodness sakes, I even wrote a… I wrote a whole thing about it in my own book. And I talked about churches who go out of their way to talk about gay marriage and don’t do and say anything about the people having premarital, heterosexual sex in their congregations, about people having babies out of wedlock and leaving them, and leaving the mom holding the bag. About… you know… I mean, I agree with you that there are people that have chosen to vilify these relationships in exchange for overlooking things that have, up until this point, been tangibly much more destructive. But that’s not me. You need to call another show and make that argument. You’re calling the wrong show. I agree with you. In fact I have said to Chuck Hurley, on more than one occasion, if the only thing that is done out of this whole dialogue with these clergy is to stop two dudes from getting married, and no… and in the end nothing is ever addressed about the shacking up rate and the divorce rate in this culture, then, man, we are applying a tourniquet to a flesh wound. So on that point I whole-heartedly agree with you. But as I was raised growing up, two wrongs don’t make a right.

To be fair, I haven’t read Deace’s book, and I’m not likely to unless he decides to send me a copy gratis. And we may niggle over what we respectively believe to be tangible, harmful or wrong, but that isn’t the only difficulty with Deace’s position.

A “red herring” is an argument which distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy. In fact, my question was not a red herring, and is entirely relevant to the discussion of the IMA. Why? Because of all the other “destructive relationships” Deace went on to detail, in no other instance is he actively seeking to designate the union of that relationship illegal.

Though he acknowledges that “people have chosen to vilify these [homosexual] relationships in exchange for overlooking things that have, up until this point, been tangibly much more destructive,” he targets same-sex marriage for the very significant sanction of a constitutional ban. Has he advocated a constitutional restriction on the other behaviors he identifies as having been “tangibly much more destructive”? No. I’m not calling the wrong show, and I’m not talking to the wrong guy. If other behaviors are much more destructive, don’t they warrant much more attention? If your doctor told you you had both cancer and a cold, would you just ask him for some Drixoral and deal with the cancer later?

One also has to ask destructive in what way and by what standards? It would be useful for Deace to define “living in destructive ways.” Perhaps, if he sees this blog, he will, and I’ll attempt to respond to it.

To the extent that he means spiritually destructive, I suspect one would have to share his belief in Christianity, recognize his Biblical interpretation, or accept his understanding of spirituality in order to be in precise agreement. Such subjectivity makes it difficult to address. If one is not a Christian, or more specifically a Deaceian Christian (since he routinely disparages other denominations, recently the Methodists), and therefore not aligned with this view, then is there an objective criteria by which Deace deems homosexuality destructive?

Perhaps he feels homosexuality is destructive from a medical standpoint. There are many individuals, organizations and websites that cite studies indicating homosexuals have a higher incidence of medical illness, psychiatric disorders, suicidal behaviors, and that they can expect a shortened lifespan. They also suggest homosexuals are more promiscuous, and are unable to form commitments. One might conclude that there are, in fact, substantial reasons to feel the homosexual lifestyle is, indeed, unhealthy and destructive.

And that’s precisely what these many individuals, organizations and websites would like you to believe. The only problem? Pretty much all of the studies these groups cite is the work of a one disgraced “researcher” named Paul Cameron. I put researcher in quotations because to refer to this man thusly is a slap in the face to any legitimate scientist. Cameron was expelled from membership, or officially repudiated, by the American Psychological Association, the Nebraska Psychological Association (he taught at the University of Nebraska), the American Sociological Association and the Canadian Psychological Association. There is too much information on Cameron for me to condense in this blog. Please visit the links in this paragraph to learn more.

Despite his work being universally criticized within professional circles, religious and other anti-gay organizations continue to repeat his claims as if they were credible. More recently another researcher, Dr. John R. Diggs, has taken up the banner of Paul Cameron, and has continued to advance agenda-driven pseudoscience. Diggs, a member of the anti-gay Family Research Council, employs much the same technique as Cameron, even including references, without citation, to Cameron’s work.

Understand, I don’t invalidate documented, empirical data just because it originates from a Christian source, but I won’t accept unsupported opinion, or the “reinterpretation” of existing data to suit a Christian, anti-gay agenda. Fortunately, our Constitution protects us from having to accept an argument simply on its Christian merit.

Anecdotal evidence cannot be accepted as proof of anything beyond the bounds of the anecdote. Having offered that disclaimer, I know of at least three monogamous gay couples who have healthier relationships than a number of my straight, married acquaintances. These couples have been committed to monogamy for many years, own homes together, and are accomplished in their professions. They mow their lawns, shovel their sidewalks, pay their taxes. Some have raised perfectly normal children, attend regular church services, and all are actively involved in their communities. None of them need to be told that the way they’re living “is okay.” They’re not seeking affirmation; they just want the same legal recognition that Deace feels is his divine entitlement.

I know Deace is beyond reasonable dialogue on this issue, but as evidenced in these blogs, his assertions are patently false, unsupported by any empirical standard. You can say anything in 30 seconds of air time, and unfortunately many people, either already aligned with Deace, or inclined to ascribe authority to any voice droning from the radio, won’t question what he claims. Deace is inflexible in his views on homosexuality, but he’s apparently willing to entertain a fluid definition of bearing false witness.

I was also taught two wrongs don't make a right. I just don't know which two wrongs Deace is referring to.