FanPost

Josh Robinson's Apology and Perhaps Why the Tweet

I wanted to post here Josh Robinson's apology from profootballtalk as well as give a possible rational account of what went through his head when he posted that

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/27/josh-robinson-apologizes-for-anti-gay-comments/

I apologize for any offense for my tweets may have caused," Robinson wrote in a text message to the Star-Tribune. "In an attempt to express my beliefs, I created some confusion with my choice of words, and for that I apologize. I do not equate the Supreme Court’s decision on marriage equality with other social issues. There are obvious differences. However, I do believe that God’s laws will always supersede man’s laws. This belief is not from hate for anyone but from a love for my God and all those he created. Again, I’m sorry!"

He says that he created "confusion" with his words and claims he does not equate homosexuality to incest and pedophilia. Taking him at his word, I'd like to provide a charitable interpretation of his tweet from before.

First I'll put the disclaimer, though I don't think it's relevant, that I'm for marriage equality, doesn't effect me in that least bit.

Now, I think there's a difference between a defeater argument and a undercutting argument. These are arguments against a claim (e.g. "The Star Wars prequels sucks because of Jar Jar") and arguments just against other arguments (e.g. "A single supporting character cannot make a trilogy suck.") The latter does not make an argument as to whether the Star Wars prequels are good or bad, merely that arguments that it is bad are bad arguments.

So point being, Josh Robinson's tweet addressed the argument for marriage equality, "Love is love" and then proceeded to say what about a love between a 30 yr old and 6 year old or a father and his young daughter? The charitable interpretation is that he's not making an argument against gay marriage. He's making an argument against this argument that love is love. Thus the comparison is not actually comparing homosexuality to pedophilia or incest. It's simply saying that the argument for marriage equality that love is love is a terrible argument because it implies all love is good when obviously a 30 yr old's genuine love for a 6 yr old is wrong. So obviously not all love is good.

And I think he's right. Love is love is a terrible argument for marriage equality if that's how we ought to interpret 'love is love.' Because not all examples of love are morally right or ought to be legal (Josh Robinson gives us two examples). Now to argue that homosexuality is wrong has yet to be demonstrated by Robinson. Simply that this is a terrible argument. But even if Josh Robinson puts homosexuality into the category of love that is not morally permissable (which it seems he does), that doesn't equate it with pedophilia or incest which are also loves that are not morally permissable. Simply that they are all morally wrong, pedophilia and incest much more so.

Now I say "Love is love" is a terrible argument for marriage equality for precisely the same reasons that Josh Robinson says but still I insist this does not make marriage equality less of a valid belief (because it's not an argument against marriage equality). I'm just saying there are much better arguments out there for marriage equality that are very good (one's I find very compelling myself and adhere to).

So perhaps Josh Robinson is simply a philosopher, outraged by bad arguments and reasoning and felt compelled to comment. Or maybe he's just backpedaling and I've got purple glasses on. Either way I would argue his apology is more in line with his thoughts, that homosexuality shouldn't be equated to pedophilia or incest, merely that it is wrong which whether or not you agree, you can probably accept as long as it's not lined with bigotry

This FanPost was created by a registered user of The Daily Norseman, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the staff of the site. However, since this is a community, that view is no less important.