[BRIEF NOTE] A Fisking Aborted
Jan. 4th, 2005 04:43 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldI suppose it's true that I pick up the National Post--free, if possible and legal--in order to be outraged. In last Friday's issue, on the Comments page (A16, if you're curious), I came across Susan Martinuk's "Promoting homosexuality in schools is wrong," complaining that British Columbian gay activists are trying to change that province's school curriculum to be GLBT-friendly.
At first, I was going to fisk the article. Fiskings are fun, and I haven't done one in a while. As I read Martinuk's essay, though, I discovered--somewhat to my disappointment--that she didn't sustain a single strong coherent argument meriting a fisking. Do curriculums, by not including any GLBT-relevant content, neglect students affiliated with this group? Did she not actually examine the content of the books that the Surrey School Board tried to ban (hint: Heather Has Two Mommies isn't a sex book)? Does she claim surprise at the idea that a Christian college with a doctrine which holds homosexuality to be wrong might manage to produce homophobic teachers? Does she deny that homosexuality has any relevance to the dignity of the individual person and then, go on in the next paragraphs to argue that gay activists must be prevented from damaging the sancity of the individual? Does she, bizarrely, throw into this discourse on education arguments against same-sex parenting which work just as well against adoption generally (this might be a trend, incidentally)? Does she make facetious distinctions between respecting individuals not fortunate enough to be born heterosexual and saying that it's okay to not be heterosexual? The answer to all of these questions, of course, is yes.
You know that your side is winning a debate when your opponents provide poorly-organized grab bags of ideas like the above.
At first, I was going to fisk the article. Fiskings are fun, and I haven't done one in a while. As I read Martinuk's essay, though, I discovered--somewhat to my disappointment--that she didn't sustain a single strong coherent argument meriting a fisking. Do curriculums, by not including any GLBT-relevant content, neglect students affiliated with this group? Did she not actually examine the content of the books that the Surrey School Board tried to ban (hint: Heather Has Two Mommies isn't a sex book)? Does she claim surprise at the idea that a Christian college with a doctrine which holds homosexuality to be wrong might manage to produce homophobic teachers? Does she deny that homosexuality has any relevance to the dignity of the individual person and then, go on in the next paragraphs to argue that gay activists must be prevented from damaging the sancity of the individual? Does she, bizarrely, throw into this discourse on education arguments against same-sex parenting which work just as well against adoption generally (this might be a trend, incidentally)? Does she make facetious distinctions between respecting individuals not fortunate enough to be born heterosexual and saying that it's okay to not be heterosexual? The answer to all of these questions, of course, is yes.
You know that your side is winning a debate when your opponents provide poorly-organized grab bags of ideas like the above.
