Ruth Institute Blog

Ethos is earned. Logos is the foundation for effective reasoning. Pathos moves people to act, to follow the way that reason has pointed toward, to make good the products of logos.

If, in a debater’s performance, there are profound flaws in reasoning, then, no amount of ethos will improve the reasoning. Likewise, no amount of pathos will patch-up and redress those flaws.

At best, ethos and pathos, used to compensate for ill-reasoning, can distract or cover-up those flaws and move the audience to be led by the nose of emotionalism. But that means there is no solid ground of reason beneath the path that is followed. More and more pathos might puff-up what is not corrected by right reasoning but eventually the advocate runs out of steam and the pathos is exhausted.

If an esteemed individual squanders his or her credentials by whipping up emotions to demand the audience to suspend reality, to hold reasoning at bay, then, ethos is destroyed, implicitly, by the individual. But it might not be detected by the audience. Especially by those in an audience who dearly need the emotionalism to be effective; they need some false things to be felt as true and so they welcome the lob-sided reliance on pathos; and that welcome means the individual’s credentials are unchallenged on that particular appeal to emotion.

Ethos depends on the apt use or natural call to emotions and reasoning, combined, rather than setting them opposed one to the other. An emotional appeal, supported by right reasoning, reaffirms — or even establishes — the individual’s credentials on the subject of that appeal.

Begin with what you feel is right; use reasoning to examine the path that leads to that feeling and that leads forward to actions or decisions or conclusions. But do not rely only on ethos at the cost of logos. Do not rely on pathos at the cost of logos. Do not make ethos depend on pathos alone. For if you, as an individual earnestly making an argument do these things, and come to rely on such an approach, you will quickly find yourself lost in the woods and with no path back to logos except for a painful self-correcting route. Painful in the sense of restoring one’s credibility; painful in the sense of acknowledging the errors of the particular mistaken emotional appeal and the errors of the emotional force with which ethos was dependant upon.

An reasoned approach is not absolutist. Conclusions reached may be wrong even if the logic is sound; pathos is a sort of guardrail on the highways built by logic. Follow the logic to its conclusions and test it with your emotional response. And, if it does not feel right, examine the path more carefully and do not depend on the mere appearance of authoritativeness. This is how we, as integrated human beings, make use of all of our essential faculities when acting and deciding morally distinct issues as well as morally ambiguous issues.

To depend on pathos to over-compensate for a lack of right reasoning is to act as less than fully human.

Nicely set out, Chairm.
I would add:
Measure all by the Word of God and in the community of believers.

@Chairm

Looks great, I was not sure, though in what sense “ethos is earned.”

Ignore that. I just read the lead article: Ethos: the source’s credibility, the speaker’s/author’s authority.

I was just thinking about Maggie Gallagher’s lack of ethos on marriage.

She’s not so good about practicing what she preaches:

1. She had pre-marital sex in college
2. She had a baby outside of wedlock
3. She works outside the home
4. She does not use her husband’s last name, which is Srivistav
5. She enjoys separate legal status from her husband
6. She travels around the country in the company of men who are not her husband, unaccompanied by her husband
7. She probably considers herself her husband’s equal

These are not aspects of a traditional marriage. It is unclear why Mrs. Srivistav insists on “traditional” marriage for others, while practicing non-biblical, non-traditional marriage herself.

Actually, Maggie isn’t so good on logos, either. She says stuff like “children need a mommy and a daddy,” and yet prohibiting same-sex marriage does nothing to give children a mommy and a daddy: single people still raise children on their own, same-sex couples still raise children, straight couples still divorce in droves, fracturing households and cheating children of a full-time parent.

Sean, you have just provided a classic example of an ad hom attack.

Your animousity is a given and yet you have not managed to put a dent into Maggie’s reasoning and her compassionate and empathic approach to the marriage issue and to those who’d disagree with her reasoning. Her credibility is thus intact.

It is unlikely that you, Sean, know anything of Maggie’s marriage. Just like the ad hom attack, your attack on the marriage of Maggie and her husband, detracted from your flimsy credibility among the readership.

Your personal hatred of Maggie (it can be called nothing else now) is now well established publicly and your proffered arguments (less reasoning and mostly attitude and SSM vovgue), Sean, are well-rebutted and on the record here in the comment sections of NOM blog.

Meanwhile, the original blogpost is the subject of this comment section, not your feelings about Maggie, her marriage, and your bumper-sticker approach to misrepresentation of her arguments in favor of marriage. And your comments serve, inadvertently (I am almost certain), as examples of the sort of performance than earns a failing on your part in terms of ethos, pathos, and, of course, logos.

Thanks for participating but there is no grade for merely showing up and tossing a stink bomb, Sean.

Thanks Chairm, I found your descriptions of ethos, pathos, and logos quite helpful.

@Chairm

I think you misread the article. It points out that an argument is part message, part messenger. In terms of a messenger, Mrs. Srivistav isn’t very convincing, both in term of her logic or her credibility. In terms of credibility, she demonstrates by her own life choices that she favors a non-traditional marriage. That calls into question her credibility whenever she plays the “traditional marriage” card. What traditions? Why does she get to make exceptions, yet insists others can’t?

In fact, using the word “tradition” is designed to tug at the heartstrings, I suspect, rather than describe the specifics of what kind of marriage Mrs. Srivistav thinks is appropriate. That’s the “pathos” part of her argument.

This is in no way an “ad hominem” attack. Mrs. Srivistav is free to conduct her personal life as she sees fit. I wish she would afford that right to others, in fact. There is, however, an enormous gulf between what she advocates for a living, and how she lives. As part of NOM’s shrewd public relations campaign, they implore their supporters not to say they oppose same-sex marriage but rather say that they support traditional marriage. Given this angle, it is fair to ask why Mrs. Srivistav doesn’t choose to live as a traditionally married woman herself. If she has an explanation for why she chooses a non-traditional marriage, while insisting that others live traditionally, I’d like to read it.

I invite you visit the Economist website, and read the comments associated with the same-sex marriage debate. Mrs. Srivistav’s points are fairly well demolished by a number of commenters. That the Ruth Institute has provided a useful structure for dissecting and categorizing the weakness of her arguments is useful and intellectually amusing. It helps readers understand not just that her arguments are lame, but in what ways they are lame.

Meanwhile, Sean, the original blogpost is the subject of this comment section, not your feelings about Maggie, her marriage, and your bumper-sticker approach to misrepresentation of her arguments in favor of marriage.

Your comments contiunue to serve as examples of the sort of performance than earns a failing grade on your part in terms of ethos, pathos, and, of course, logos. There was much of that sort of nonsense exhibited by SSMers in the comment section of The Economist, too.

Thanks for participating but there is no grade for merely showing up and tossing a stink bomb, and playing the Troll, Sean.

Yeah, Chairm, cause you ALWAYS stick to the subject of the original blogpost.

Chairm, the Ruth Institute provided a thoughtful way to evaluate an argument, by breaking the argument down into three classifications: credibility of arguer, logic of argument and emotional appeal of argument. Since they provided the framework, I just took the most visible proponent of marriage discrimination and evaluated her argument. It’s nothing personal. Maggie Srivistav may be a very fine person but according to the Ruth Institute, her argument fails on the three “high school debate class” ways to debate.

She is hardly a credibly witness for “traditional” marriage, because she herself does not practice traditional marriage. There’s no logic in her arguments, and she is overtly reliant on fear (emotional appeal) and condescension. I understand her role: she provides cover for people whose primary goal is stop same-sex marriage, for religious or homophobic reasons. She’s really just preaching to the choir, rather than trying to advance any logical, rational argument for stopping same-sex marriage.

“I’m not going to enter into a debate about what is vs. is not Biblical marriage.”

Well, we can certainly enumerate the biblical basics: no pre-marital sex, no sex outside of marriage, wife the property of the husband, wife to submit to the husband as he wishes, and no divorce.

Traditionally, married women do not work outside the home, do not have babies out of wedlock, and take their husband’s last name.

Mrs. Srivistav admits she had pre-marital sex, which resulted in a baby born out of wedlock. I doubt that she considers herself her husband’s property, and probably considers herself her husband’s equal. She does not use her husband’s last name. She may or may not submit to her husband on his terms.

Again, Mrs. Srivistav is practicing a very non-traditional marriage. She is earning a six-figure income insisting that gay people choose traditional marriage, or nothing at all. It is an interesting topic for discussion why she affords herself a non-traditional marriage, while denying it to gay people (but not, evidently, straight people). Unless I’m missing something, this is called hypocrisy. For the money she makes fighting gay marriage, I guess I could be a hypocrite, too!

@Sean
Premarital sex is sin.
If sin is confessed and repented, it can be forgiven.
This includes every sin of yours and of mine.
The other items you mentioned against Maggie, whom I do not know, may be elements of some people’s definition of traditional marriage, but they are either mis-characterized or not Biblical.

@Ruth

Premarital sex is sin and Mrs. Srivistav sinned.

Maggie’s definition of “traditional” marriage is crafted only in such a way that it excludes gay people. There are many traditions of marriage that straight people have practiced and she ignores them in her own life. When she says “traditional,” she really means “straight.” She is sneaky in this regard: use soft, unfocused words, or over-inclusive and under-inclusive terms so as to avoid saying the obvious: she’s against same-sex marriage and little else.

She is not against legal divorce. There is nothing on NOM’s website, at least, to suggest that NOM takes that policy position. Such a position is too nutty even for NOM, and would detract from fund-raising efforts.

But gosh, how can you be for traditional marriage, with its lifetime commitment and nearly impossible divorce constraints, and somehow not have a policy position on legal divorce? Or legal pre-marital sex? Or legal adultery? Why, it looks like it is perfectly legal to defy all “traditional” aspects of marriage, except for letting same-sex couples marry!

The man-woman criterion of marriage is not a mere tradition.

Sean’s remarks fail in terms of logos alone, on that score.

Readers might adopt on face value Sean’s own proposed terms for assessing Maggie’s defense of marriage and then use those same terms to assess Sean’s defense of the SSM idea.

The contest over ethos would make Sean the loser for ethos depends very much on the behavior of the arguer during the argument.

The contest over pathos, likewise, goes against SEan even though Sean’s rhetoric depends, utterly, on over-hyped sentimentalism. Puffing up pathos does not fix his poor ethos and, of course, his poorly reasoned rhetoric.

And when it comes to the contest over logos, Sean has managed to destroy the pro-SSM complaint and the pro-SSM remedy, whereas Maggie has openly proposed that civil union be considered a just alternative to destroying either the public understanding of the core of marriage or the pro-gay appeal for protections of one-sexed scenarios.

Readers might as well assess Sean by his own terms throughout his commentary here. But he will deny that the same terms apply to his performance and instead he will continue to make ad hom attacks when prompted by any excuse or no excuse at all.

@Ruth
“Premarital sex is sin.”

Then you are actively contributing to sin by prohibiting same sex individuals from getting married. Shameful.

“The man-woman criterion of marriage is not a mere tradition.”

Of course it is, Chairm. It reflects the permissible coupling at the time of its creation until recently: male-female only couples. We can’t know for sure, but if same-sex couples were common in ancient times, it is likely that they would have been able to marry. History is just catching up to reality, in other words!

“Maggie has openly proposed that civil union be considered a just alternative to destroying either the public understanding of the core of marriage or the pro-gay appeal for protections of one-sexed scenarios.”

She has? Where? Maggie has carefully avoided supporting civil unions because she knows the courts will eventually strike them down as “separate but equal” accommodations, and impose marriage equality. This has been a source of great hand-wringing, I suspect, on the part of the marriage discrimination crowd: do we given them civil unions, so we don’t look so hateful and bigoted, but risk those civil unions transforming into marriages? Tough call, I grant you. Several states have already converted civil unions to marriage. Many states have constitutional amendments that deny any legal rights to same-sex couples, to avoid this situation.

Maggie’s goal is to keep the same-sex marriage issue in play long enough to maximize her earnings from it. She’ll continue to smear legislators and judges, hurt gay Americans and their children, and shred the US Constitution for as long as necessary to maintain her income stream.

The public understanding of marriage, in so far as any one generalization can be made, is that marriage is what you want it to be, based on mutual commitment and love. Beyond that, public understanding of marriage is inconsistent and varies from person to person. Public perception and majority beliefs are, of course, subordinate to what the law requires. This comes as a shock to some people, but it is what it is.

Sean, while there is no evidence that the man-woman basis of marriage is mere tradition, there is millennia of evidence that it is a universal feature of the social institution. Meanwhile, the gay construct is a relatively recent notion in human history and anthropology; gayness is not even a mandatory feature , much less a universal feature, of SSM where it has been imposed in the last several years.

Regarding ‘civil union’, if it is designed to appease the gay identity group, then, no, it is not justified. If it is designed to be attached to the hip of marital status, then, no it is not justified since it is not marriage. If it is designed instead as a means to bundles protections for vulnerable families in the nonmarriage category, then, yes, it might be justified. The nonmarriage category is not limited to the gay identity group that the SSM campaign favors so arbitrarily.

Maggie has expressed her own view of civil union in terms not of political compromise or appeasement but in terms of doing what she thinks is right. Catch-up Sean and try to do a better of accurately representing what others say when they disagree with your pet cause.

* * *

Mutual commitment and love is present in most of the types of arrangements and types of relationships in the nonmarriage category. Yet we have something called marriage that is distinguishable from the rest — before the label is stuck to it and before the special status is accorded.

Meanwhile, SSM is indistinguishable from nonmarriage, as your own comment concedes, Sean. It is whatever you want it to be.

The law recognizes the social institution. It does not recognize the endlessly variable motives or meanings of individuals. That social institution has a core meaning, else it would be neither a social institutoin nor recognizable by the legal system.

So your SSM idea is in conflict with the marriage idea in ways that are very obvious but ways in which, despite your endorsement of the SSM idea, do not justify special status for SSM. Your own comment shows this quite clearly.

“Sean, while there is no evidence that the man-woman basis of marriage is mere tradition”

There’s abundant evidence that different-sex marriage is mere tradition. That’s why Maggie likes to call it “traditional” marriage. Take it up with her, if you wish.

NOM’s website says that its official stance on civil unions is that they are a “Trojan horse” leading to marriage. Of course they are, that’s what’s so brilliant about them. And Mrs. Srivistav opposes them. Any other questions, Chairm?

“Mutual commitment and love is present in most of the types of arrangements and types of relationships in the nonmarriage category.”

Uh, ok. So what? Marriage is still the best label to put on a relationship. That’s why straights marry, and that’s why gays marry.

“Meanwhile, SSM is indistinguishable from nonmarriage, as your own comment concedes”

Well, if it’s indistinguishable, why is one called marriage and one called non-marriage? Why not call them both marriage, if they’re indistinguishable?!

“So your SSM idea is in conflict with the marriage idea in ways that are very obvious”

They’re not obvious to me, nor to quite a few other people.

Look, I know you Straight Supremacists/Homophobes are taking this really hard. I think if you relax, and just start accepting these social changes, you’ll find it ain’t so bad.

Actually, Mark, the phrase, traditional marriage, is used as a rhetorical clarifier when discussing the conflict between the marriage idea and the SSM idea; it is used in direct response to the oxymornic phrases “gay marriage” and “same-sex marriage”.

It does not indicate that the man-woman basis of the social institution is a mere tradition.

You’ve been corrected on this point before. Please take note and avoid the misrepresentation. Thanks.

* * *

NOM and Maggie oppose the trojan horse use of civil union. Maggie has discussed civil union quite recently, in fact, and you ought to be up to speed on it given your supposedly close tracking of her every word.

* * *

Sean said: ” Any other questions, Chairm?”

I asked none of you in my earlier comment but responded to yours of me, so your reading skills must be on the blink, again.

* * *

So what? You still have not distinguished the gaycentric one-sexed arrangement from the rest of marriage. Consent and commitment does not do the trick and you just acknowledged that with your “so what”.

Sean said:

“Well, if it’s indistinguishable, why is one called marriage and one called non-marriage? Why not call them both marriage, if they’re indistinguishable?!”

Ah, so you now concede that you cannot distinguish one from the other. You cannot bring yourself to distinguish the gaycentric subset of nonmarriage from the rest of nonmarriage, except by mislabelling it. That’s all you have. You thus do not depend on reason but on the brute force of ignorance on your part.

There is a category of which your favored gaycentric arrangement is merely a subset. You have yet to justify gayness as the decisive factor in elevating that subset over and above the rest of nonmarriage. The onus remains on you to justify special status for the gaycentric arrangement you have in mind.

Take a deep breath and assume you have a blank slate upon which to write the essential(s) of the type of relationship you have in mind — before you pin a label on it. Before you demand special status for it. Before you complain about society discriminating between marriage and nonmarriage.

Readers will note that my previous assessment of Sean’s commentary in terms of ethos, pathos, and logos is now being illustrated by Sean’s own words in his recent responses. I’ve invited him to reason his way through to a just conclusion and his retort is to hurl petty insults and to misrepresent others and to depend on the brute force of his ignorance alone. I am not picking on Sean, he happens to be a willing (if inadvertent) accomplice in exhibiting the profound flaws of SSM argumentation; Sean is merely aping what the SSM campaign has been preaching and modelling for the public discourse on the SSM idea. Readers might refer back to my first comment in this thread for the context of my assessment of Sean’s commentary here.

Typo correction: ” You still have not distinguished the gaycentric one-sexed arrangement from the rest of nonmarriage.”

“NOM and Maggie oppose the trojan horse use of civil union.”

Exactly. She opposes civil unions. They provide a short-term way to get rights to same-sex couples without the religionists getting all hot and bothered. But legally, they’re a gateway drug, as they should be.

“You still have not distinguished the gaycentric one-sexed arrangement from the rest of marriage.”

They’re indistinguishable: same-sex marriage is the same as different-sex marriage.

Readers can continue to note that Maggie Gallagher (aka Mrs. Srivistav) does not practice the traditional marriage she wishes to impose on others. She had pre-marital sex, a baby out of wedlock, works outside the home, doesn’t use her husband’s last name, and probably even thinks she isn’t his property.

It is most unseemly to expect others to conform to some outdated notion of marriage you yourself don’t even conform to. Isn’t that called hypocrisy?

Sean, since you favor the trojan horse use of civil union, you are in no position to denounce the legitimate concern that others have expressed about such deceptive tactics.

I realize, Sean, that you are desperately fearful of addressing the onus you carry to distinguish SSM from nonmarriage, but I did correct the typo.

”You still have not distinguished the gaycentric one-sexed arrangement from the rest of nonmarriage.”

Affixing the label does not do the trick. You have not justified doing that. You have not shown what makes the relationship type you have in mind distinguishable from the rest of nonmarriage — before you pin the label and special status on it. I take it that for you there is nothing to distinguish and so sticking that label on it would be an arbitrary exercise of governmental power. Your failure to justify it stands now for all readers to see.

Poor Sean, the trollish behavior is his reason for being here.

“since you favor the trojan horse use of civil union, you are in no position to denounce the legitimate concern that others have expressed about such deceptive tactics.”

No I don’t favor the Trojan horse use of civil union: I think all consenting adult couples should be allowed to marry. I understand, though, that in a Straight Supremacist/homophobic society, we sometimes must take baby steps, so as not to ruffle the feathers of the gasping pearl-clutchers. Civil Unions are a quick way to get rights and some security delivered to same-sex couples and their children, until the people and the law catch up to reality.

I love how Civil Unions create anxiety for the Straight Supremacists! They know that popular and legal support for same-sex marriage increases greatly in the absence of any alternatives offered to same-sex families. But they also know that our legal system has little tolerance for “separate but equal” accommodations. So, whoever thought up the civil union idea was a brilliant, even if accidental, strategist!

It was priceless to watch the hapless Charles Cooper address the conservative judge in the Prop 8 Appeals trial, who observed that the only difference between marriage and domestic partnerships in California was the name (exact same rights). Cooper’s defense: “the word is the institution!” I pray the Prop 8 defenders get standing, so the court can extend marriage equality to all states in the 9th Circuit!

“I realize, Sean, that you are desperately fearful of addressing the onus you carry to distinguish SSM from nonmarriage”

Actually, I’m not desperate at all. The onus is on the state to explain why it is withholding a fundamental right from a specific group, for no public purpose.

“Poor Sean, the trollish behavior is his reason for being here.”

Don’t worry about Sean! He’s happy to check in and set the record straight. It’s my public service to the community!

On one hand you deny you favor the trojan horse strategy and on the other hand you endorsed it. Oh well.

Meanwhile, protections are available for families — especially those with children — who populate the nonmarriage category. Civil union is not necessary. Nor is the imposition of SSM. These are solutions looking for a problem and, coming up short, are really just lame attempts at appeasing the gay identity group. Appeasement only whets the appetite for yet more unjustified demands from society.

The way that the SSM campaign has exploited nonmarriage families, while excluding most of that category, is appalling. Similarily situated these families are being treated as seperate and not equal to the gay identity group.

Cooper’s point in the trial was not as superficial as you portrayed, Sean, buy, hey, your rhetoric leads you by the nose.

There is no fundamental right being withheld from a specific group, in the case of marriage in California, Sean. There is no public purpose for SSM other than as a sop for gay identity politics.

If you really were concerned with providing a public service on the record, you would justify special treatment of the gay subset of nonmarriage and the unequal treatment in SSM argumention of the rest of that large nonmarriage category. Justify the discrimination you demand in favor of the gay identity group and against millions of families.

“On one hand you deny you favor the trojan horse strategy and on the other hand you endorsed it. Oh well.”

I think it’s unfortunate that gay Americans have to accept partial rights as better than nothing. Because civil unions will eventually be struck down as unconstitutional, I favor them. Gay people have persuasively argued their point, with their reasoned demand for equal rights falling on deaf ears. The gloves are off, and I don’t blame them in the least.

“protections are available for families — especially those with children — who populate the nonmarriage category.”

Even better, marriage is becoming available for families currently in the nonmarriage category who want to move into the marriage category.

“There is no public purpose for SSM other than as a sop for gay identity politics.”

Nothing could be more false (implying that the comment was posted by Chairm!). Same-sex marriage makes families more secure, children more secure, honors constitutional guarantees, raises much-needed revenue for states, etc. There are LOTS of great and beneficial reasons to legalize same-sex marriage.

“If you really were concerned with providing a public service on the record, you would justify special treatment of the gay subset of nonmarriage and the unequal treatment in SSM argumention of the rest of that large nonmarriage category.”

This is a mouthful but it appears you think giving gay people equal access to marriage is some kind of special right. If anything, it’s straight people who have a special right, the right to marry? Why? How is society served when only straight people are allowed to marry? No straight couple, married or considering marriage, is affected whether same-sex marriage is legal or not.

There are millions of families with children in the nonmarriage category. The vast majority are not headed by people who’d characterize themselves as “gay”. Once again, you have illustrated your pro-gay bigotry against those children and their families. The entire nonmarriage category of families is similarily situated and so protection equality is what would be appropriate, not special status based on your gay emphasis.

SSM does not make children more secure. The SSM idea is adult-centered; it is not child-centered. SSM argumentation insists on that. As have you Sean.

“SSM does not make children more secure.”

Oh really? That defies logic, evidence and common sense. Jackpot! Of course same-sex marriage makes children more secure: it bonds the adults raising them in a legal union and protects the relationship, thus keeping those adults together to raise the children. It works just like OSM.

It saddens me when the needs of children take a back seat to the needs of bigoted adults. Children should never be collateral damage because some adults dislike a group of other adults. How low our once great nation has sunk!

No evidence on SSM, Sean. You have insisted that SSM and children are seperate matters and so it is you who has conceded that logic means that SSM does not make children more secure. As for common sense, your sense of SSM is rather common among SSMers but that does not make up for the problems in your lack of evidence and the logical conclusion that your own comments have repeatedly drawn about SSM.

The union of husband and wife does not work like nonmarriage. Your problem, which you might try to solve with evidence and good reasoning, is that your one-sexed idea — if the gay emphasis is removed — is no different than nonmarriage. Thus your commentary here is an implicit admission that SSM does not work like marriage but works like nonmarriage. Now, given the gay emphasis, clearly imposing SSM idea would also work like the anti-miscegenation system which also asserted the supremacy of identity politics over marriage, logic, and common sense.

The SSM idea is bigoted and it is promoted with ways and means that are bigoted. How low you have sunk Sean.