Why ‘Marriage Equality’ Arguments are Either Question-Begging or False

By Carlos Flores | February 25, 2014

The topic of same-sex marriage seems to be unfailingly accompanied by talk of “ marriage equality” and “discrimination.”

Indeed, the most popular reasons for support of same-sex marriage all seem to exclusively revolve around the concept of “equality.” The usual argument for same-sex marriage goes something like this: “Not letting homosexuals marry as heterosexuals can is clearly treating homosexuals unjustly. In order to make marriage equal, we must allow homosexuals to marry whom they love, just like heterosexual couples.” In this article, however, I will seek to explain why such an argument is either patently question-begging or false.

Let’s consider the first claim. Why is this argument question-begging? Well, quite obviously, it assumes a number of things. It assumes, for example, that it is, in fact, unjust or unequal to disallow, say, two men or two women from marrying. But this is just to assume that two men or two women “marrying” is not in conceptual contention when it is, in fact, in contention. Perhaps less obviously, this argument assumes that marriage simply exists to recognize loving commitments between individuals. To assume as much, however, is simply to brush past and completely ignore the most fundamental issue of contention between the supporter of same-sex marriage and his opponent, namely, “what is marriage?” or “what is the public purpose of marriage?”

Often times, I find this is simply insufficient in demonstrating to the supporter of same-sex marriage why this sort of equality argument is question-begging. For example, they will often dig in their heels and claim: “It’s still unjust to disallow same-sex couples from marrying!” Because of this, I have found it very useful to momentarily take the focus away from marriage and consider various analogies that help to explain this point. Consider, for example, a debate club for women. Would it be unjust or unequal to disallow a man from joining the women’s debate club? Well, of course not as this club exists for the purpose of being a debate club for women. Indeed, it would be utterly absurd if a bunch of men gathered outside of where the club meets with signs and demanded “debate club equality,” saying that they were being treated as “less than human” by being denied their “constitutional right” to become members of women’s debate clubs. The women of the club might in turn go out to meet the protestors and point out that they have never committed themselves to the supposition that men are “less than human” and they might also point out that they are not “being mean” by not allowing them to join a women’s debate club. Indeed, the women might simply point out that the debate club exists for women and that the men’s immature inability to grasp that fact may not thereby make them “sub-human.”

Consider now drivers’ licenses. Would it be unjust or unequal to disallow a blind man from getting a license? Of course not, for drivers’ licenses exist for the purpose of providing individuals the legal permission to operate a vehicle provided they are deemed sufficiently capable of doing so. Indeed, it would likewise be comically absurd if tomorrow a group of blind people congregated outside of a DMV and demanded “driver’s license equality,” alleging that they are being “discriminated against” and are being “treated as second-class citizens” by not being given the chance to receive drivers’ licenses.

In fact, in echoing supporters of same-sex marriage, they might add that “this is just so mean—the people who do not want to let us get licenses are just backwards, myth-believing bigots who believe the outdated and debunked supposition that sight is necessary for driving!” And again, though it might take them 4 hours to do so, DMV employees might go outside and meet with the blind people and assure them that they don’t think that they are “second-class citizens” and that they are not “being mean” by not allowing them to get drivers’ licenses. Indeed, they might add that, while they do not think that they are “second-class citizens,” they nevertheless think of their manifestation as silly.

Finally, consider a couple public restrooms.

Consider first a unisex restroom that exists to accommodate anyone (i.e., either men or women may use it, provided it is vacant, etc.). Would it be “unjust” or “unequal” to disallow, say, a woman to use this restroom because she is a woman? Clearly it would because this restroom exists for the purpose of accommodating to any individual, be she or he male or female. Now, she may be legitimately disallowed from using this restroom for other legitimate reasons—say, because it is not vacant, or because it is being repaired and is out of service, or because the last time she was in there she tried to set it on fire. But to disallow her to use the restroom because she is a woman is not at all a good enough reason to disallow her from using the restroom in light of the fact that the restroom exists for the purpose of accommodating to either men or women.

This is very crudely analogous to the position of the supporter of same-sex marriage who typically holds that marriage is just something to the effect of: recognizing loving relationships between committed individuals.

Now, if the (public) purpose of marriage, as the supporter of same-sex marriage alleges, is just to recognize “loving commitments” or something akin to this, then it very well would be unfair and/or unjust to disallow, say, two men or two women from marrying: for they could be just as much in a “loving commitment” with one another as Susan and Bob, the opposite-sex couple (for that matter, however, it would also be “unfair” to disallow 5 individuals who are “lovingly committed” to “marry”).

Consider now a restroom that exists to accommodate to women only (i.e., only women may use it, provided it is vacant, and provided the woman wanting to use it doesn’t want to set it on fire, etc.). Would it be unjust or unequal to disallow a man to use this restroom? Of course not, as this restroom exists for the purpose of accommodating females only.

This is very crudely analogous to the position of the opponent of same-sex marriage who holds that the public purpose of marriage is something to the effect of: to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, upon whose stability the children depend for their well-being.

Accordingly, if the purpose of marriage just is to “attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another,” as the opponent of same-sex “marriage” contends, then it would not be “unjust” or “unequal” to disallow, say, two men or two women from “marrying.” Indeed, it would not be any more “unjust” or “unequal” to do so than it would be “unjust” or “unequal” to disallow a man to enter a women’s debate club, or to disallow a blind woman to get a driver’s license, or to disallow a man to use a women’s restroom, etc. Any allegations that disallowing two men or two women to “marry” is “unfair” or “unjust” or “mean” or “bigoted” are, on this view, simply false—a sign of a grave misunderstanding and nothing more.

If we understand this, then we could very well see how these “equality” arguments are question-begging. But what about the second contention in the disjunction, that such arguments are, if not question-begging, false?

Well, if the public purpose is, in fact, to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another (or something akin to this), then both homosexuals and heterosexuals share the exact kind and amount of restrictions as to whom they can marry. Consider: Any individual x, be he homosexual or otherwise, can marry any individual y iff (if and only if) individual y is of the opposite sex of individual x (and is not directly related to individual x, and is not already married, etc.). So, besides whatever superficial and question-begging appearances to the contrary, homosexuals can indeed marry. What that means, though, is that they can only marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else. A homosexual man, for example, could no more marry someone of the same sex than a heterosexual man. But a homosexual man may marry a woman; a homosexual woman may marry a man. But then it just becomes clear that the claim that “homosexuals cannot marry” or that “homosexuals are being treated unfairly” is false, for they can, after all, marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else.

On this view, then, no one is being treated differently as to whom they can marry. So if the public purpose of marriage just is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, absolutely no one is being “wronged” or being “treated unfairly” or “unjustly” by not being allowed to “marry” someone of the same-sex.

David Brunk

Unfortunately, the state of California has already passed a law allowing “transgender” students to use whatever restroom they choose. This has been done in the name of “equality” and “justice.” So that analogy will have no effect.
Dan Hugger

“On this view, then, no one is being treated differently as to whom
they can marry. So if the public purpose of marriage just is to attach
mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, absolutely no
one is being “wronged” or being “treated unfairly” or “unjustly” by not
being allowed to “marry” someone of the same-sex.”

I’m unsure of why this is not also question begging.
Carlos Flores

It’s not question-begging because it is a conditional (e.g. *if* x, then y). But, more importantly, I plan to argue in the future as to why it is in fact the case that the public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another.
Carlos Flores

Thanks for the comment, David.

I too noticed the passing of the law. It seems to me, however, that rather than the law undermining the analogy I present, I think the analogy undermines the law, for there are perfectly good reasons to disallow a man to use a woman’s restroom, namely, that the women’s restroom exists for the purpose of accommodating to women, not men, etc.

Commenting on the law itself, it seems to me to confuse a couple things:

(I) What is the case, as a matter of fact

and

(II) Someone’s subjective feelings on a matter

In the case of a man who “identifies as a woman,” for example, no matter how much he thinks to himself “I am a woman” and no matter how well he appears as a woman, the fact of the matter is that he is still a man. And, for the sake of brevity, I don’t think that there are any good reasons as to why the law should yield or give preference to II rather than I.

These problems notwithstanding, I can’t help but notice how impractical and nonsensical this law is. Now, for example, girls/women run the risk of entering a bathroom only to find a boy/man in there who “feels” like a woman and takes advantage of this law to fulfill perverted voyeuristic sexual fantasies. One might suggest that someone might be able to tell who enters women’s bathrooms with nefarious intentions, but as long as they “feel like a woman,” then what grounds are there to prevent them from entering the bathroom? None, as far as I am aware.
Steven Dillon

The supporter of SSM will think it’s unfair to restrict whom homosexuals can marry to members of the opposite sex for the same reason it’d be unfair to restrict whom people could marry to members of the same race. Just as it wouldn’t matter to interracial couples that everyone could marry someone, just so long as they’re of the same race, so too, it doesn’t matter to the same-sex couple that can technically marry, just as long as it’s someone of the opposite gender. You’ll need an argument to show that this isn’t an injustice.
pdxgirl

This is happening already in Portland, OR. I’ve been homeless for several months and have encountered shelters that are supposed to be exclusively for women, but also allow men who “self-identify” as women. Although this accommodation opens the door to abuse, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever called this policy into question.
Carlos Flores

I suppose the question then would be “why restrict marriage to only opposite-sex members of the same race?” If the public purpose of marriage is just to attach children to their mother and father, then there is no basis for restricting marriage to only (opposite-sex) individuals of the same race.
David Brunk

Carlos, I agree entirely with your position on the stupidity of the law. My objection is whether the analogy is useful in debate. If SS”M” advocates are already arguing that single sex bathrooms are themselves discriminatory, then what purpose is served by using them as an analogy to show why SS”M” is *not* discriminatory? They have already denied the premise on which the analogy is based. That is the level of nonsense that our society has reached. The analogy is true, but they have already gone beyond the point where it will be persuasive.
http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

A much more interesting conversation can be had by asking whether marriage is fit to purpose. In other words, we need to discuss to consensus what state marriage is for and then examine whether the laws as they currently stand actually accomplish that purpose.

They manifestly are not doing so in most people’s opinion and the biggest gaps are in heterosexual relations. Compared to those failings, homosexuality in its entirety is a rounding error and the concentration on SSM is straining at gnats while swallowing camels no matter what side of the argument you take (as for me, I’m with the Church).
HenryBowers

Steven, as the title indicates, you have begged the question, “What is marriage?” by assuming what you wish to prove: that marriage is something any adult human can factually achieve with any other adult human. Unfortunately that assumption is not factual, but false.
HenryBowers

I think the purpose argument only answers the “what should society promote?” question, which any democracy can answer however it wants (albeit immorally). The more dangerous tendency of SSM is its imposed nominalism on the populace. Coitus is a real, unique, thing, no matter what one’s creed, and SSM-ers don’t practice coitus.
http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

The sort of democracy that can answer however it wants hasn’t been around since ancient Greece. If we’re going to traipse that far afield throw up a warning.

There is no obligation for the state to impose marriage as a public institution at all. If we’re to have it as a non-sacramental, government institution, the question of purpose is central. What is this for? It certainly can’t be the same purpose as a Catholic or Orthodox marriage so why have it at all? No discussion can proceed before the question of to have it or not is settled. I’m not convinced that, at least under US principles, there is any valid state purpose to state marriage anymore, which would settle the whole SSM question by making it moot.
Steven Dillon

My comment neither aimed to show what you say it did, nor do I hold to such an open-ended view of marriage.

I simply argued that, contrary to Carlos’ suggestion, the fact that homosexuals can technically marry members of the other gender is not a good reason to think the bar on SSM is just: he needs some other reason to show that.
HenryBowers

It’s not a “bar” if it’s not even a possibility to begin with. That was implied in the blind driver’s license analogy, but even that analogy limps because it suggests that SSM is a mere accident or impediment away from perfection, when in fact it is eternally and essentially devoid of the perfection of coitus.
Steven Dillon

I’m not denying there is such an idealized coital relationship, or that it’s in the state’s interest to protect it. But, that relationship is only connected to civil marriage in a contingent way, having historically overlapped with it.
HenryBowers

Nicely stated, but it does not follow that the populace should be forced to apply a single word to two concepts. Even if history is no guarantor of a word’s intension and extension (which is debatable), the law should be able to explain in what way two concepts are equivalent, and SSMers cannot do that without appeal to things the government has no business promoting: love, shared living space, feelings, sexual expression. So the burden is on SSM to defend that maneuver, and I think Carlos’ observation implicitly stands.
Steven Dillon

The state should maintain and uphold the traditional sense of ‘marriage’, but also acknowledge that heterosexuality was only ever contingently associated with it.

Before a civil marriage, the state sees the partners as distinct, after marriage, they are treated by the state as a unit. I understand why many identify this familial union with the traditional family, but the overlaps is simply a vestige historical contingencies — like the Abrahamic moral paradigms of reigning societies, etc. — and not due to the essence of marriage.
HenryBowers

But how can that argument stand? For we could eqivalently say that the liberation of slaves is merely contingent to post-1860’s America, and that therefore blacks might really be 3/5 human. Laws are always contingent to popular vote, but that is a separate claim from the conclusion that state-enforced nominalism is ipso facto defensible. Such legal positivism is rather a vehicle for tyranny, and the persecution of bakers who refuse to play along is among its first fruits.
James

Cut back on all the side comments like “consider, assume, for example, well, etc”, it makes you sound like a student who hasn’t completed college yet but feels the need to use those words to sound smarter.
HenryBowers

If you felt secure in your own abilities (or beliefs?), James, you wouldn’t need to be so rude. Get a life.
robert chacon

This discussion is great and important, but unfortunately not very helpful. SSM supporters really do not care about the logic of any of these arguments. Their debate is not about ideas but rather feelings and emotions and they simply want what they want. The helpful debate is a unfortanately all about what proper rhetorical “game” to play. As much as that may be beneath most of your ambitions here, it is unfortuantely a social and poltical reality. The SSM advocates are winning the day with slogans such as “Marriage Equality”, and “Civil/Human rights issue of the 21st Century, or “Free to Love ” . Each of these bumper sticker mentalities can and should be shot down with more forceful and truthful sloganeering, such as “Having A Mother and a Father is the HUMAN AND CIVIL right of the 21st Century” . It wont fit on bumper sticker and will be hard to create a symbol as simple as the other sides red the equal sign , but its the truth and its about time people started hearing it! All the logical argumentation and thoughtful idea parsing are noble and important, but its about time as much thought was put into making bumper stickers and popup banner ads that wake people up to the reality of the truth and make them take the right stand as this effort to be accurate and logically sound!
Jeff Steen

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding, but it seems to me that by your logic marriage should be limited only to heterosexual couples who are able and intending to have children. Otherwise, while the primary purpose of marriage is to create a strong social/legal unit for the protection and in the interest of children, a secondary function is, indeed, to recognize loving commitments between two individuals and to endow them with certain property rights and a certain authority over each other’s affairs. It is in the denial of that secondary benefit that charges of unfairness find their legs. Of course, the primary benefit is also denied to same-sex couples who have adopted children if they are not allowed to marry-or at least the protections are made more difficult to obtain. The apparent underlying assumption in the wider debate that extending marriage “rights” to a greater number of people somehow weakens the institution is nonsensical. If anything, I would suggest it strengthens the institution by reinforcing it’s value and giving a greater number of people a stake in supporting it. If anything, alternative arrangements, such as domestic partnerships, undermine marriage.

Bear in mind that I’m only talking of marriage in the secular, contractual sense, not the sacramental sense. Marriage in the Church (I’m Orthodox, so when I say “the Church”, that’s the body to which I refer, but I believe the Sacrament of Marriage is the same in both) is a whole ‘nother ballgame from what the state is able to create. And while sacramental marriage incorporates secular marriage, it has connotations far beyond a legal contract, which is essentially what we’re talking about when we talk about state-sanctioned marriage. I fully support same sex marriage, as a secular institution. Whether the Church chooses to extend the privilege of sacramental marriage to same sex couples, and how it chooses to deal with same sex couples in secular marriages, is the business of the Church and not of the state (nor of anyone outside the Church, for that matter).
Clinton

Carlos spelled it out pretty well. The homosexual argument is question-begging because they are *assuming*, rather than arguing, that homosexuals have a right to marry each other. The heterosexual argument is not question-begging because it presents a clear definition of what marriage is and why it can only be between one man and one woman for life (because of its special link to children, and gender complimentarity).
Charles

So, if marriage is to “attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another” that would mean that only people who already have children should be allowed to marry. A man and a woman with no children do not qualify for marriage because they are not a mother and father.
scottrose

If you don’t back off of your public hate-mongering against gay people and transgender people, there is going to be the black mark of bigotry on your record that is going to very seriously impact your future.

The society at large is now enlightened about us, and at an accelerating rate. You meanwhile are stuck in your throwback Catholic-based gay-bashing bigotry, as though the Vatican had not actively participated in sending homosexuals to concentration camps during WWII.

I suggest you think profoundly about your reputation, and whether you want to be known as a professional anti-LGBT bigot in a society that overwhelmingly accept gay people.

You are a revolting, hideous bigot.

If Catholic sexual mores were genuinely of such concern to you, you would be railing against masturbation in the heterosexual population.

Instead, you are a vile, low-down disgusting anti-LGBT BIGOT.
scottrose

Religion-Based Bigotry

Religion-based bigotry is the foundation of anti-gay attitudes in our society and in the minds of a majority of Americans, particularly persons of faith. The term religion-based bigotry was coined because it best fits the description of the problem. The term religion-based bigotry encompasses the attitudes of prejudice, hostility or discrimination that are falsely justified by religious teachings or belief. We will never see full and equal rights unless we address the root of people’s anti-gay attitude.

Religion-based bigotry is not synonymous with bigotry. It is a uniquely vile form of bigotry as the prejudice, hostility and discrimination behind the words are given a moral stamp of approval.

Faith in America’s core message is that religious-based condemnation and rejection of LGBT people cause great harm to LGBT individuals and our society.

We have learned that when we focus on the harms caused by religious hostility toward gay people – its destructive role in the lives of gay and lesbian Americans and explaining that being gay is not a lifestyle choice but is how you are born– persons of faith can understand why religion must no longer be misused to justify hostile attitudes and actions toward LGBT people. These stories, told by the people who have been the subject of or witness to religion-based bigotry serve as a powerful tool to begin changing the hearts and minds of persons of faith.

Faith in America’s efforts—and those of many other LGBT organizations—are working. A recent Gallup poll that showed a majority of Americans no longer consider homosexuality as immoral and we believe this is in large part due to the efforts to show Americans that being gay is not a lifestyle choice. Personal stories move people.

The following are core messages you can use when addressing those espousing religion-based bigotry.

1. Religion-based bigotry causes enormous harm to LGBT people, especially young, vulnerable teens.

More than a million LGBT teens are suffering debilitating depression because their families and religious institutions see them as deviants. Suicide rates amongst LGBT youth are four times higher than those of heterosexual youth.

LGBT people are victims of discrimination and bigotry, which are often justified and promoted by religious teaching that says homosexuality is immoral, sinful or abominable. If we don’t talk about it, no one will know how much hurt and suffering it causes. It is particularly important for those in the religious movable middle to hear this, because no concept is more antithetical to the faith values of love and compassion than causing harm to others.

In 2008, Faith in America published CRISIS: 40 Stories Revealing the Personal, Social and Religious Pain and Trauma of Growing Up Gay in America. Traveling the country promoting CRISIS has allowed us to see firsthand the transformative power of telling stories about our youth. People don’t want to hurt children. They may not have sympathy for an adult advocacy leader talking about job discrimination or marriage, but they do sympathize with vulnerable teenagers.

For example, Dr. David Gushee, a Christian ethicist, author and Southern Baptist minister, wrote the following about CRISIS in the June 2009 issue of Christian Century (a mainline Protestant publication going to 70,000 members, largely clergy): “As an evangelical Christian whose career has been spent in the South, I must say I find it scandalous that the most physically and psychologically dangerous place to be (or even appear to be) gay or lesbian in America is in the most religiously conservative families, congregations and regions of this country. Many of the most disturbing stories in this volume come from the Bible Belt. This marks an appalling Christian moral failure.”

When people of faith understand they are causing harm, it creates a conflict or question – can causing such harm to others exist comfortably with the core faith principles of love and compassion? That inner conflict will be resolved in two ways: 1) Avoidance that results in unresolved inner conflict; or 2) Analysis and reconsideration of their attitude or belief.

It is this conflict – a deeper analysis, process or journey – that our messaging guidelines can help foster in the minds and hearts of the religious middle. This process of change does not happen overnight. But by sharing the harm caused by religiously based rejection and condemnation of gay people, we can plant the seeds of change.
scottrose

2. Sexual orientation is a natural part of a human’s being whether it be heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual.

Studies have shown that if a person believes sexual orientation is a choice, they are 70% more likely to be against LGBT equal rights (2007 Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs Survey). Conversely, if a person believes sexual orientation is part of how you are created, they are 70% more likely to be in favor of LGBT equal rights.

We’ve learned there is something much deeper here that we need to address. The religious teachings that many people of faith embrace play an important role in whether people see being gay as a choice. Many people of faith believe:

Heterosexuality is for all people the normal and natural expression of sexuality. Homosexuality is a conscious choice to deviate from this norm.

Gay people, according to religious teachings, are committing a sin and are an abomination.

Gay people are making a conscious choice to go against God’s will or order.

If it is a conscious choice, children who are exposed to gay teachers or gay married couples might CHOOSE to be gay.

We must educate Americans on the scientific facts about sexual orientation. Homosexuality is not a deliberate choice. It is innate to some people. One’s sexual orientation is not a deliberate decision to act against God’s will.

Just as religion-based bigotry underlies most anti-gay attitudes, the belief that homosexuality is a sinful choice is the cornerstone of religion-based prejudice against gay people. We cannot ignore it and hope to change the attitude of someone who has been taught that homosexuality is sinful. But when we offer someone a better understanding of sexual orientation, we can affect their mindset without getting mired in a never-ending theological discussion.

Rebutting the argument that being gay is a choice is important for another reason as well. Most persons of faith, conservatives in particular, are familiar with how church teaching in the past has justified treating women and African Americans as inferior. They know that religious communities have, for the most part, rejected such prejudices as harmful and misguided. By emphasizing that being gay is an innate condition, we can get them to understand that it is equally wrong to treat others unfairly based solely on their sexual orientation.

3. Religion-based bigotry against LGBT people is wrong…just as it was wrong to use religious teachings to justify discrimination against Native Americans, African Americans, minority religious groups, woman and interracial couples.

Connecting the dots between historical bigotry against other groups and the attitudes of some people today toward homosexuality is one of the most effective ways to educate people about the denial of equal rights to the LGBT community.

Most people know that, historically, religion has been used to justify discrimination against women, religious minorities and people of color. Putting anti-gay religious beliefs in this historical context can be a powerful tool in connecting discrimination that most Americans today accept as morally wrong and the discrimination faced by LGBT people. By citing historical instances of religion-based bigotry and prejudice, you allow people to be more comfortable with attitudinal change – they realize they are not stepping out alone against a commonly accepted viewpoint but rather following historical progress toward justice and equality.

When talking about the misuse of religion to justify discrimination in the past, it is important not to say that the LGBT community’s struggle with discrimination is exactly the same as the Civil Rights Movement. Rather, the point is that religion-based bigotry has been a common denominator of injustice toward many groups in American society’s past. When given a chance, many people will see the underlying historical pattern of using religious teachings and beliefs to justify harmful discrimination.

There is another benefit to citing other times in the past when religious teachings have been used to justify discrimination. Many times, when people of faith are challenged about their anti-gay views, they cite biblical verses or other religious texts as a safe haven when they are unable to articulate why they hold prejudiced attitudes toward LGBT people. Instead of telling people that their interpretation is wrong, you can remind them that other religious texts have been used in the past to justify attitudes and laws that are recognized today as morally wrong and unjust – such as discrimination against women, people of color and religious minorities.

History provides the moral judgment, and we do not have to be theologians engaged in scriptural debates to point people to the judgment rendered by history.
scottrose

Cease and desist your ignorant, hateful, narrow-minded trans-bashing. I am not transgender, but I support my transgender brothers and sisters against a vicious Catholic anti-trans bigot like you.
Travis

you see how you’re threatening Carlos, rather than presenting your arguments and reasoning for your position? You’re basically bullying him, which isn’t a good reputation to have either.

If you feel that your LGBT position is justified, then please respond with reason, and share with Carlos your arguments to counter his, don’t just threatened him, if you’re indeed enlightened.