Argument from Consistency Contra Same-Sex Marriage

[Sovereign Dream]

Greetings all. I am a new user here in the forums and I am hoping to strike up some intellectually fruitful conversations here. Allow me, if you will, to begin launch such endeavor (pardon me if this is not the appropriate section for this topic).


Very often it is said in the web that "there are no good arguments against same-sex marriage that aren't religious." You will find sentiments like these are prevalent in the internet. Many are also convinced that individuals who oppose same-sex marriage do so "because they are mean" or "because they hate gay people" or "because they are bigots," etc.

I think, however, that, most of the time, these accusations are simply false. I think you will find that most people who oppose same-sex marriage oppose it on the grounds that they think it is pernicious (be it socially pernicious, morally pernicious, etc.). Take me, for example. I don't oppose same-sex marriage because "I am mean" nor because "I hate gay people" nor "because I am a bigot." I oppose same-sex marriage on various grounds. For one, I think that instituting same-sex marriage (and so same-sex parenting which follows from this) is going to prove to be pernicious socially. I am also opposed to same-sex marriage because the position of the same-sex marriage advocate is either incoherent or inchoate. I also think that there are quite good essentialistc arguments that purport to demonstrate that homosexual sexual acts are immoral. And so on.

In this thread, I'd like to start a dialogue on these matters. I'd like to first attempt to allay some misundertandings and question-begging that pervade the same-sex marriage dialogue vis-a-vis an analogy. Then, I'd like to present an argument that purports to demonstrate that the position of the advocate of same-sex marriage is incoherent or inchoate by way of an Argument from Consistency. I'd like to save the rest of the matters that I alluded to in the beginning for later discussion in separate thread(s). So, without further ado:

Clarification on the Marriage Dialogue:

Supporters of same-sex marriage typically allege that it is "not equal" to deny, say, to men to "marry" one another or allege that not allowing, say, two men or two women to marry is but allowing a man and a woman to marry is "discriminatory." However, in doing so, they subtly (and often unknowingly) beg the question by assuming that marriage really is just people liking each other a lot and committing to one another. What marriage is is the only really relevant question that needs to be answered when discussing gay marriage, and defenders of gay marriage, when making this appeal, already assume two homosexuals marrying one another is valid, the real issue in contention, before the debate even gets started.

Now, do read the following carefully so as to not misrepresent or misunderstand me:

If marriage really is, as the supporter of same-sex marriage alleges, just people liking each other a lot and committing to one another, then they would be correct in saying that "marriage," as such, would be discriminatory and unequal if persons of the same sex were not allowed to "marry" one another, for there would be no basis to not allow, say, Fred and Bob, or Mary and Courtney, or Fred, Mary, Courtney and Bob to "marry" one another if marriage is just people liking each other a lot and committing to one another. In other words, the supporter of same-sex marriage commits himself to the supposition that being "lovingly committed" or something to the effect is a sufficient condition for marriage. If that is indeed what marriage is (namely, people simply being "lovingly committed" to one another), then it would then be discriminatory for the state to prohibit, say, two men or two women from "marrying" as they could certainly meet the sufficient condition of being "lovingly committed" to one another. Discrimination, in a sense, is the treating of similar things differently.

Similarly, if, as I am convinced of, marriage really exists to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, upon whose stability the children depend, then you can see why it makes perfect sense to restrict two individuals of the same sex to "marry" as they cannot, in principle, fulfill the public purpose of marriage so construed. It would likewise be erroneous to assert that marriage, so understood, would be "unequal" or otherwise "discriminatory" insofar as every single individual would have the exact same rights and restrictions regarding whom they can marry, regardless of their sexual orientation, namely, that any individual can marry someone of the opposite sex (plus some other qualifications). So understood, gay people are not being discriminated against (at least in this area), nor are they being denied the right to marry. They can marry. They're absolutely free to marry. They, just like any other human being, have to find someone of the opposite sex to marry. It would be discriminatory to deny a gay man the right to wed a woman (that is, marry) simply because he was gay, sure, but a person is not discriminated against if the state says no one has access to something that isn't real or something that no one can have access to.

So clearly, the fundamental, important question that concerns the same-sex marriage debate (and marriage generally) is what marriage is for? or what is marriage? Only after we answer this question can we then see what would count as discrimination and what would not. And after answering this question, then the next matter that needs to be resolved is what is the public function that marriage, so understood, serves to compel the state to confer it?

Hopefully this will help to guide the discourse on marriage and same-sex marriage into more fruitful grounds.

Now, I'd like to present the Argument from Consistency Contra same-sex marriage:

Argument from Consistency Contra Same-Sex Marriage:

1. If one accepts the proposal that marriage, as the supporter of same-sex marriage alleges, is merely the recognizing of individuals who are "lovingly committed to one another," then logic demands that you accept a "marriage" between 9 men and 9 women who are "lovingly committed" to one another, or a "marriage" between 1 man and 18 women who are "lovingly committed" to one another, or a "marriage" between a man and his sister who are "lovingly committed" to one another, or a "marriage" between a woman and his grandson and his cousin who are "lovingly committed" to one another, or indeed any conceivable configuration of individuals who are "lovingly committed" to one another.
2. Supporters of same-sex marriage are opposed to these configurations of marriage.
3. Therefore, their position is incoherent.

Now, immediately, many are inclined to simply dismiss this argument as a "slippery slope argument" before launching an accusation of "bigot" at me. However, we must keep in mind a couple things: (I) so-called "slippery slope" arguments are not fallacious by type; that is to say that not all arguments from consistency/logical wedge arguments (colloquially known as "slippery slope arguments") are fallacious.


Something else we must keep in mind: (II) the accusation that this argument is a "slippery slope" argument amounts to nothing more than the accusation that the first premise is false, for a "slippery slope" argument is only fallacious if it provides no reason to think that the accepting of x on the basis of y will lead to z. But to do so would just be patently question-begging for I did provide reason to think that the accepting of same-sex marriage on such-and-such grounds will lead to x, y and z, etc. So to dismiss this argument as a "slippery slope" outright is just to assume that premise 1 is false.



I look forward to your responses and feedback!


-- SD

 

[Skwim]

There are a lot of words in what you say.

Welcome to RF.

 

[Curious George]

Similarly, if, as I am convinced of, marriage really exists to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, upon whose stability the children depend, then you can see why it makes perfect sense to restrict two individuals of the same sex to "marry" as they cannot, in principle, fulfill the public purpose of marriage so construed. It would likewise be erroneous to assert that marriage, so understood, would be "unequal" or otherwise "discriminatory" insofar as every single individual would have the exact same rights and restrictions regarding whom they can marry, regardless of their sexual orientation, namely, that any individual can marry someone of the opposite sex (plus some other qualifications). So understood, gay people are not being discriminated against (at least in this area), nor are they being denied the right to marry. They can marry. They're absolutely free to marry. They, just like any other human being, have to find someone of the opposite sex to marry. It would be discriminatory to deny a gay man the right to wed a woman (that is, marry) simply because he was gay, sure, but a person is not discriminated against if the state says no one has access to something that isn't real or something that no one can have access to.

So clearly, the fundamental, important question that concerns the same-sex marriage debate (and marriage generally) is what marriage is for? or what is marriage? Only after we answer this question can we then see what would count as discrimination and what would not. And after answering this question, then the next matter that needs to be resolved is what is the public function that marriage, so understood, serves to compel the state to confer it?

Hopefully this will help to guide the discourse on marriage and same-sex marriage into more fruitful grounds.

Now, I'd like to present the Argument from Consistency Contra same-sex marriage:

Argument from Consistency Contra Same-Sex Marriage:

1. If one accepts the proposal that marriage, as the supporter of same-sex marriage alleges, is merely the recognizing of individuals who are "lovingly committed to one another," then logic demands that you accept a "marriage" between 9 men and 9 women who are "lovingly committed" to one another, or a "marriage" between 1 man and 18 women who are "lovingly committed" to one another, or a "marriage" between a man and his sister who are "lovingly committed" to one another, or a "marriage" between a woman and his grandson and his cousin who are "lovingly committed" to one another, or indeed any conceivable configuration of individuals who are "lovingly committed" to one another.
2. Supporters of same-sex marriage are opposed to these configurations of marriage.
3. Therefore, their position is incoherent.

-- SD

I deleted some portions because I wouldn't suggest you are putting forth a slippery slope argument nor would I jump the gun and call you a bigot before you displayed bigotry.

But, your argument that you enumerated simply reads: Same sex marriage proponents argue that marriage is solely about granting loving committed people the right to marry. This is inconsistent with opinions about other types of marriage arrangements. Therefore, they are wrong. So by default you must be right. You have failed to show why your perspective is right. You have merely shown one way some groups offering a specific argument are wrong.

Forgetting that they could be wrong for other types of marriage arrangements and thus polygamy could be absolutely valid, I would rather focus on the purpose of marriage as you stated it.

"[M]arriage really exists to attach [parents] to their children and to one another, upon whose stability the children depend."

I agree that this is an important facet of marriage and one which represents why we value marriage in our society.

You will notice that this statement differs slightly from yours. You said "mothers and fathers." I paraphrased "parents." You have yet to show why parents can only or should only be opposite sex. We have many different means of becoming parents. Adoption and artificial insemination are just two forms that allow homosexual adults to become parents. Moreover, we also allow for divorce and re-marriage. In many different scenarios we see children raised with homosexual parents. If we want to attach parents to their children and to one another upon whose stability the children depend, why would we not make the logical jump to allow for homosexual marriage?

 

[Curious George]

I would also like to discuss what marriage is legally. A spouse is assumed to have certain rights and responsibilities that do not relate to children. If this is also what marriage is, then the foundation for children argument fails to address why these rights and responsibilities should not be extended to same sex couples.

 

[Me Myself]

A lot of gay fathers and mothers can be way best parents than the system will be for a lot of kids in need for adopting.

They also have tendency to adopt those more misunderstood groups which are more unlikely to be adopted.

Gay parents adopting is a really beautiful thing

 

[nilsz]

I think, however, that, most of the time, these accusations are simply false. I think you will find that most people who oppose same-sex marriage oppose it on the grounds that they think it is pernicious (be it socially pernicious, morally pernicious, etc.). Take me, for example. I don't oppose same-sex marriage because "I am mean" nor because "I hate gay people" nor "because I am a bigot." I oppose same-sex marriage on various grounds. For one, I think that instituting same-sex marriage (and so same-sex parenting which follows from this) is going to prove to be pernicious socially. I am also opposed to same-sex marriage because the position of the same-sex marriage advocate is either incoherent or inchoate. I also think that there are quite good essentialistc arguments that purport to demonstrate that homosexual sexual acts are immoral. And so on.

I am not quick to accept your introspection as fact. Humans are inclined to seek rational-seeming justifications for positions they actually hold out of irrational feelings; this is called "rationalization." It has been documented in scientific literature that groups opposed to gay rights tend to have a stronger disgust reaction generally, not only towards different sexualities.

Although it can be used as a rule-of-thumb, as many other fallacies, it is fallacious to think a position is wrong because it is badly argued. I am not acknowledging or denying that the argumentations you have heard were bad.

I do not believe it can be proven that homosexuality is inherently immoral or detrimental, and we may never come to common agreement on that as I do not recognize the authority of any scripture or pseudo-scientific institutions smearing minority sexualities.

Similarly, if, as I am convinced of, marriage really exists to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, upon whose stability the children depend, then you can see why it makes perfect sense to restrict two individuals of the same sex to "marry" as they cannot, in principle, fulfill the public purpose of marriage so construed. It would likewise be erroneous to assert that marriage, so understood, would be "unequal" or otherwise "discriminatory" insofar as every single individual would have the exact same rights and restrictions regarding whom they can marry, regardless of their sexual orientation, namely, that any individual can marry someone of the opposite sex (plus some other qualifications). So understood, gay people are not being discriminated against (at least in this area), nor are they being denied the right to marry. They can marry. They're absolutely free to marry. They, just like any other human being, have to find someone of the opposite sex to marry. It would be discriminatory to deny a gay man the right to wed a woman (that is, marry) simply because he was gay, sure, but a person is not discriminated against if the state says no one has access to something that isn't real or something that no one can have access to.

So clearly, the fundamental, important question that concerns the same-sex marriage debate (and marriage generally) is what marriage is for? or what is marriage? Only after we answer this question can we then see what would count as discrimination and what would not. And after answering this question, then the next matter that needs to be resolved is what is the public function that marriage, so understood, serves to compel the state to confer it?

The importance of any prescribed purpose of marriage is ultimately overridden by its practical function. Marriage provides rights that are beneficial both to different-sex partnerships and same-sex partnerships. Your post gives me no reason to think that granting these rights will do more ill than good.

I also believe that the attitude that marriage and love should only be for the purpose of bearing children is one that can be harmful towards heterosexuals as well, especially women. It is associated with a lack of sex education, and consequently higher rates of teen pregnancy as seen in the Bible Belt of the United States.

Sometimes appeals to reason are not enough, so I link to this comic:

*edit*

 

[Sovereign Dream]

To note: I am noticing in many of the replies that people are complaining that, while I have offered an argument to think that the position of the supporter of same-sex marriage is incoherent or untenable, I haven't yet defended the claim that marriage as I envision it should be accepted (i.e. I haven't given good reason to think that the view of marriage I espouse is the correct one or the one that ought to be accepted). Allow me to comment, however, that this observation is indeed correct; I haven't yet defended my view of marriage. Why? Well, for a number of reasons. One is that the original post as it is already long. I'd like to focus on certain issues and save others for later discussion. Another is that this argument I presented stands or falls independently of any support I give for my view of marriage. That is to say that whether I give a defense of marriage as I espouse it or not is irrelevant as to whether the argument I presented above is sound. To be sure, I would indeed be interested in providing such defense but that is a separate (but nevertheless obviously related) matter. We can also save the topic of same-sex parenting for another thread or time, for that is also irrelevant to the soundness of the argument I presented above.

 

[Me Myself]

Marriage will be whatever society makes of it.

Marriage has changed a lot with the centuries and is likely to keep changing.

 

[Curious George]

To note: I am noticing in many of the replies that people are complaining that, while I have offered an argument to think that the position of the supporter of same-sex marriage is incoherent or untenable, I haven't yet defended the claim that marriage as I envision it should be accepted (i.e. I haven't given good reason to think that the view of marriage I espouse is the correct one or the one that ought to be accepted). Allow me to comment, however, that this observation is indeed correct; I haven't yet defended my view of marriage. Why? Well, for a number of reasons. One is that the original post as it is already long. I'd like to focus on certain issues and save others for later discussion. Another is that this argument I presented stands or falls independently of any support I give for my view of marriage. That is to say that whether I give a defense of marriage as I espouse it or not is irrelevant as to whether the argument I presented above is sound. To be sure, I would indeed be interested in providing such defense but that is a separate (but nevertheless obviously related) matter. We can also save the topic of same-sex parenting for another thread or time, for that is also irrelevant to the soundness of the argument I presented above.

Same sex parenting is absolutely relevant to the argument at hand, for it provides an alternative reason for the advocacy of same sex marriage. You have only isolated one narrow view and characterized that view as the view of all proponents of same sex marriage.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have some issues with the argument in the OP, but before I get into that, I thought I'd like to point out another thread about how consistency relates to same-sex marriage:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...oes-catholic-theology-imply-support-male.html

 

[Magic Man]

Very often it is said in the web that "there are no good arguments against same-sex marriage that aren't religious." You will find sentiments like these are prevalent in the internet. Many are also convinced that individuals who oppose same-sex marriage do so "because they are mean" or "because they hate gay people" or "because they are bigots," etc.

I think, however, that, most of the time, these accusations are simply false. I think you will find that most people who oppose same-sex marriage oppose it on the grounds that they think it is pernicious (be it socially pernicious, morally pernicious, etc.). Take me, for example. I don't oppose same-sex marriage because "I am mean" nor because "I hate gay people" nor "because I am a bigot." I oppose same-sex marriage on various grounds. For one, I think that instituting same-sex marriage (and so same-sex parenting which follows from this) is going to prove to be pernicious socially. I am also opposed to same-sex marriage because the position of the same-sex marriage advocate is either incoherent or inchoate. I also think that there are quite good essentialistc arguments that purport to demonstrate that homosexual sexual acts are immoral. And so on.

In this thread, I'd like to start a dialogue on these matters. I'd like to first attempt to allay some misundertandings and question-begging that pervade the same-sex marriage dialogue vis-a-vis an analogy. Then, I'd like to present an argument that purports to demonstrate that the position of the advocate of same-sex marriage is incoherent or inchoate by way of an Argument from Consistency. I'd like to save the rest of the matters that I alluded to in the beginning for later discussion in separate thread(s). So, without further ado:

Clarification on the Marriage Dialogue:

Supporters of same-sex marriage typically allege that it is "not equal" to deny, say, to men to "marry" one another or allege that not allowing, say, two men or two women to marry is but allowing a man and a woman to marry is "discriminatory." However, in doing so, they subtly (and often unknowingly) beg the question by assuming that marriage really is just people liking each other a lot and committing to one another. What marriage is is the only really relevant question that needs to be answered when discussing gay marriage, and defenders of gay marriage, when making this appeal, already assume two homosexuals marrying one another is valid, the real issue in contention, before the debate even gets started.

Now, do read the following carefully so as to not misrepresent or misunderstand me:

If marriage really is, as the supporter of same-sex marriage alleges, just people liking each other a lot and committing to one another, then they would be correct in saying that "marriage," as such, would be discriminatory and unequal if persons of the same sex were not allowed to "marry" one another, for there would be no basis to not allow, say, Fred and Bob, or Mary and Courtney, or Fred, Mary, Courtney and Bob to "marry" one another if marriage is just people liking each other a lot and committing to one another. In other words, the supporter of same-sex marriage commits himself to the supposition that being "lovingly committed" or something to the effect is a sufficient condition for marriage. If that is indeed what marriage is (namely, people simply being "lovingly committed" to one another), then it would then be discriminatory for the state to prohibit, say, two men or two women from "marrying" as they could certainly meet the sufficient condition of being "lovingly committed" to one another. Discrimination, in a sense, is the treating of similar things differently.

Similarly, if, as I am convinced of, marriage really exists to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, upon whose stability the children depend, then you can see why it makes perfect sense to restrict two individuals of the same sex to "marry" as they cannot, in principle, fulfill the public purpose of marriage so construed. It would likewise be erroneous to assert that marriage, so understood, would be "unequal" or otherwise "discriminatory" insofar as every single individual would have the exact same rights and restrictions regarding whom they can marry, regardless of their sexual orientation, namely, that any individual can marry someone of the opposite sex (plus some other qualifications). So understood, gay people are not being discriminated against (at least in this area), nor are they being denied the right to marry. They can marry. They're absolutely free to marry. They, just like any other human being, have to find someone of the opposite sex to marry. It would be discriminatory to deny a gay man the right to wed a woman (that is, marry) simply because he was gay, sure, but a person is not discriminated against if the state says no one has access to something that isn't real or something that no one can have access to.

So clearly, the fundamental, important question that concerns the same-sex marriage debate (and marriage generally) is what marriage is for? or what is marriage? Only after we answer this question can we then see what would count as discrimination and what would not. And after answering this question, then the next matter that needs to be resolved is what is the public function that marriage, so understood, serves to compel the state to confer it?

Hopefully this will help to guide the discourse on marriage and same-sex marriage into more fruitful grounds.

1) Marriage as a legal contract is simply for two people to commit to each other in order to gain certain legal benefits and to clarify certain questions. For instance, one reason for two people to get married legally is to be able to see each other in the hospital when if they aren't married, they could be denied this right. That's only one example, but the point is marriage is just a legal contract to sort out some legal issues.

Therefore, according to you, not allowing same-sex marriage is discrimination.

2) Gay couples are going to live together no matter what, and they're going to have children no matter what. Disallowing same-sex marriage isn't going to stop them from doing these things. All it does is disallow them a way to sort out legal matters, as I mentioned above.

3) Same-sex marriage and homosexuality are not immoral according to any morality based on harm. You can argue it's immoral or pernicious, but that's just a personal opinion of yours. For it to be useful as an argument against same-sex marriage as a legal contract, you'd need to prove some kind of verifiable harm. Legal contracts are generally not concerned with morality, but instead with practical concerns of harm.

4) In what way are the arguments of same-sex marriage advocates incoherent of inchoate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people for the purpose of deciding some legal issues. Letting straight couples access this contract but not gay couples is discrimination. There's nothing incoherent about that.

Now, I'd like to present the Argument from Consistency Contra same-sex marriage:

Argument from Consistency Contra Same-Sex Marriage:

1. If one accepts the proposal that marriage, as the supporter of same-sex marriage alleges, is merely the recognizing of individuals who are "lovingly committed to one another," then logic demands that you accept a "marriage" between 9 men and 9 women who are "lovingly committed" to one another, or a "marriage" between 1 man and 18 women who are "lovingly committed" to one another, or a "marriage" between a man and his sister who are "lovingly committed" to one another, or a "marriage" between a woman and his grandson and his cousin who are "lovingly committed" to one another, or indeed any conceivable configuration of individuals who are "lovingly committed" to one another.
2. Supporters of same-sex marriage are opposed to these configurations of marriage.
3. Therefore, their position is incoherent.

1) Marriage is already a contract between two people. Changing the genders of the people involved doesn't present any legal challenges. Allowing same-sex marriage doesn't require any other legal changes to accommodate it. Polygamous marriages present a different challenge, requiring all kinds of issues to be sorted out in order to make them work.

2) With that said, if people want this kind of marriage and the legal issues can be worked out, many supporters of same-sex marriage have no problem with it.

Therefore your argument fails on two levels.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Back to the OP:

- some proponents of same-sex marriage also support legalizing polyamorous unions. Is their position "incoherent"?
- implementing same-sex marriage is logistically simple: we already have the structure in place to deal with marriages between two people; the only change necessary is to replace "husband" and "wife" on some government forms with "spouse 1" and "spouse 2". To implement polyamorous marriage, we'd have to solve all sorts of non-trivial logistical problems (e.g. does a person need permission from their current spouse to marry someone else? When a woman with two husbands dies, what sort of legal relationship exists between her widowers? If a man with two wives is incapacitated and needs spousal consent for an operation, what happens when one wife consents and the other refuses?). These issues create a barrier to polyamorous marriages that aren't faced by same-sex marriages.

 

[McBell]

Greetings all. I am a new user here in the forums and I am hoping to strike up some intellectually fruitful conversations here. Allow me, if you will, to begin launch such endeavor (pardon me if this is not the appropriate section for this topic).


Very often it is said in the web that "there are no good arguments against same-sex marriage that aren't religious." You will find sentiments like these are prevalent in the internet. Many are also convinced that individuals who oppose same-sex marriage do so "because they are mean" or "because they hate gay people" or "because they are bigots," etc.

I think, however, that, most of the time, these accusations are simply false. I think you will find that most people who oppose same-sex marriage oppose it on the grounds that they think it is pernicious (be it socially pernicious, morally pernicious, etc.). Take me, for example. I don't oppose same-sex marriage because "I am mean" nor because "I hate gay people" nor "because I am a bigot." I oppose same-sex marriage on various grounds. For one, I think that instituting same-sex marriage (and so same-sex parenting which follows from this) is going to prove to be pernicious socially. I am also opposed to same-sex marriage because the position of the same-sex marriage advocate is either incoherent or inchoate. I also think that there are quite good essentialistc arguments that purport to demonstrate that homosexual sexual acts are immoral. And so on.

In this thread, I'd like to start a dialogue on these matters. I'd like to first attempt to allay some misundertandings and question-begging that pervade the same-sex marriage dialogue vis-a-vis an analogy. Then, I'd like to present an argument that purports to demonstrate that the position of the advocate of same-sex marriage is incoherent or inchoate by way of an Argument from Consistency. I'd like to save the rest of the matters that I alluded to in the beginning for later discussion in separate thread(s). So, without further ado:

Clarification on the Marriage Dialogue:

Supporters of same-sex marriage typically allege that it is "not equal" to deny, say, to men to "marry" one another or allege that not allowing, say, two men or two women to marry is but allowing a man and a woman to marry is "discriminatory." However, in doing so, they subtly (and often unknowingly) beg the question by assuming that marriage really is just people liking each other a lot and committing to one another. What marriage is is the only really relevant question that needs to be answered when discussing gay marriage, and defenders of gay marriage, when making this appeal, already assume two homosexuals marrying one another is valid, the real issue in contention, before the debate even gets started.

Now, do read the following carefully so as to not misrepresent or misunderstand me:

If marriage really is, as the supporter of same-sex marriage alleges, just people liking each other a lot and committing to one another, then they would be correct in saying that "marriage," as such, would be discriminatory and unequal if persons of the same sex were not allowed to "marry" one another, for there would be no basis to not allow, say, Fred and Bob, or Mary and Courtney, or Fred, Mary, Courtney and Bob to "marry" one another if marriage is just people liking each other a lot and committing to one another. In other words, the supporter of same-sex marriage commits himself to the supposition that being "lovingly committed" or something to the effect is a sufficient condition for marriage. If that is indeed what marriage is (namely, people simply being "lovingly committed" to one another), then it would then be discriminatory for the state to prohibit, say, two men or two women from "marrying" as they could certainly meet the sufficient condition of being "lovingly committed" to one another. Discrimination, in a sense, is the treating of similar things differently.

Similarly, if, as I am convinced of, marriage really exists to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, upon whose stability the children depend, then you can see why it makes perfect sense to restrict two individuals of the same sex to "marry" as they cannot, in principle, fulfill the public purpose of marriage so construed. It would likewise be erroneous to assert that marriage, so understood, would be "unequal" or otherwise "discriminatory" insofar as every single individual would have the exact same rights and restrictions regarding whom they can marry, regardless of their sexual orientation, namely, that any individual can marry someone of the opposite sex (plus some other qualifications). So understood, gay people are not being discriminated against (at least in this area), nor are they being denied the right to marry. They can marry. They're absolutely free to marry. They, just like any other human being, have to find someone of the opposite sex to marry. It would be discriminatory to deny a gay man the right to wed a woman (that is, marry) simply because he was gay, sure, but a person is not discriminated against if the state says no one has access to something that isn't real or something that no one can have access to.

So clearly, the fundamental, important question that concerns the same-sex marriage debate (and marriage generally) is what marriage is for? or what is marriage? Only after we answer this question can we then see what would count as discrimination and what would not. And after answering this question, then the next matter that needs to be resolved is what is the public function that marriage, so understood, serves to compel the state to confer it?

Hopefully this will help to guide the discourse on marriage and same-sex marriage into more fruitful grounds.

Now, I'd like to present the Argument from Consistency Contra same-sex marriage:

Argument from Consistency Contra Same-Sex Marriage:

1. If one accepts the proposal that marriage, as the supporter of same-sex marriage alleges, is merely the recognizing of individuals who are "lovingly committed to one another," then logic demands that you accept a "marriage" between 9 men and 9 women who are "lovingly committed" to one another, or a "marriage" between 1 man and 18 women who are "lovingly committed" to one another, or a "marriage" between a man and his sister who are "lovingly committed" to one another, or a "marriage" between a woman and his grandson and his cousin who are "lovingly committed" to one another, or indeed any conceivable configuration of individuals who are "lovingly committed" to one another.
2. Supporters of same-sex marriage are opposed to these configurations of marriage.
3. Therefore, their position is incoherent.

Now, immediately, many are inclined to simply dismiss this argument as a "slippery slope argument" before launching an accusation of "bigot" at me. However, we must keep in mind a couple things: (I) so-called "slippery slope" arguments are not fallacious by type; that is to say that not all arguments from consistency/logical wedge arguments (colloquially known as "slippery slope arguments") are fallacious.


Something else we must keep in mind: (II) the accusation that this argument is a "slippery slope" argument amounts to nothing more than the accusation that the first premise is false, for a "slippery slope" argument is only fallacious if it provides no reason to think that the accepting of x on the basis of y will lead to z. But to do so would just be patently question-begging for I did provide reason to think that the accepting of same-sex marriage on such-and-such grounds will lead to x, y and z, etc. So to dismiss this argument as a "slippery slope" outright is just to assume that premise 1 is false.



I look forward to your responses and feedback!


-- SD

Let us cut all the crap and go straight to the nitty gritty shall we?

Marriage is a legal contract between two people.
Anything and everything else people attribute to marriage is nothing more than window dressing, fluff, and icing.

now, in order to legally deny same sex couples the right to marry, you will need to present a legitimate legal reason that same sex couples should not be allowed to marry.

So, what is your legitimate legal reason to prevent same sex couples from marrying?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

1) Marriage as a legal contract is simply for two people to commit to each other in order to gain certain legal benefits and to clarify certain questions. For instance, one reason for two people to get married legally is to be able to see each other in the hospital when if they aren't married, they could be denied this right. That's only one example, but the point is marriage is just a legal contract to sort out some legal issues.

Therefore, according to you, not allowing same-sex marriage is discrimination.

2) Gay couples are going to live together no matter what, and they're going to have children no matter what. Disallowing same-sex marriage isn't going to stop them from doing these things. All it does is disallow them a way to sort out legal matters, as I mentioned above.

3) Same-sex marriage and homosexuality are not immoral according to any morality based on harm. You can argue it's immoral or pernicious, but that's just a personal opinion of yours. For it to be useful as an argument against same-sex marriage as a legal contract, you'd need to prove some kind of verifiable harm. Legal contracts are generally not concerned with morality, but instead with practical concerns of harm.

4) In what way are the arguments of same-sex marriage advocates incoherent of inchoate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people for the purpose of deciding some legal issues. Letting straight couples access this contract but not gay couples is discrimination. There's nothing incoherent about that.

1) Marriage is already a contract between two people. Changing the genders of the people involved doesn't present any legal challenges. Allowing same-sex marriage doesn't require any other legal changes to accommodate it. Polygamous marriages present a different challenge, requiring all kinds of issues to be sorted out in order to make them work.

2) With that said, if people want this kind of marriage and the legal issues can be worked out, many supporters of same-sex marriage have no problem with it.

Therefore your argument fails on two levels.

Yes, many people who have a problem with homosexuals come up with all sorts of verbose rationalizations for their bigotry.

This is an excellent post followed by a fully adequate summary.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

My first thought was to wonder what your opinion was on infertile women marrying...

 

[Sovereign Dream]

I deleted some portions because I wouldn't suggest you are putting forth a slippery slope argument nor would I jump the gun and call you a bigot before you displayed bigotry.

But, your argument that you enumerated simply reads: Same sex marriage proponents argue that marriage is solely about granting loving committed people the right to marry. This is inconsistent with opinions about other types of marriage arrangements. Therefore, they are wrong. So by default you must be right.

Again, the "so by default you must be right" does not follow and I never purported to demonstrate that it does follow. My aim was more modest than that; I aimed to show that the grounds upon which many individuals support same-sex marriage leads them on the pain of irrationality to support other configurations of "marriage" which they do not approve of. Therefore, their position is incoherent.

You have failed to show why your perspective is right. You have merely shown one way some groups offering a specific argument are wrong.

Right, but I haven't thus far even attempted to show that "my perspective is right."

Forgetting that they could be wrong for other types of marriage arrangements and thus polygamy could be absolutely valid, I would rather focus on the purpose of marriage as you stated it.

"[M]arriage really exists to attach [parents] to their children and to one another, upon whose stability the children depend."

I agree that this is an important facet of marriage and one which represents why we value marriage in our society.

That amendment doesn't seem to do much good if it ostensibly seeks to include couples of the same-sex in marriage. Consider; a child's "parents" just are his biological mother and father. We may, for example, refer to individuals who are in care of child who are not his biological parents as "parents," but that simply betrays that the language we use to refer to things isn't as accurate as we'd like, not that these people are his "parents" insofar as that means the two people who brought that child into being. So saying that "marriage really exists to attach parents to their children and to one another, upon whose stability the children depend" is tantamount to saying that "marriage really exists to attach children to their mother and father and they to one another, upon whose stability the children depend."

You will notice that this statement differs slightly from yours. You said "mothers and fathers." I paraphrased "parents." You have yet to show why parents can only or should only be opposite sex. We have many different means of becoming parents. Adoption and artificial insemination are just two forms that allow homosexual adults to become parents. Moreover, we also allow for divorce and re-marriage. In many different scenarios we see children raised with homosexual parents. If we want to attach parents to their children and to one another upon whose stability the children depend, why would we not make the logical jump to allow for homosexual marriage?

Everything you mention here, though obviously related to the discourse on marriage, would field us to afar form the OP. To be sure, I would very much so like to discuss these issues, I would just rather we do so piecemeal, focusing on certain aspects as we go along.

 

[Me Myself]

Nope. On all acounts.

The person who raises you can be called your parent. If you have problems with the english language go make a thread on the literature part of the forum

Gay men and women have raised kids already, kids lucky to be out of the foster care system and have loving fathers or mothers instead of no stable home or family.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

I am not quick to accept your introspection as fact. Humans are inclined to seek rational-seeming justifications for positions they actually hold out of irrational feelings; this is called "rationalization." It has been documented in scientific literature that groups opposed to gay rights tend to have a stronger disgust reaction generally, not only towards different sexualities.

Although it can be used as a rule-of-thumb, as many other fallacies, it is fallacious to think a position is wrong because it is badly argued. I am not acknowledging or denying that the argumentations you have heard were bad.

I do not believe it can be proven that homosexuality is inherently immoral or detrimental, and we may never come to common agreement on that as I do not recognize the authority of any scripture or pseudo-scientific institutions smearing minority sexualities.

Well, feel relaxed with the knowledge that I needn't rely on scripture not "psuedo-scientific instutitions" to provide a case as to why homosexual acts (among other acts) are immoral :beach:. There are a number of ethical theories that lead to the seeing of homosexual sexual acts as immoral. One of these, surprisingly, could quite plausibly be a consequentialist ethical theory (say, utilitarianism). Provided we were to have good empirical reasons to think that the performing of homosexual sexual acts are detrimental to the one participating in it and to others who are not, we could reason deductively as follows:

P1. [Principle of Utility]

P2. Homosexual acts are not optifimic (i.e., they do not promote the maximum total social net utility)

C: Therefore, homosexual acts should be condemned, not promoted, etc.

Note that I am not defending this argument, I am merely demonstrating how such an argument might look like. Moreover, as I mention above, an essentialistic moral theory like that of Aristotle or Aquinas or Philippa Foot et al. would also be effective in showing that homosexual acts are immoral.

The importance of any prescribed purpose of marriage is ultimately overridden by its practical function.

Suppose that I accept that. Why not think, then, that the "practical function" of marriage isn't the same as its "prescribed purpose," namely, as I am convinced of, that marriage exists to join a man and a woman to one another and to any children that may result from their union, upon whose stability the children depend?

Marriage provides rights that are beneficial both to different-sex partnerships and same-sex partnerships. Your post gives me no reason to think that granting these rights will do more ill than good.

The relevant question here is "why are these benefits provided for in the first place" and so we come once again the fundamental question: "What is marriage?" or "What is marriage for?"

I also believe that the attitude that marriage and love should only be for the purpose of bearing children is one that can be harmful towards heterosexuals as well, especially women. It is associated with a lack of sex education, and consequently higher rates of teen pregnancy as seen in the Bible Belt of the United States.

You'll have to clarify this paragraph.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

A lot of gay fathers and mothers can be way best parents than the system will be for a lot of kids in need for adopting.

They also have tendency to adopt those more misunderstood groups which are more unlikely to be adopted.

Gay parents adopting is a really beautiful thing

I'm not inclined to think so. All things being equal, a child is best raised by his biological mother and father. Adoption exists for the exceptional cases in which this is not possible (e.g. the child's parents died, the child's parents abandoned him, the child's parents are drug addicts, etc.). Moreover, adoption is a child-centered institution that exists to provide children with the parents that they need, not to provide adults the children that they happen to want.

 

[McBell]

All things being equal, a child is best raised by his biological mother and father.

Do you have anything other than personal opinion to support this?