Argument from Consistency Contra Same-Sex Marriage

[McBell]

... If we deny a man to use a women's restroom, are we thereby stating that he is "not worthy" or "less than" women or anyone else for that matter?

Pardon me; this is just stupid. Do you honestly think that there is no difference between marriage and using the restroom?

 

[Me Myself]

Pardon me; this is just stupid. If we deny a man to use a women's restroom, are we thereby stating that he is "not worthy" or "less than" women or anyone else for that matter?

Yes.

Sme months ago I went to the male's bathroom , me being a male and I noticed it had no soap.

So I went yo the women's bathroom and before entering I asked permission and said "can I enter?" And they said yes.

I entered, used their soap and went out.

Had I ve been denied that I would have been treated as less than a woman.

The same situation would happen the other way around, were a woman to need soap and there be no soap in women's bathroom and men deny her the right to use their bathroom.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

I've at least read three books.

Where does that leave us?

Congratulations :clap

Be sure to add this to your reading list:

Logic For Dummies: Mark Zegarelli: 9780471799412: Amazon.com: Books

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Pardon me; this is just stupid. Do you honestly think that there is no difference between marriage and using the restroom?

Uh, did you miss the part that said "analogy"? Or are you just that daft?

 

[McBell]

Congratulations :clap

Be sure to add this to your reading list:

Logic For Dummies: Mark Zegarelli: 9780471799412: Amazon.com: Books

You would do good to read it for comprehension.

I understand that you are extra sensitive to it being pointed out that you are not as intelligent as you want everyone to think you are, but I am not going to apologize for pointing it out to you.
It is my humble opinion that there have been far to many people let it slide by without pointing it out that you now think it does not exist to be pointed out.


They say getting over the denial phase is the hardest part of recovery.

 

[McBell]

Uh, did you miss the part that said "analogy"? Or are you just that daft?

You would do good to look up the word "analogy" and try again.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

There is no legitimate legal reason to ban same sex marriage that would not also effect your "traditional" marriage.

Is this is trite "how does, like, same-sex marriage affect you, man?" nonsense?

 

[Sovereign Dream]

You would do good to read it for comprehension.

I understand that you are extra sensitive to it being pointed out that you are not as intelligent as you want everyone to think you are, but I am not going to apologize for pointing it out to you.
It is my humble opinion that there have been far to many people let it slide by without pointing it out that you now think it does not exist to be pointed out.


They say getting over the denial phase is the hardest part of recovery.

You got me. Thanks for devolving what could have been a fruitful conversation into a middle-school drama.

 

[McBell]

Is this is trite "how does, like, same-sex marriage affect you, man?" nonsense?

Still waiting for you to present a legitimate legal reason to ban same sex marriage.

I understand that you do not have one, thus the reason you polished up all the old "arguments".

I shall present this for you ignore once again:

you are free to attach whatever fluff, window dressing, emotional attachment, etc. you want to your marriage.
What you are not free to do is dictate to every one else what fluff, window dressing, emotional attachment, etc. they are and are not allowed to attach to their marriage.

 

[Me Myself]

You got me. Thanks for devolving what could have been a fruitful conversation into a middle-school drama.

Sounded just like a drama queen right there

 

[McBell]

You got me. Thanks for devolving what could have been a fruitful conversation into a middle-school drama.

I dare say old chap, is this the first time you have tried your preach it to the choir sermon outside your choir?

 

[gnomon]

Congratulations :clap

Be sure to add this to your reading list:

Logic For Dummies: Mark Zegarelli: 9780471799412: Amazon.com: Books

That's one I've read. A minority piece on the issue.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Well, that's too bad for you because that's what marriage largely has become in the West. The idea of marrying for love is a relatively recent concept and has come about along with the idea of women having full rights in a marriage and things like no-fault divorce. So what would you like us to do, go back to arranged marriages that are really just the joining of two families for financial gain?

Suppose that marriage really is just people who are "in love" with one another or simply individuals who are lovingly committed to one another. One can say a couple of things if this were the case. Can't any conceivable configuration of individuals be "lovingly committed" to one another? If so, then there would be no rational basis for the denying of "marriage" to, say, 500 people who are all lovingly committed to one another. Also, one may point out that, say, Bob having fuzzy feelings for Fred is of no compelling interest to the state or the public good. So if marriage really was just a variant of "gee I really like you" or "being lovingly committed to x" then the most rational position would just be to do away with it for it is useless. It is like asking the government to have a government registry of friendships and to confer benefits on friendships.

I don't appreciate either the suggestion that, because I am opposed to no-fault divorce, therefore I really just want to "go back to arranged marriages that are really just the joining of two families for financial gain." The reason why I am opposed to no-fault divorce is because it did away with the presumption that marriage was permanent and instead instituted the presumption -- even if implicitly so -- that marriage was not permanent. No-fault divorce is really in about 70% of the time more aptly described as unilateral divorce wherein only one of the individuals in the marriage need want to end it for it to end. And the courts always rule in favor of the person who wishes to end the marriage. Mind you, most people don't end marriage because of abuse or some such unfortunate event; rather, most people end marriages over trivial matters.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Still waiting for you to present a legitimate legal reason to ban same sex marriage.

I understand that you do not have one, thus the reason you polished up all the old "arguments".

Mestemia, I've spent pages giving reasons as to why we ought not accept same-sex marriage. But, to be sure, are you asking me something akin to: "how will same-sex marriage affect you?"

If you decide, however, to respond to this with more useless smart-assery, then don't be surprised when I proceed to ignore your offal.

I shall present this for you ignore once again:

"you are free to attach whatever fluff, window dressing, emotional attachment, etc. you want to your marriage.
What you are not free to do is dictate to every one else what fluff, window dressing, emotional attachment, etc. they are and are not allowed to attach to their marriage."

Again, this is just seems like you're talking about private purposes as to why people marry. And, as I have elaborated on in multiple instances in the thread, these are irrelevant to its essential public purpose.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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 know several people who oppose marriage equality that are not "mean" in the sense that they go around stealing ice cream and what not. But they are by definition bigots. They are bigots because they oppose marriage equality. The opposition is the qualifier rather than the inverse.

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.

Unfortunatly they are true. I have yet to see an argument made to oppose it that wasn't either illogical itself or religiously based. Unfortunatly you are a bigot but that doesn't necessarily mean you are mean or hate gays. It simply means you discriminate against specific groups of people. Though I look forward to hearing your secular arguments that somehow tie homosexuality to immorality.

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:

ok.

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.

Specifically its any 2 people who wish to be in a long term commited relationship that can reap mutual benifits both in society such as tax benifits, health insurance coverage, parenthood of children, ability to adopt children, being considered family in emergency situations, ect ect ect. A little different than your qualifier. So unless you are capable of figuring out ways to identify these qualifiers in your argument it more or less uproots your argument from here on out. But lets continue anyway.

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

I'll try my best.

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.

The arguments for poligamy are different than those for marriage equality in terms of sexuality. One does not have to logically agree with either both or neither. There are numerous problems with poligamy that are not found in same sex marriage. Insurance problems, group relationship problems. Multiple wives/husbands problem, childrearing/custody problems, and lastly the ethical question of "is it possible to have a healthy multi-way relationship?". The answer to the last question in reguard to same sex couples is an overwhelming yes. However studies show highly mixed results skewing towards "no" for polyamerous relationships.
This can be summed up to be "false equivilance" on your part.

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.

Same sex couples can rear children just as efficently as opposite sex parents. Its requires adoption and we as a country are overflowing with children in need of adoption. This is a solution not a problem. Though the traditional answer is "so are steril people allowed to marry?" as they are very much able to currently under the laws.

Secondly they are discriminated against. They cannot marry their sexual partner. Sex and marriage is intertwined in our current society. Its why we can't marry our siblings or children (as they are deemed innapropriate to have sexual relations with for logical reasons). Again false equivilance.

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?

I have already laid out the currently accpeted functions of marriage. Though at the same time if you wish to question what marriage is then its a fair question. The qualifiers for marriage are not set out by any god nor is it exclusive to any culture. This only opens up more possibilities which is in favor of marriage equality.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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

Lets hope

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.

It is a slippery slope argument. And its a false equivilance. Letting whites and blacks mix didn't disrupt the animal kingdom. We still can't have sex with dogs or babies. I think the same thing applies here.

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.

Which I do more or less.

 

[Curious George]

Now that you are back online, perhaps we can discuss the governmental reasoning some more.

Encourage fidelity. This is a governmental interest as it relates to public health.

Encourage happiness. This is a governmental interest as it relates to public health.

Encourage stability. This is a governmental interest as it relates to public safety

Encourage security. This is a governmental interest as it relates to public safety.

Encourages support for children. This is a governmental interest as it relates to public health.

Encourage companionship. This is a governmental interest as it relates to public health.

... Do I need to continue?

 

[McBell]

Mestemia, I've spent pages giving reasons as to why we ought not accept same-sex marriage. But, to be sure, are you asking me something akin to: "how will same-sex marriage affect you?"

If you decide, however, to respond to this with more useless smart-assery, then don't be surprised when I proceed to ignore your offal.

You have not presented even one legitimate legal reason to ban same sex marriage.

No, I am not asking how same sex marriage will affect you.
I am asking what legitimate legal reason do you have to ban same sex marriage?

Again, this is just seems like you're talking about private purposes as to why people marry. And, as I have elaborated on in multiple instances in the thread, these are irrelevant to its essential public purpose.

Yes we are talking about why you think your own private purposes for marriage should be made into law.

Your sad attempt at dressing your own private purposes up in fancy wording and declaring them public purpose does not hide the fact that it is merely you trying to convince others (and quite possibly yourself) that your own private purposes for marriage are something more than your own private purposes for marriage.


Now if you are quite done avoiding the point, dressing up your strawmen, and trying to dazzle us with bull ****, do you think you could start actually addressing the points?

 

[Me Myself]

Now that you are back online, perhaps we can discuss the governmental reasoning some more.

Encourage fidelity. This is a governmental interest as it relates to public health.

Encourage happiness. This is a governmental interest as it relates to public health.

Encourage stability. This is a governmental interest as it relates to public safety

Encourage security. This is a governmental interest as it relates to public safety.

Encourages support for children. This is a governmental interest as it relates to public health.

Encourage companionship. This is a governmental interest as it relates to public health.

... Do I need to continue?

I think it's pretty straightforward on it's own what you got there.

Fancy words aside though, some people's romantic partner ilife will be of their same gender. This people diserve romance and love too.

So,... Well, that is pretty straight forward too.

Everyone diserves a fulfilling rewarding passionate, tender intimate romantic relationship were they to desire it, and restraining such a relationship from someone simply because you dont like their gender pairing is just ...

Wrong.

Fundamentally wrong.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

It is a slippery slope argument. And its a false equivilance. Letting whites and blacks mix didn't disrupt the animal kingdom. We still can't have sex with dogs or babies. I think the same thing applies here.

Couple comments:

I'm not sure what you mean by "false equivalence." Also, as I wrote, accusing this argument of being a "slippery slope argument" is simply to assume that I haven't given reasons to think that the accepting of a on the grounds b will lead to c. You haven't so much as attempted to show how P1 is false. So your accusation can be dismissed. This, moreover:

"Letting whites and blacks mix didn't disrupt the animal kingdom. We still can't have sex with dogs or babies. I think the same thing applies here."

Is just irrelevant. This doesn't even come close to an objection to P1.

Which I do more or less.

Right