Argument from Consistency Contra Same-Sex Marriage

[Curious George]

No one doubts the authority of the legislature to recognize and create laws which favor marriage. Public health and Safety are well within a state's authority to regulate. And the unions which people form affect their actions between each other and the public. Thus, a State can legitimately recognize certain types of unions. States have chosen to recognize and encourage a union between two people. Some states have limited that union to only exist between a man and a woman. Similarly, before the U.S. supreme Court decided Loving, some states limited the recognition of that union to only exist between a man and woman of the same race. The reason the Supreme Court did so, was because there was no rational basis the class discrimination. Similarly, laws that prevent same sex marriage are unconstitutional unless there is a rational basis for which to deny equal protection.

You have tried to create such a distinction by limiting the argument for same-sex marriage to marriage is just a commitment between two people. That is not the argument for same sex marriage. I see your point that, if this was the only reasoning then there would be no reason for legislatures to be forced to extend the law. But every reason for heterosexual marriage applies to same sex marriages.

Children are not the only reasoning for marriage, otherwise they would become a necessity of marriage, since a law that must be narrowly construed if it does infringe upon rights.

You have also put forth the argument that homosexuals do have the right to marry- as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. There is no reason for this limitation on their right to marry. Very similar to the loving case.

You have suggested that no one is trying to take away homosexual rights to have relationships, yet it was only 10 years ago that the Supreme Court had to hold Sodomy laws in Texas (and 13 other states) were unconstitutional in Lawrence.

You have made a decent argument that is directed at a very narrow argument for same sex marriage, however this is not the reasoning that people changing the laws are using. You have missed the arguments that matter.

You are right in your assertion that marriage is more than just two people in a committed relationship. If this was the case, then marriage would be a personal contract recognized by communities and not encouraged by the government. However, no sound reasoning exists not to extend those benefits to people of the same sex. Hetero sexual marriage will not suffer. Incest is not validated. Polygamy is not validated. Bestiality is not validated. Marriage involving Minors is not validated. Tradition should change when tradition is oppressive and unconstitutional. Religions are not forced to marry homosexuals. There is plenty of evidence and the States have had plenty of time to evaluate other models of law where same-sex marriage is allowed.

In short- those "contra same sex marriage" got nuthin'

 

[Sovereign Dream]

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?

Mestemia, I've given various reasons for that in this thread. I've mentioned, for example, that the position of the supporter of same-sex marriage is either incoherent or absurd. I've mentioned that, if marriage really exists to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, then there is no such think as "same-sex marriage." I've mentioned that removing the gender requirement from marriage will redefine parenthood, with disastrous effects. I've mentioned, for example, that the accepting of same-sex marriage promotes the idea of making the the happiness of the parties in the marriage the purpose of marriage rather than the good of the children or the social order. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. And so on. And on. And on. You cannot sensibly pretend that I haven't given reasons as to why we ought not accept same-sex marriage, Mestemia.

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.

More insults, Mestemia. I gave reasons to think that the purpose of marriage, that is, to attach mothers and fathers... is of compelling interest to the public good and to the state, namely, it not only makes society possible but it stabilizes it.

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?

Even more insults. Adios Mestemia. Don't expect another reply from me in the future.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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:

You are assuming that two things are equal or the same when they are not.

For example you are trying to take polyamerous relationships and apply them to your incorrect qualifier for marriage that you have assumed proponents of marriage equality follow and then show how there are several things that share the (incorrect) qualifier and accuse them of being the same.

Point 1 is incorrect as I have stated several times in the response

"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.

Right

I objected point 1 a few times in my response. Go back and read it. I didn't feel the need to repeate myself as I even stated that unless you fixed your qualifiers it already uprooted your argument from the very inception.

To repeate "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."

Though to add I also support Curious George's secular arguments FOR marriage equality. Those also are reasons that don't apply to polyaermous relationships.

 

[Curious George]

Mestemia, I've given various reasons for that in this thread. I've mentioned, for example, that the position of the supporter of same-sex marriage is either incoherent or absurd. I've mentioned that, if marriage really exists to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, then there is no such think as "same-sex marriage." I've mentioned that removing the gender requirement from marriage will redefine parenthood, with disastrous effects. I've mentioned, for example, that the accepting of same-sex marriage promotes the idea of making the the happiness of the parties in the marriage the purpose of marriage rather than the good of the children or the social order. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. And so on. And on. And on. You cannot sensibly pretend that I haven't given reasons as to why we ought not accept same-sex marriage, Mestemia.

And I have given sensible reasons why these disastrous results (polygamy) will not occur.

Consanguinity laws are enough of a reason to prevent even the marriage between a sterile male and a sterile female. Thus, there is no reason to presume such laws would continue to provide sufficient reason in the case of same-sex marriage. Moreover, such laws could also serve to protect against potentially abusive relationships.

So there you have it... no disastrous results.

 

[Magic Man]

This doesn't help one bit:

P1. If one accepts the proposal that marriage is just a legal contract that exists to join people who want to commit to each other for some period of time, then logic demands that we accept 5 men and 5 women who want to "commit to each other for some period of time" to "marry," or 187 men and 2 women who want to "commit to each other for some period of time" to "marry," or a man and his sister who want to "commit to each other for some period of time" to "marry," or a woman and her son and his grandson who want to "commit to one another for some period of time" to "marry," or indeed any conceivable configuration of individuals who want to "commit to one another for some period of time" to "marry."

P2. Individuals who accept this proposal are opposed to many such configuration of "marriage."

C: Therefore, their position is incoherent.

Restating it over and over isn't going to magically make it make sense. We've been over this. Most supporters of same-sex marriage have no problem with polygamous marriages as long as the legal issues involved can be worked out. As far as incestuous marriages, that's a different story. That can involve real harm just by the nature of the relationship.

Bottom line: This argument of yours simply fails.

Wholly apart from this, we may wonder: does having marriage exist for this purpose serve a compelling interest to the state and public good? Clearly it wouldn't on at least two accounts: (I) you don't need marriage to "commit" to someone else or "share your life" with someone. Neither of these two things add up to a single essential public purpose of marriage. (II) Redefining marriage inevitably redefines parenthood. Doing so is pernicious generally, but in this instance, it is even more clearly pernicious, for this position commits its adherent to the allowing and even promoting of the raising of children in absurd environments which no one in their right minds would ever condone (say, in which 190 individual are recognized as the legal "parents" of a child).

1) Correct, you don't need a legal marriage to commit to each other, but you do need it to sort out the legal issues involved with committing to each other. This is a point I've gone over multiple times now, so it would be nice if you'd acknowledge it rather than ignoring it.

2) We're not redefining marriage. It's the legal union of two people. If you want to be technical, we redefined it decades ago to allow interracial marriages, so the "redefinition" argument fails on two levels.

3) Just stating that something is pernicious doesn't make it so. For you to have an argument, you'd have to show how what you state is actually pernicious, which you haven't even attempted to do (since it's impossible).

4) As with claiming something is pernicious, your main argument here is "But...but that's absurd", and you're counting on everyone to just say "Oh, yeah, you're right!". That's not how arguments work. You have to show why it's absurd. Yes, having several people in a committed relationship and caring for children is unusual, but that doesn't mean there's something wrong with it.

You still have yet to present a coherent argument, even with all the many words you've typed.

 

[Magic Man]

lol Who is "making their life worse"? Presumably the opponent of same-sex marriage, right, who is simply saying that same-sex couples cannot have access to something that doesn't exist. lol :clap



Lol again. Need a kleenex, bro?

Well, at least you finally dropped the charade of supposed rational, intelligent responses.

 

[Magic Man]

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

A fruitful conversation only comes from all parties being intellectually honest. You have refused to do that from the very first page, so don't blame anyone else for your own failings.

 

[Revoltingest]

We still can't have sex with dogs or babies.

Don't make me post links to news items.
Our world is a very disturbing place.

 

[McBell]

Adios Mestemia. Don't expect another reply from me in the future.

Seeing as all I have gotten from you is flat out run around, blatant avoidance, denial, and false accusations, I do not expect a reply from you.

And you still have not presented a legitimate legal reason to ban same sex marriage...
Not that anyone is surprised.

 

[nilsz]

Who needs consistency when we have a plentiful supply of nuance?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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.

We're not talking about a couple of buddies. We're talking about a couple of people who wish to join lives together and have all the civic rights of marriage conferred on them. It brings much legal stability, and much more so when there's a child involved.

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.

It's your Catholic belief that marriage is permanent. But we're not talking about religious rites, we're talking about civil marriage. If you don't believe in divorce, then don't get divorced and marry someone who feels likewise.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Don't make me post links to news items.
Our world is a very disturbing place.

only you revoltignest...only you........

 

[Badran]

***Mod post***

Some posts in this thread have been deleted for violation of the forum rules. Particularly, rules 1 and 3.

Please keep both rules in mind. ​

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Very often it is said in the web that "there are no good arguments against same-sex marriage that aren't religious."

That's not true. There are no good arguments against same-sex marriage PERIOD. I had hoped you might be the first, but I was slightly disappointed in that regard. But we'll get to that.

I think you will find that most people who oppose same-sex marriage oppose it on the grounds that they think it is pernicious.

A patently false judgment whose sole basis are the things you've mentioned; bigotry, a desire to judge, bitterness towards the world, who knows. Maybe they just woke up on the wrong side of the bed that day. The only thing that is certain about opposition to gay equality is that it is not rational.

I also think that there are quite good essentialistc arguments that purport to demonstrate that homosexual sexual acts are immoral.

Oh dear.

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?

Perhaps there is no privileged position from which to adjudicate which one of these functions marriage is "really" about. Perhaps it can be about both, and it is up to the individual to decide. In any case, the assumption lurking in the background, that "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" (construed as providing stability for children), is mistaken (or, at best, unsubstantiated) to begin with.

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.

Sadly, the second premise here is false, and the argument unsound. Certainly some supporters of gay marriage are in favor of polygamy. I'm one of them. Besides, you've painted sort of a strawman here anyways- the proponent of gay marriage has plenty more considerations at their disposal which would allow them to discriminate between monogamous gay marriages and other "configurations" .

Now, immediately, many are inclined to simply dismiss this argument as a "slippery slope argument" before launching an accusation of "bigot" at me.

Nah, I'm content pointing out that you've made a number of false assumptions and claims, without which your argument won't work.

In any case, one lesson here is that we should not hold our breath waiting for a sound argument against gay marriage- we will suffocate, as there probably is not one to be made. Opposition to homosexuality is a fading vestige of an anachronistic and pernicious worldview, just like the subjugation of women and sexual repression in general- one we are well to be rid of.

 

[averageJOE]

Mestemia, I've given various reasons for that in this thread. I've mentioned, for example, that the position of the supporter of same-sex marriage is either incoherent or absurd. I've mentioned that, if marriage really exists to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, then there is no such think as "same-sex marriage." I've mentioned that removing the gender requirement from marriage will redefine parenthood, with disastrous effects. I've mentioned, for example, that the accepting of same-sex marriage promotes the idea of making the the happiness of the parties in the marriage the purpose of marriage rather than the good of the children or the social order. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. And so on. And on. And on. You cannot sensibly pretend that I haven't given reasons as to why we ought not accept same-sex marriage, Mestemia.

Nowhere in a marriage license does it say a couple is required to have babies. The government doesn't require married couples to breed. So the "children" is irrelevant.

Now that the "children" argument is out, what is your reason for banning same sex marriage?

 

[Astravalon]

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.

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.

Okay, unless I'm mistaken, the above concerns seem to be along the lines that if we
let gays marry, then this opens the door to permitting all sorts of other types of
marriages, etc.

But, if one type of marriage could so directly lead to any other randomized pairing
(or more) in marriage, then why would any marrying be allowed to take place?

Seems like the problem (assuming there's a problem, of course) lies with the
institution of marriage itself. After all, if it can be argued that gay marriage
will inevitably lead to any and all other imaginable configurations of marriage and
therefore it should be banned, why not argue that traditional heterosexual marriage
is what lead to gay marriage and therefore traditional heterosexual marriage should
be banned?


-