Argument from Consistency Contra Same-Sex Marriage

[Curious George]

Supposing that we have good reasons to think that economic/behavioral reasons may make the distributing of children to polyamorous unions difficult (a sentiment I'd be eager to agree with), this at best only demonstrates that there might be a problem in practice, but the supporter of same-sex marriage has no grounds to disapprove of this in principle.

Sure they do.

 

[Curious George]

Well, again I haven't even yet offered a comprehensive defense of marriage as I think it should be. To respond negatively however (that is, refraining from producing forth a positive case for my position in the meantime), he hasn't provided any reason to think that marriage should exist for the purpose he asserts it does. Matters of public policy as important as marriage, for example, all exist for some purpose or other or else they wouldn't exist at all. Marriage, thus, exists for some purpose or other, or else it wouldn't exist at all (consider: would anyone have ever thought instituting marriage if the reason for its instituting was "there's no reason to institute it"?). This purpose, however, must be of compelling interest to the state and public good (it can't be a trivial purpose, like, say, "because we felt like it," etc.). Generally, supporters of same-sex marriage argue that marriage ought to exist to recognize people who are "lovingly committed" to one another. But think about whether this purpose is of compelling interest to the state to confer benefits and to the public good at large. Thus understood, this serves no public compelling purpose whatsoever, for why should the state care that, say, Bob has fuzzy feelings for Susan, or that Ted has fuzzy feelings for John? Moreover, why should it be the public's business if, say, Bob has fuzzy feelings for Susan or that Ted has fuzzy feelings for John? These are, of course, just rhetorical questions. For what the supporter of same-sex marriage is really asking for is nothing dissimilar to a government registry of friendships and the only reason they seem to be able to give for the adopting of this is something to the effect of "because it will make people feel good." But such childish reason is of no compelling interest whatsoever to the government of the public good, who would presumably be funding the useless benefits of such pointless enterprise vis-a-vis government appropriation of private funds (i.e. taxation).

Indeed, if marriage really just is a glorified government registry of friendships, as supporters of same-sex marriage seem to think, then the most reasonable position would be that of the contemporary libertarian who constantly gripes on his FaceBook that "marriage should, like, not be a government matter, man -- Hail Ayn Rand!" (there is my feeble attempt at comedic relief). But, of course, I don't agree with the antecedent of that conditional, i.e. I don't think that marriage is just a government registry of friendship or just people being "lovingly committed" to one another; I think that marriage exists to unite mothers and fathers to their children and to one another and to the children that may come from their union, upon whose stability the children depend. And, moreover, I think this purpose is not just of some compelling interest to the state and the public good; I think this is of ultimate importance to the state and public good.

I gave you a court opinion which suggested not that marriage is a contract between two people, but rather three parties, the third party is the government. That court opinion articulated a government interest beyond glorifying two people.

 

[Curious George]

Note that I'm not saying that talk of children is irrelevant to the matter at hand; I think that marriage inextricably has something or other to do with children. Rather, I'd simply like to save the topic of same-sex parenting for another time, though everyone in this thread keeps pressuring otherwise.

If we allow talk of children then you cannot elude homosexual parents. If your suggestion is to encourage marriage for the children but deny this privilege to children of homosexuals then you run into both equal protection and due process concerns.

Also, I provided rationale without children in the post, you failed to address.

 

[Curious George]

I'm not seeing how you're coming to that thought. Could you elaborate?

Sure. You have suggested that the biological parents are the best to raise children, excepting when they are not. This is question begging. You have essentially said that Bio parents are the best when they are the best.

 

[Curious George]

This is also confusingly worded. What do you mean, exactly?

I mean children don't NEED parents that don't want them, what they NEED is parents that do want them.

 

[Curious George]

As I mentioned previously, the argument I provided is strong, I think, because the supporter of same-sex marriage, if he is willing to hold to his support of same-sex marriage, he must deny either premise 1 or 2 (or, of course, both). Doing either one, however, has a high price tag. If he denies P1, he will usually deny that one ought to approve of same-sex marriage on the grounds that being "lovingly committed" to someone else is a sufficient condition for being married. In doing so, however, the supporter of same-sex marriage no longer has a leg to stand on, so to speak, to provide a reason as to why we should allow same-sex marriage anyways. If he denies P2, however, then he has simply embraced the reductio and reduced his position to the absurd as it entails that he is, on pain of irrationality, intellectually committed and obligated to support any conceivable configurations of individuals who are "lovingly committed to one another" to be able to "marry" and thus to grant them "parental rights" even if perhaps only, in the best-case scenario, "in principle."

Not true. Taking away premise one still leaves plenty on which to stand. Did you read my posts. I am standing fine.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

So your argument is that it is better for the child to have neither a mother or a father than it is for the child to have two fathers or two mothers?

No, all things being equal, a child is best raised by his biological mother and father. If, for whatever reason, this is not possible, then the next best thing -- again, all things being equal -- would be that he is raised by a married heterosexual couple, preferably one which is related to the child.

Are you also heading up a group to have children taken from single parents or are you content with the double standard?

I am opposed to single-parent adoption as well and single-parent fertilization (that is, when a single man or woman artificially creates a child to raise it "because s/he wants to." An adult wanting something, I would say, is not at all a good enough reason to intentionally deprive a child of a relationship with his mother or father or both.

This is another reason to think that the proper context for sex and childbearing is in (obviously heterosexual) marriage. To the surprise of no-one, the sexual act is both unitive and procreative. The sexual act attaches a man to a woman through a series of hormonal pathways. This in turn strengthens a married couple's unity and sexual exclusivity. This in turn provides the perfect environment in which to be open to childbearing. Many nowadays, however, engage in sexual acts with people who would not be fit parents and when childbearing would be undesirable (say, in college, or when very young). When contraception fails in one of these doomed relationships, as it is apt to do, abortion is used as a contraception-replacement. If the child is not aborted, though, the father usually leaves because he didn't care for the woman he had sex with enough to marry her and is daunted by the idea of caring for a newborn, thus leaving the woman to raise the child all by herself and reducing the relationship between the father and the child and the child's mother to a check-off box and signature for child support. And guess who the ends up paying for such instance of dumb sex? The government and the taxpayer, who must fork over part of their private funds to support the fatherless child and the child, who is raised in the absence of a father or in a dysfunctional setting. But this is all just too obvious, really.

 

[Curious George]

No, all things being equal, a child is best raised by his biological mother and father. If, for whatever reason, this is not possible, then the next best thing -- again, all things being equal -- would be that he is raised by a married heterosexual couple, preferably one which is related to the child.

I am opposed to single-parent adoption as well and single-parent fertilization (that is, when a single man or woman artificially creates a child to raise it "because s/he wants to." An adult wanting something, I would say, is not at all a good enough reason to intentionally deprive a child of a relationship with his mother or father or both.

This is another reason to think that the proper context for sex and childbearing is in (obviously heterosexual) marriage. To the surprise of no-one, the sexual act is both unitive and procreative. The sexual act attaches a man to a woman through a series of hormonal pathways. This in turn strengthens a married couple's unity and sexual exclusivity. This in turn provides the perfect environment in which to be open to childbearing. Many nowadays, however, engage in sexual acts with people who would not be fit parents and when childbearing would be undesirable (say, in college, or when very young). When contraception fails in one of these doomed relationships, as it is apt to do, abortion is used as a contraception-replacement. If the child is not aborted, though, the father usually leaves because he didn't care for the woman he had sex with enough to marry her and is daunted by the idea of caring for a newborn, thus leaving the woman to raise the child all by herself and reducing the relationship between the father and the child and the child's mother to a check-off box and signature for child support. And guess who the ends up paying for such instance of dumb sex? The government and the taxpayer, who must fork over part of their private funds to support the fatherless child and the child, who is raised in the absence of a father or in a dysfunctional setting. But this is all just too obvious, really.

Sorry to break the news but there has been unwanted children in every generation. It is not a "nowadays" phenomenon.

But there are other examples as well. A mother marries a man has a baby and the dad dies. The mother then falls in love with a woman and marries her.

Hopefully, parents that have children are planning to have children. This includes homosexual couples. I fail to see what the problem is with parents having kids when they WANT them is.

Furthermore, the idea that homosexual parents are depriving the child of a mother or father stereotypes both men and women into certain sexual roles. I have yet to see you prove why a mother and a mother or a father and a father cannot do equally as good as a mother and a father. Finally the assumption that homosexual parents adopting children deprives a child of a mother or a father assumes that the specific child in question would have a mother and a father but for the adoption. You are making logical errors all over the place.

 

[Curious George]

P1. Depriving a child of a mother or a father makes it so that he will suffer in every standard of well-being.

P2. Placing a child under a same-sex couple will inevitably and by definition intentionally deprive him of a mother or a father.

C: Therefore, we ought not promote same-sex parenting.

P1 is not substantiated.

P2 assumes that but for the relationship the child would have a mother and a father.

 

[McBell]

No, all things being equal, a child is best raised by his biological mother and father. If, for whatever reason, this is not possible, then the next best thing -- again, all things being equal -- would be that he is raised by a married heterosexual couple, preferably one which is related to the child.

How does it work once you step out of your "all things being equal" fantasy and into the real world where all things are seldom equal?

 

[Curious George]

How does it work once you step out of your "all things being equal" fantasy and into the real world where all things are seldom equal?

To Sovereign: what does "all things being equal" even mean? You cannot toss about cliches and generalities and expect others find your opinions sound.

 

[McBell]

No, all things being equal, a child is best raised by his biological mother and father. If, for whatever reason, this is not possible, then the next best thing -- again, all things being equal -- would be that he is raised by a married heterosexual couple, preferably one which is related to the child.

You keep using the phrase "all things being equal" and I suspect you are not considering that if all things were as equal as you are saying, you would not be making judgement calls based upon your idea that same sex couples are NOT equal to heterosexual couples.

So your catch phrase "all things being equal" seems to be nothing more than an appeal to emotion tactic in order to give the impression that you are giving the whole thing a fair shake.

 

[Curious George]

So your catch phrase "all things being equal" seems to be nothing more than an appeal to emotion tactic in order to give the impression that you are giving the whole thing a fair shake.

I don't think it is an appeal to emotion. I think it is more of a safety valve. If someone points out abusive parents- well then all things are not equal. If someone points out dead parents- well all things are not equal. If someone points out poverty issues- well all things are not equal. If someone points out drug habits- well all things are not equal. If someone points out lack of wanting a child- well all things are not equal. If someone points out _______ you fill in the blank- well all things are not equal.

 

[McBell]

I don't think it is an appeal to emotion.

I disagree.
the use of the phrase "all things being equal" is to get those reading his "argument" the feeling that he is giving the same sex couple a fair shake in the "argument".

I think it is more of a safety valve. If someone points out abusive parents- well then all things are not equal. If someone points out dead parents- well all things are not equal. If someone points out poverty issues- well all things are not equal. If someone points out drug habits- well all things are not equal. If someone points out lack of wanting a child- well all things are not equal. If someone points out _______ you fill in the blank- well all things are not equal.

Which prompts my question of how he thinks it should work in the real world, where there are abusive parents, poverty issues, dead parents, drug habits, etc.

It is my opinion that his whole argument is based on some idealistic world that does not exist outside his own imagination.

And I am a bit miffed that he completely ignored my very first post in this thread.....

 

[McBell]

In fact, the most sophisticated study on the matter of same-sex parenting, the Regnerus Study, has shown that there are problems.

Seriously?
The Regnerus Study?

The same Regnerus Study that the American Sociological Association obliterated in a Supreme Court Brief?

American Sociological Association: ASA Files Amicus Brief with U.S. Supreme Court in Same-Sex Marriage Cases

 

[Magic Man]

And yet you haven't even purported to demonstrate how this "bigoted" argument I provided is unsound, thus revealing your own bigotry. If this were twitter, I'd be more than inclined to include the following: #irony.

1) I've gone over the problems with your arguments in great detail. If you refuse to acknowledge those problems, it's not my fault.

2) You don't seem to understand the word "bigotry". Even if what you claim about me here was true, it wouldn't indicate bigotry on my part.

 

[McBell]

What people are denying is that it is just a private contract.

Please see posts #14 and #56.
Two posts you have completely ignored...

 

[Magic Man]

No one is denying that marriage has something to do with the law. Indeed, I think that marriage has much to do with law, but I also think that marriage is more than just a mere "legal contract." Suppose, however, that marriage is just some form of governmental contract between individuals. What might rightly be asked in the first place is "why does this exist?" or "what is the purpose of such thing existing?" and thus we are right back at square one of the debate.

It's a very simple concept. Marriage is a legal contract to sort out some legal issues for people who choose to commit to each other for life or a long period of time and share their lives. If you want to attach other ideas to it, go right ahead, but that's all it is at its base.

You say that this is important/germane in regards to the argument I presented. The problem is that this is quite clearly irrelevant;

Apparently not, as you showed.

In other words, homosexuals and same-sex marriage supporters aren't asking "just leave me alone with my man/woman!"; they are asking something more akin to: "actively sponsor with your financial resources this relationship between me and my man/woman!"

Ah, there we go. Let's hit all of the usual points. No, that's not what's being said. When two people get a legal marriage, it doesn't require anything from anyone else, including financial resources. But even if it did, you're still arguing that we "sponsor with financial resources" heterosexual couples, so excluding gay couples is then discrimination.

A couple things: note how "adopting a child" is not the same as "having a child." Note, moreover, that, generally speaking, in order to adopt a child, you need the permission of the child's parents, i.e. his mother and father. Note even further that adoption is a child-centered institution that exists to give children the parents they need, not parents the children they want. Now, there exists countless sources of research that reveal that raising a child in the absence of either a mother or a father means that such a child will suffer in every standard of well-being. Children who are raised, for example, in fatherless families suffer, on average, in every measure of well-being. They have higher levels of physical and mental illness, educational difficulties, poverty, substance abuse, criminal behavior, loneliness, and physical and sexual abuse (much of this research is referenced in David Popenoe, Life Without Father, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996). Now, what is a lesbian couple but an example of a fatherless couple? What is a gay male couple but an example of a motherless couple? We can reason deductively, then, as follows:

P1. Depriving a child of a mother or a father makes it so that he will suffer in every standard of well-being.

P2. Placing a child under a same-sex couple will inevitably and by definition intentionally deprive him of a mother or a father.

C: Therefore, we ought not promote same-sex parenting.

1) Your stats about fatherless families are based on families with only one parent. That only shows differences between single-parent families and families with two parents, and the gender of the parents is irrelevant.

2) There are plenty of studies showing children of same-sex couples do just as well or better than children of opposite-sex couples.

In other words, all of these words of your are wasted. The fact is there's no reason to discourage gay couples from raising kids.

There's the rub; a same-sex couple cannot possibly "have a baby biologically." Instead, a same-sex couple must either adopt (which, all things being equal, ought to not be promoted) or else one of the members of the same-sex couple must either become pregnant by external means (in the case of a lesbian couple), or must impregnate a woman by external means (in the case of a gay male couple). But then 100% of the time, at least one of the members in the same-sex marriage is not a father or a mother of the child.

You still didn't show that they can't have a baby biologically. You do realize a lot of hetero couples can't have kids without external help, right?

Anyway, the point is none of this talk about children has anything to do with whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal.

Advocates of same-sex parenting and marriage, that's who! Advocates of same-sex parenting and marriage hold that a same-sex couple should either be able to adopt a child, or otherwise to intentionally produce a child artificially and then to intentionally place him or her in a situation in which he/she is intentionally denied a mother or a father (and, in many, cases a relationship with his/her biological mother and father). But this is just grossly unjust; a compassionate society comes to the aid of motherless or fatherless children. We don’t intentionally design families to deny children a mother or father. But that’s the result of same-sex parenting.

Your previous statement still doesn't apply. You said: "Who advocates giving children to adults simply because they want a child?". That would apply to anyone who thinks anyone should be able to adopt or have kids; it wouldn't just apply to supporters of same-sex marriage, if it's true.

Now, you're still working off the assumption that there's something wrong with a child not having a father or a mother. Once we get rid of that assumption, since it's completely false, your concerns here go away.

I don't think that same-sex couples (nor single women, for example) should ever be allowed to produce a child by artificial means and then intentionally deny him/her a mother and a father (or a relationship with both his mother and father) just because they "want to." That is not a good enough reason to intentionally and unjustly deny a child a mother and/or father. While I am not opposed to same-sex adoption outright, I don't think it should be promoted and I think it should be used as a last resort (say, if there are no heterosexual couples available for the child). But, besides what you may think, there is no such shortage of heterosexual couples available to care for adoptees.

Well, I'm glad you're not in charge of this stuff then. Also, there is a shortage of heterosexual couples to care for kids who need it. That's why there are so many kids who need to be adopted.

 

[Magic Man]

[FONT=&quot]This is about as asinine as it is question-begging. You see, you are simply assuming that something can only be immoral if it causes some "verifiable harm."

Please don't call a comment of mine asinine and then go on to provide this kind of nonsense as a rebuttal. Nothing I've said implies something can only be immoral if it causes some verifiable harm. What I've said quite clearly is that the legal system is only concerned with things that cause verifiable harm. I've also said you can argue your own opinion on morality all you want, but it will have no effect on the law unless you can prove some kind of harm.

This is just utterly naive.

I think you need to clean your mirror. The only thing naive here is thinking there's something wrong with a same-sex couple raising kids, despite the fact that common sense and studies show you're wrong.

No one is denying that marriage as something or other to do with law (it clearly does). What people are denying is that it is just a private contract.

This doesn't make any sense. Legal marriage is a legal contract between two people. That's all it is.

Again, this is just indicative of a lack of knowledge on the nature of ethics and its relation with law. Contrary to what you claim, harm is not the only basis for the criminalizing of an act.

Sorry, but this is indicative of a lack of knowledge on the nature of ethics and its relation with law. Harm is the basis for making something illegal. It's true that sometimes the majority gets to make something illegal simply because they don't like it (as with homosexuality in the past, and same-sex marriage now), but those mistakes tend to get remedied in time. Harm is the standard, as it should be. If we just go by people's personal opinions of morality, there's no way to judge which one to go with, since they're all just personal opinions. That's why we need a verifiable standard to use, and that is harm.

If driver licenses exist to grant some adult the legal permission to conduce a vehicle, provided that such a person is deemed to be a sufficiently well-equipped driver, then it would so be discriminatory or unjust to deny someone who is a sufficiently well-equipped driver a license simply because he is, say, Asian. It would not be discriminatory, though, to deny, say, a child a license, or an individual who is not a sufficiently well-equipped driver a license.

Good, then you agree banning same-sex marriages is indeed discrimination.

Good, at least you are finally attempting to interact with the argument. So how is it that the premises are false, as you seem to imply?

This would be a lot easier if you'd pay attention. I've already addressed your question and your argument. The premises are false because number one ignores the significant differences between marriages between several people and marriages between two people, and number two wrongly assumes that all supporters of same-sex marriage are against polygamous marriages.

If it is "not new" and has been "addressed many times," then it should be rather easy for you to defeat it. Yet you still haven't attempted to do so.

Not only have I attempted, I have actually defeated it. Whether you want to acknowledge it is your problem. But I'm seeing how you've managed to keep your ridiculous views for so long.

No one is claiming that it will be "simple" to institute polygamous marriages; the argument I provided seeks to demonstrate that the supporter of same-sex marriage has, in principle, no grounds upon which to rationally deny any conceivable configuration of individuals who are "lovingly committed" to one another the ability to "marry." You seem to implicitly accept as much when you write:

"But if those issues can be worked out, most (or at least many) supporters of same-sex marriage don't have a problem with it."

So this just seems to be a concession of P1.

As I've said, if the legal issues with polygamy can be ironed out, then there is no reason not to allow them, but they're still not on the same level as same-sex marriages, which is the implication with P1.

Right, then you'd be saying that P2 is false; that supporters of same-sex marriage are open to accepting any conceivable configuration of individuals who might be "lovingly committed" to one another to be able to "marry." But as I said, claiming P2 is false comes with a high price tag for then the supporter of same-sex marriage has reduced his position to the absurd.

How has he reduces his position to the absurd? You can't just claim it as if it's fact without giving some kind of support. There's nothing absurd about letting any informed consenting adults get married, whether it's two or more of them. You seem to be going with the "But...but...that's just absurd", as if everyone's just supposed to accept your assumption.

 

[Amandi]

Well I hope you at least agree with the stability portion then.

But I will try to explain. A male has potentially unlimited reproduction potential while a female has a much more limited reproduction potential. Encouraging males to limit their reproductive partners to one female, encourages more responsible reproduction.

Yes, it is possible that one man have 9 wives and only 2 children. However, this is not what we often see in polygamous relationships. Moreover, we are then encouraging one man to have more than one wife. Doing this takes away from the our intent to encourage more responsible reproduction.

But even without this argument we still are confronted with the stability argument and the special duty argument. The obligations imposed by marriage are statutory creatures that the state has the authority and ability to preserve and protect. Thus, the practice of denying legal marriage to more than two people will survive a due process claim. This however, would not prevent people from living in this type of relationship or getting extra religious marriages, the extra marriages would just have no legal validity. This would also take care of the fraud issue. However, the stability issue is more sensitive.

I do think a lot of legal hurtles would have to be worked out. Once that is done, it is fine with me for them to get legally married.