Argument from Consistency Contra Same-Sex Marriage

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

No, that's not what I'm saying. Do read at least the OP, please.



That's not only dubious but irrelevant at any rate. If you'd notice, I'm not arguing or saying "marriage has been x-wise for a long time, therefore, we ought to keep it that way." What matters is what marriage should be.

Marriage is simply the formation of a social unit that can work more efficiently together than they can on their own. Much of it relies on the social ideas of what makes a man and what makes a woman. But overall it existed because there was a dependency. One individual on their own could not provide enough for themselves.


2 heads are better than one. It's the same reason why we form families, it is easier having multiple heads working towards a common goal.

I would argue that among the rich and well off back in the olden days of yore (speculation coming folks), you would find a less coherent family structure compared to the poor and down-trodden.

 

[McBell]

The Regnerus Study is the most comprehensive study on same-sex parenting that there is available at the moment. The ASA, however, being the bastion of pro-same-sex marriage and LGBT thinking, is obviously motivated to dismiss the Regnerus study to the best of their ability, for its conclusions sit at odds with their prior ideological commitments. Never mind, of course, that the ASA has also been home to the sham advocate science "research" that has come to the conclusion that "it makes no difference whether children are raised in opposite-sex or same-sex couples" based on asking same-sex parents the question: "how are your kids doing?"

Regnerus Study Controversy Threatens Debate Over Marriage and Family Issues

Family Research Council

Was the Regnerus Study on Gay Parenting Defective? | Crisis Magazine

You have just lost what little credibility you had.

 

[McBell]

What matters is what marriage should be.

Who gets to decide what marriage should be?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Who gets to decide what marriage should be?

People who have been dead for over 2000+ years who decided that things need to be a certain way.

And now we still follow it because people who you don't know, and never knew you decided they knew what was better for you than you did.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's not only dubious but irrelevant at any rate. If you'd notice, I'm not arguing or saying "marriage has been x-wise for a long time, therefore, we ought to keep it that way." What matters is what marriage should be.

Denying same-sex marriage says, effectively, that same-sex couples and same-sex-parented families shouldn't have basic, important rights when they need them most. The legal rights of marriage often matter most at times of major crisis, like when a spouse is incapacitated or dies.

Denying same-sex couples these important rights basically amounts to kicking people when they're down. It takes a lot for me to call something evil, but opposing same-sex marriage fits that bill: IMO, opposing same-sex marriage is evil.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Instead of quoting and picking apart a bunch of statements I just suggest this:
I don't know of any same-sex marriage supporters who also support incest. But with that said, the definition of incest varies. In Western society it was only very recently that first-cousin pairing became frowned upon. Polygamy is frowned upon, even though there have been more polygamist cultures than monogamist ones. You may want to do abit of anthropological research into culture and sexuality, because the idea of the "one man-one woman nuclear family" is very foriegn and unheard of in some places, and in some places it would require a complete restructuring of that culture.
There is also the fact that marriage can mean and be alot of things. In a particular culture (I do believe Indian), marriage was a man giving a woman an appropriate gift at the appropriate time, and a woman could have any number of husbands. When a pregnancy happened the husband who stood up to take the responsibilities of fatherhood became the father, regardless of genetic paternity. In a village in Papua New Guinea, the more pigs and yams you have, the wealthier you are, which means you will have more wives to help grow the yams and tend to the pigs (and it is the pigs that are the true status of wealth). And our contemporary Western idea of love and romance has only recently been acknowledged and studied psychologically and physiologically. Plenty of people where arranged marriages are still practices say they would be intimidated by the way we do things. And of course we tend to think arranged marriages (although it being the norm throughout history as it has served the good of family and community) are very bad because it is a foreign idea to us.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Denying same-sex marriage says, effectively, that same-sex couples and same-sex-parented families shouldn't have basic, important rights when they need them most. The legal rights of marriage often matter most at times of major crisis, like when a spouse is incapacitated or dies.

Denying same-sex couples these important rights basically amounts to kicking people when they're down. It takes a lot for me to call something evil, but opposing same-sex marriage fits that bill: IMO, opposing same-sex marriage is evil.

:clap
Denying same-sex marriage inherently is stating that you think homosexuals are not deserving of the same rights afforded to heterosexual couples. It doesn't matter the reasons why are against you, you still view homosexuality as "less-than."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

:clap
Denying same-sex marriage inherently is stating that you think homosexuals are not deserving of the same rights afforded to heterosexual couples. It doesn't matter the reasons why are against you, you still view homosexuality as "less-than."

It's not even a matter of equality. You don't need to think gay people should be treated just like straight people to realize that when a gay man or lesbian woman's partner just died, that's not the time to try to make their life worse.

Even the biggest carnivore still won't kick an injured dog. It's not about equality; it's about the smallest measure of decency.

 

[Me Myself]

It's not even a matter of equality. You don't need to think gay people should be treated just like straight people to realize that when a gay man or lesbian woman's partner just died, that's not the time to try to make their life worse.

Even the biggest carnivore still won't kick an injured dog. It's not about equality; it's about the smallest measure of decency.

Good point.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Marriage should be what is best for it to be at the society at the time.

What's best for society is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. Same-sex marriage, whether its proponents realize this or not, will greatly undermine that goal.

It is best for now that marriage can be recognised in the case if homosexual couples so to value their rights and validate their union to the same extent we value heterosexual union and to give them the legal rights that heterosexual couples do share today so that they can also enjoy them.

Except that marriage doesn't exist to "value someone's rights and validate someone's union"; that's just emotional nonsense. You don't need marriage to "feel validated." You don't need marriage to "feel valued." That's like thinking: "gee, my relationship with Fred just doesn't feel valued by the public and the government." Better make it everybody's business to fund my relationship with Fred. Of course, it is neither the state nor the public good's interest whether, say, Fred has fuzzy feelings for Bob. But that's what same-sex marriage entails. Just one large, useless government registry of friendships because if not "we might hurt someone's feelings" or some such nonsense.

 

[Curious George]

Of course there have been unwanted children ever since the dawn of time. I'm not denying that. What I pointed out was that, given the availability of contraception and the loosening of sexual moral mores (e.g. sexual exclusivity, marriage being the proper context for childbearing and sex, etc.), having "unwanted children" has become more or less the norm.

Really. Evidence? Or just doomsday outlook?

Well, isn't it just obvious? A same-sex couple cannot "have a child." In order for a same-sex couple to come across raising a child, the child must either accidentally or intentionally separated from his parents, and in 100% of the cases, at least one of the individuals in a same-sex couple will not be the child's parent. In the case of a single man or woman artificially producing a child, the man/woman is intentionally creating a state of affairs in which such a child will be deprived a relationship with his or her mother or father, if not both. Now, just think about how selfish and childish this is; an adult in such a case is implicitly saying that his/her wants or happiness is more important that the well-being of a child. That's just children behaving like toddlers, demanding they get something of their desire because "they want it" and running roughshod over the pernicious consequences of their petty desire being satisfied.

Not one hundred percent of the cases. I suppose we could have a case where one of the parents had a sex change. But I realize that you are talking about the majority of the cases. But your case still assumes that the biological parent is better than an adoptive parent. And in the case of a sterile mother and father who utilize fertilization the child is also being denied their biological mother or father. No one is putting their own selfish desires above the best for the children. When people adopt it should be based on their ability and want to provide for the child. This half-arsed argument of yours that it is better to systemically avoid parents who can do this or deny in vitro fertilization based on the parents sexual orientation is ignorant. You must support your premise that the child cannot get what they need. To argue that they could have gotten something better is a joke. I would agree that if two couples want to adopt then the choice should not be a first come first serve but based on the couple that will best benefit the child. However, I do not see how sexual orientation provides any basis on which to make such a judgement.

This must be a joke. The claim that mothers and fathers (and men and women generally) are not interchangeable is not controversial in the slightest. Put to one side that fact that the claim that mothers and fathers provide unique contributions to the raising of child is well supported by decades of research; mind just how banal and obvious such a claim is. That you think that mothers and fathers don't offer unique contributions to the raising of a child is not just disconfirmed by empirical evidence; it is wholly and obviously contrary to our most basic intuitions and common wisdom. But, of course, your support of same-sex marriage compels you to cling to such absurd, counter-intuitive and preposterous suppositions. It is frankly just so sad that you think it offensive or "a stereotype" to suggest that men and women are not interchangeable or that mothers and fathers provide unique contributions to child-rearing.

Absolutely not a joke. What is the role of the father, what is the role of the mother. What do these separate roles give a child that the other does not. Surely, if there is so much evidence, you will have no trouble pinpointing that which can not be provided elsewhere, but is guaranteed to be provided when there is both a mother and father present. Your problem is that you are taking statistical relevancy and trying to transpose those results on an individual basis. This is not how we should make our adoption laws. In a sensitive area such as adoption we need to look at each situation individually. That is what is the best for the child. What will generally be good for the child or what can generally be harmful for the child might very well get us started in our investigation of what is best, however such information will not provide sound reasoning for not allowing people to adopt. That you cling to such notions and think that you have provided a comprehensive case for rationalized class discrimination only highlights personal biases or lack of understanding on your part.

Well, isn't it obvious? It is because, as years of empirical evidence and our empirically-verified common wisdom reveal, a child needs a mother and a father for his well-being and that depriving him of either is pernicious to his well-being.

wrong. You say "needs" and you have yet to provide any source that evidences this point. It is not a need. I will gladly agree that their are studies that suggest a child is statistically likely to benefit from having both mother and a father. But, you have to deal with each study to have any sort of understanding. However, you are confusing causation with correlation. These sophomoric errors of yours are getting in the way of any progress.

In fact, it is you who is making the absurd claim here: you're claiming that men and women are interchangeable, that there are no differences between men and women, that mothers and fathers provide no unique contributions to child-rearing, and that, say, a woman could be a good father, or that a man could be a good mother. As I said, each one of these suppositions is utterly wildly absurd and contrary to our most basic apprehensions. But that is what a commitment to a gender-neutral idea of marriage compels you, of course.

No. You have misunderstood me. I am saying that people provide unique contribution to child-rearing, and any evidence that you can bring that suggest there are sex-based similarities does not exclude a member of the opposite sex from being able to provide similar contributions. Moreover, you can not give an example of a unique contribution that is only given by one sex and cannot be provided by a couple that was of the opposite sex. Thus, we should focus on the contributions a family can provide when looking at adoption.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

How much consideration do you think an argument against interracial marriage would warrant?

That depends on whether you can produce an argument with true premises which deductively guarantee the conclusion "therefore, we ought not accept interracial marriages."

But, let's not pussyfoot; you're suggesting or preparing to suggest that interracial marriages and same-sex marriages are analogous and that where we were once being big meanies in not allowing interracial marriages, we are so being big meanies by not allowing same-sex marriages.

Of course, however, same-sex "marriages" and interracial marriages are not at all analogous. A Caucasian man and a, say, African American woman can fulfill the public purpose of marriage -- that is, attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another -- whereas a same-sex couple cannot. marriages bind males and females for the long term and protect the rights children have to be with their parents. Male-female unions are the precise kind of pairing that produces children and provides the ideal environment to raise them. Having an African American marry a Caucasian doesn’t impact that function in any way. Of course, such suggestion -- that same-sex "marriage" is analogous to interracial marriages -- is, once examined, clearly bogus, but it has great rhetorical effect.

 

[gnomon]

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

Verbose, irrational and inconsistent crap.

What I can't stand is when people who adhere to a religious perspective on certain issues, such as Catholicism, try to put forth inane arguments for their view when their own supposed historical view doesn't stand up.

And for the record I've already grown up. Grown up enough to recognize this crap. In order to "logic" away same sex marriage many religious believers attempt to argue that any number of people should be allowed to get married. Never minding the fact that their own religious tradition, be it the Jewish religious tradition or whatever that forms the basis of their theology, allowed for multiple marriages among living human beings. Namely that Polygamy was an accepted form among such religions. But now they state that suddenly God wouldn't want this. Only dependent on what time frame one lived in. Never mind the age of the female. But that's another issue. Sure, there are some of you out there who would claim that God provided a new revelation since certain ancient times. Well who cares?

Let's take point one. Point one is the modern day current definition of Christian marriage among Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox views. The marriage of love. Well who says that a love between one man and many women isn't acceptable. Not the Bible. The Bible for all three of those and even Jewish and Islamic concepts is just fine with it.

Number two. There is no evidence that the majority of supporters of same sex marriage do not exhibit the same exemptions against polygamous marriages as those opposed. Therefore argument number two is invalid. As well as number three.

So what do we have here.

******* nonsense.

That's all.

I don't look forward to the OP's response. Because I have a feeling it will be utter crap.

There you go. You know where it is and what to do with it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What's best for society is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. Same-sex marriage, whether its proponents realize this or not, will greatly undermine that goal.

As well as being false, this claim is a red herring, because when it comes to families, there are only two options available in the same-sex marriage debate:

- same-sex-parented families will have the rights and protections of marriage.
- same-sex-parented families won't have the rights and protections of marriage.

Granting marriage rights to same-sex couples provides benefits to those couples and to the children they raise. That's it. Everything else is common to both options, and therefore not a rational basis to choose between them.

Same-sex marriage helps same-sex couples and their kids and neither helps nor harms everybody else. It's a net positive for society regardless of one's opinion on whether opposite-sex couples are better than same-sex couples.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

How is it "dubious"? That's plain and simple truth. The concept of marriage is not static and never has been.

If you'd take an honest look at history, you'd see that all societies have had some form of marriage -- that is, an institution that exists to unite men and women to one another and to their children. To be sure, it can and has been modified in various ways according to human law, but it largely has not be altered in its fundamental ends, which are procreation and the emotional bonding of the man and woman who procreate. Moreover, marriage is a pre-political institution.

Well, the West is making the decision more and more that same-gender couples should be included. What, exactly, is the issue? I fail to see what the problem is.

That they shouldn't be because marriage is not just people having fuzzy feelings for one another, to mention just one issue.

 

[Curious George]

"Cliches and generalities"

Please, George. One cannot have an intelligible discussion about circumstantial topics without the use of phrases like "all things being equal." To illustrate:

Suppose someone asked me: “Isn’t it better for a child to be adopted by a gay couple than to not be adopted at all?” I often hear this question loaded with two scenarios:

• Scenario A: The child lives in an institution, is routinely neglected, given poor nutrition, and often physically and sexually abused.
• Scenario B: The child lives with two loving women who are lesbians, who have stable jobs, live in a house, and have lots of family in the area.
• The question: Wouldn’t it be better for the child to be adopted by the lesbians and grow up under scenario B?

Well, sure, I guess when you construct the options that way, who will argue with you? I guess the child would be better off with the lesbians. So what’s that prove? Nothing.


I could construct two scenarios in a different way. What if the lesbians didn’t have a stable relationship, couldn’t keep steady jobs, experienced domestic violence in their home, and often used drugs. The other adoptive option was a married heterosexual couple (one a doctor and the other a teacher), who lived in the same home for 18 years, and who had already adopted a child.


Given those two options, wouldn’t it be better for the child to be adopted by the heterosexual couple? Sure, but what’s that prove? That you can construct any combination of scenarios designed to prove that a certain set of people would be better parents.


But you don’t determine public policy based on the exception or extreme case. For example, there might be some instances when it’s justified to run a red light -- like rushing a dying person to the emergency room -- but that doesn’t mean we should make running red lights legal. That’s bad public policy.

We do not have to make the case extreme to see that same sex adoption should be both allowed and encouraged.

It reminds me of Zach Wahls, the 19 year-old University of Iowa student who made an impassioned appeal for same-sex marriage and parenting to the Iowa House of Representatives. His YouTube video went viral after he argued that his lesbian mothers did a fine job of raising him. Maybe they did, but you can’t generalize one’s person’s experience for an entire group of people. Just because two homosexuals were able to raise a healthy, well-adjusted child (assuming they did), that doesn’t mean homosexual couples – as a group – make the best parents.


Many single fathers have to raise children by themselves. They do the best they can given their circumstances. I’m sure some of these children will declare themselves -- like Zach Wahls -- to be just fine. But does that mean we should promote single male adoption?

I see no reason not to promote single male adoption or single female adoption. If the parent can provide a household in which the child's needs are met, I am all for the idea.

The real question is whether a child who needs to be adopted is best served by a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple -- all things being equal. The question focuses on the needs of the child, not the wants of homosexuals who are politically motivated to normalize same-sex marriage and parenting.

No. The real question is which of these two couples can best provide for the child. You do not have to bring in the homosexual vs heterosexual concept at all, because you will not find two couples who are equal.

It sounds like you want the policy of giving preferential treatment to heterosexual couples, yet have failed to give evidence of why. You have tried to formulate some asinine argument about parental deprivation but have managed to say absolutely nothing of relevance. The child should have a house that provides for their needs. That is it. Let us look at stability, income, experience with children and other qualities that bear relevance. If you feel sex bears so much relevance then please tell me which of the child's needs are not met. (and saying their need to have a mother and a father is more bad logic. But, at this point I do not put such past you).

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Who gets to decide what marriage should be?

Does that matter? What matters is that we "decide" correctly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That depends on whether you can produce an argument with true premises which deductively guarantee the conclusion "therefore, we ought not accept interracial marriages."

But, let's not pussyfoot; you're suggesting or preparing to suggest that interracial marriages and same-sex marriages are analogous and that where we were once being big meanies in not allowing interracial marriages, we are so being big meanies by not allowing same-sex marriages.

Of course, however, same-sex "marriages" and interracial marriages are not at all analogous. A Caucasian man and a, say, African American woman can fulfill the public purpose of marriage -- that is, attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another -- whereas a same-sex couple cannot. marriages bind males and females for the long term and protect the rights children have to be with their parents. Male-female unions are the precise kind of pairing that produces children and provides the ideal environment to raise them. Having an African American marry a Caucasian doesn’t impact that function in any way. Of course, such suggestion -- that same-sex "marriage" is analogous to interracial marriages -- is, once examined, clearly bogus, but it has great rhetorical effect.

Funny... I would've thought with that long a post, you would've been able to work an actual answer in there somewhere.

Let's try again: How much consideration do you think an argument against interracial marriage would warrant?

 

[Curious George]

Funny... I would've thought with that long a post, you would've been able to work an actual answer in there somewhere.

Let's try again: How much consideration do you think an argument against interracial marriage would warrant?

Well I suppose an interracial couple deprives their child of having a mother and father of the same race as the child. And as long as we can use this type of irrationality to come up with arguments we think are viable....

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Denying same-sex marriage says, effectively, that same-sex couples and same-sex-parented families shouldn't have basic, important rights when they need them most. The legal rights of marriage often matter most at times of major crisis, like when a spouse is incapacitated or dies.

Denying same-sex couples these important rights basically amounts to kicking people when they're down. It takes a lot for me to call something evil, but opposing same-sex marriage fits that bill: IMO, opposing same-sex marriage is evil.

Yes, by denying same-sex couples to "marry," we're just being big meanies. This is just childish.

One can respond to this in various ways. Allow me to try an analogy:

Say that there exists a public restroom. This public restroom is unisex (that is, one can use it regardless of whether he or she is a male or female, provided it is vacant, etc.). Now, suppose that the restroom is vacant. Would it be unfair or unjust to deny a female from using this restroom on the grounds that she is a female? Well, of course it would be unfair, as that restroom exists for the purpose of accommodating either males or females. This is analogous to the definition of marriage supporters of same sex "marriage" seem to be presenting or pre-supposing, namely, that marriage exists to join/recognize just any configuration of individuals who are lovingly committed to one another. Just as it would be unfair or unjust to not allow a woman to use a restroom that exists to accommodate either men or women, it would be unfair and unjust to disallow, say, 4 men from "marrying" one another if marriage just is people who are "lovingly committed" to one another if marriage exists to join/recognize individuals who are "lovingly committed" to one another.


Now, consider another public restroom. This public restroom, however, exists to accommodate females only (that is, this restroom is a women's restroom). Now, would it be unfair or unjust to deny a man from entering and using such a restroom? No! Not at all because this bathroom exists for a specific purpose, namely, to accommodate women and women exclusively, not men. So we are not being "big meanies" and we're not being "evil" by "denying this man a right" he doesn't have in the first place. This would be crudely analogous to the view of marriage I and others espouse, that being, namely, that marriage exists to permanently attach a man and a woman to each other and to any children that may come from their union upon which the children depend on for their well-being and stability. Now, just as it would not be unfair or in any way unjust to disallow a man from entering and using a restroom that exists to accommodate women, it would similarly not be in any way unfair or unjust to deny marriage to any sort of configuration of individuals which is not one man and one woman (along other considerations, such as individuals who are related, or individuals who are already married, or individuals who are underage, etc.).

Put simply, Penguin, we cannot even begin to contemplate whether we are treating people "unfairly" or "unjust" or whether we are "discriminating against them" when it comes to marriage if we don't know what the purpose of marriage is in the first place.


Now, one may say something additional to what has already been said:

Say marriage really does exist to attach a man and a woman to each other and to their children, upon whom... etc., etc., etc.

If this is the case, can a homosexual marry?

Well, of course he can! All that entails, of course, is that he can only marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else. In this case, no one has the right to marry someone of the same sex. Everyone in this case has the exact same type and amount of restrictions as to whom they can and cannot marry. So one cannot sensibly say that anyone is being treated "unfairly."