Argument from Consistency Contra Same-Sex Marriage

[Me Myself]

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.

That's merely an unevidenced hypothesis of yours.

Same sex marriage has made the world a better place.

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."

No, I dont need it to feel validated or valued. At least not right now, but if I did, I would expect society to back me up on it, so I backing up other human beings who do feel the need for it.

I know I do want someday to be married to a beautiful woman who loves me for who I am and I want society to validate this union. Just because of that, I dont want society to reject this for any woman who would want the very same thing nor any man who would want a husband.

If you dont find sense on such emotion, then that's just you. Millions of people around the world do find sense on such emotions.

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.

Its simple: people want it and it is good for society, so it is good that it exists.

The reality is that it is not the same emotion as friendship for most married people, even though there should also exist great friendship between the couple in the marriage.

If you dont have a romantic bone in your body, then just accept it by hearsay from those of us who do.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

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.

That's irrelevant. If the grounds upon which the supporter of same-sex marriage commit him on the pain of irrationality to also accept incest and he thereby doesn't, then his position is incoherent.

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.

I'm not sure what to respond to this. I suppose "thanks for the history anthropology lesson" would suffice. But, more substantively, one may not that there is a difference between marriage's essential public purpose and private reasons why people may marry. Marriage's public purpose is to attach a man and a woman to each other and to their children, upon whose stability the children depend on for their well-being. Now, however, one may have a laundry list of private reasons as to why s/he wants to marry. Someone may want to marry, for example, to become more financially secure. One may want to marry to anger their ex-boyfriend. One may marry to host a lavish wedding reception in a luxurious Thai resort to gain the favor of a select group of easily inebriated socialites. And so on, and on. These private reasons, however, are (I) irrelevant to the public purpose of marriage; and (II) don't add up to a single public purpose of marriage. You don't need marriage, for example, to host a reception in a Thai resort. You don't need marriage to anger your ex-boyfriend, etc.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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."

Wow. You like to completely miss the point, don't you? I never talked about fairness; I talked about harm.

The purpose of any law - including laws regarding marriage - is the protection and benefit of society and the people in it. Knowingly, avoidably hurting people during some of the greatest crises of their lives is not the same as not being able to use a particular washroom.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

: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."

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?

 

[Curious George]

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 present 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."

I am glad you took the time to write this. The reason for marriage is certainly important. The reason for state recognized marriage is also important. However, the problem is that those reasons exist for same-sex marriage as well. Let us go through the list:

Support of the children: Yes
Encourages stability: yes
Encourage companionship: Yes
Encourage Happiness: Yes
Encourage Intimacy: Yes
Encourages security: Yes
Encourages expression: yes
Encourages fidelity: Yes


Literally every reason that exists to encourage marriage also exists to encourage same sex marriage. I know your really really really want to think that you have found good reason to deny same sex marriage. But, you have not. You are using recycled arguments and poor logic. So with all of these reasons to encourage same sex marriage, why should we not?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's irrelevant. If the grounds upon which the supporter of same-sex marriage commit him on the pain of irrationality to also accept incest and he thereby doesn't, then his position is incoherent.

I notice that you keep on appealing to consistency while ignoring the inconsistency in your own position:

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

 

[Sovereign Dream]

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.

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

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

Lol again. Need a kleenex, bro?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Exactly what do you think doesn't exist? I'm talking about the legal rights of civil marriage. I don't really care whether it matches up with your twisted model of marriage or not.

 

[Me Myself]

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?

Need the most basic human decency bro?

 

[Curious George]

Exactly what do you think doesn't exist? I'm talking about the legal rights of civil marriage. I don't really care whether it matches up with your twisted model of marriage or not.

His point was that you need the reasoning for the construction.

He is trying to say that he doesn't have to defend against the reasoning that it violates "equal protection" if there exists a reason in some cases (heterosexual) and not in other cases (homosexual).

Imagine life as a big parking lot. He is suggesting anyone can park in the regular spaces which would be akin to having relationships, but there are a few special parking spots (disable parking) that are reserved for some. Since there is good reason to have those reserved places it is okay to bestow the benefits of those places on a selected class of people.

Unfortunately, such logic can only exist iff the good reason doesn't also apply to everyone else. In the case of marriage, all reasons for which we legally recognize marriage also apply to same sex couples.

He wants you to provide reasons besides "it's not fair." Well, that is what he says. Reasons have been provided and he has passed them by.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Really. Evidence? Or just doomsday outlook?

Well, to mention one, have you any idea how many abortions are performed in the US alone? Might an abortion not be motivated by "not wanting" the child, perhaps?

Not one hundred percent of the cases. I suppose we could have a case where one of the parents had a sex change.

This is just silly semantics now. One cannot sensibly "change sexes." A man who "changes" into a woman is just a man with make up, a dress, and substantial plastic surgery who social sentiments compel us to call him "lady" purely out of formality.

But I realize that you are talking about the majority of the cases.

No, I'm talking about all the cases. In a same-sex couple, for any children that are placed in their care, 100% percent of the time, at least one of those individuals is not the child's biological parent.

But your case still assumes that the biological parent is better than an adoptive parent.

Earth to George: all things being equal, a child is best raised by his biological parents! That's why we feel pity for the child who is in an orphanage or who doesn't have a relationship with his mother or father.

And in the case of a sterile mother and father who utilize fertilization the child is also being denied their biological mother or father.

That depends on what you mean by "fertilization," George.

No one is putting their own selfish desires above the best for the children.

Take Elton John and his partner. They didn't adopt a child. Instead, they hired a womb and got some woman's eggs and created a child so that they can then intentionally deprive him (or her) of a relationship with his mother he is ordinarily entitled to just so that Elton John and his partner could pretend to be the happy heterosexual couple. If that doesn't exemplify being "selfish" and "putting their own desires above the best for the children," then what does?

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.

That's because you're intoxicated with that rosy "as long as they love him, it doesn't matter whether two men or two women or 7 men or 7 women raise a child" nonsense. As our intuitions and decades of research tell us, depriving a child of a mother or father is pernicious to his well being. The next best thing, generally speaking, for when a mother and a father, for whatever reason, cannot raise their child is to place that child under the care of another mother and father.

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.

But I have cited evidence, George, even though a claim so banal as "mothers and fathers are not interchangeable" or "mothers and fathers each contribute uniquely to child-rearing" is just common sense. Note too how you not only seemed to have surreptitiously attempted to shrug your burden of proof on me to show that women and men are not different, etc., but also that you do not even purport to defend your radical claims that "women and men are interchangeable," or that "mothers and fathers do not offer unique contributions to child-rearing," etc.

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.

Do explain how I'm "confusing causation with correlation," George.

No. You have misunderstood me. I am saying that people provide unique contribution to child-rearing

Oh, come on George. You're just backing down from your previous claim vis-a-vis some "you misunderstood me" schtick coupled with a handful of sophisms.

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.

George, are men and women interchangeable?

Do mothers and fathers not offer unique contributions to childrearing?

Can a mother be a good father?

Can a father be a good mother?

 

[Sovereign Dream]

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.

Wow. Great insight. You just defeated my argument. I am in awe. You are a champion of intellect and wisdom. Glorious refutation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He wants you to provide reasons besides "it's not fair." Well, that is what he says. Reasons have been provided and he has passed them by.

Yeah... I'm not sure where that whole "fairness" thing came from in his post, since he was responding to an argument I never made.

 

[gnomon]

Wow. Great insight. You just defeated my argument. I am in awe. You are a champion of intellect and wisdom. Glorious refutation.

Glad I could easily point out how your logical points failed to pan through.

Saved everyone many useless posts.

Unless you actually think your points are logical.

In which case this thread is a complete waste of time.

I'll start posting cat videos or something about cheese.

Which would you prefer.

Or do you actually want to talk about theology? That would be a trick.

edit: And I am an insightful *******.

 

[Curious George]

George, are men and women interchangeable?

Do mothers and fathers not offer unique contributions to childrearing?

Can a mother be a good father?

Can a father be a good mother?

Depends on the context.

no.

no.

no.


Now please answer:

What are the unique traits that mothers offer that are guaranteed to exist when a mother is present and a motherless relationship cannot also provide?

What are the unique traits that fathers offer that are guaranteed to exist when a father is present and a fatherless relationship cannot also provide?


I am not backing down. I am saying you cannot comprehend what I am laying down. If you read my words to suggest that mothers and fathers are interchangeable then you have missed the point. What I am saying is a child's needs can be met in a same sex marriage. You are the one who has asserted that they are not met. You used poor logic and now are trying to get me to argue some ludicrous point in order to feel that you are somehow right.

I am not saying mothers and fathers are interchangeable, I am saying that your proposition that mothers provide something special that only mothers can provide and fathers provide something special that only fathers can provide is wrong.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

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

Lol did you read my post at all? All things being equal, we absolutely should not allow and certainly not "encourage" adoption by same-sex couples.

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.

You don't see even one? How about that such a child be deprived of a mother or father?

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.

Ay, ay, ay, George. We cannot intelligibly speak of which type of couple should be able to adopt or which one would be "better" if we don't speak with an assumption of balance, for doing so just lends itself to the producing forth of point-missing "well, shouldn't a same-sex couple be able to adopt if the alternative was that the child be raised by drug addicts?" nonsense.

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).

Failed to give evidence of why? George, the answer is straightforward: decades of published research in psychology, social science, and medicine demonstrate that children do best when raised by a mother and father (especially the biological parents) in a long-term marriage (again, much of this research is referenced in David Popenoe, Life Without Father, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996). That’s because a mother and a father each provide a unique and important contribution to their role as parents. 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 (see Yale Medical School’s Dr. Kyle Pruett, Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child, New York: Free Press, 2000, 17-34).

Homosexual adoption, by design, will deny a child either a mother or father every time. By legalizing same-sex parenting, society declares by law that mothers and fathers are interchangeable. That means a mother offers no unique contribution to a child. A man could provide all the benefits of a woman.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

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

Unfortunately, however, no matter the length of your posts, I know I am in for a disappointment after reading each one.

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

If you'd kindly look at the first thing I wrote in my response:

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

 

[Sovereign Dream]

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....

Except, of course, that race isn't an important factor here while sex is. Glorious parody indeed.

 

[Me Myself]

Except, of course, that race isn't an important factor here while sex is. Glorious parody indeed.

What makes you think sex is any more relevant than race?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Unfortunately, however, no matter the length of your posts, I know I am in for a disappointment after reading each one.



If you'd kindly look at the first thing I wrote in my response:

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

Do you think this was an answer to my question?

So far, you've been exceedingly bad at guessing the intent and motives behind my posts. You'll save yourself embarrassment (some of it, anyhow) if you just respond to what I actually write.

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

Edit: if you don't want to answer, just say so.