Argument from Consistency Contra Same-Sex Marriage

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The obvious ones that should come to anybody's mind and that I need not repeat here. But, of course, I really do need to repeat them here because the vast majority of people's intuitions seem to be hopelessly corrupted.

Indeed. For instance, just today, I saw someone whose intuition told him that his question-begging was a logical argument. Look:

Having an African American marry a Caucasian doesn’t impact the essential public purpose of marriage in any way whereas having a man "marry" another man clearly would.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How can an OP with such a flawed premise even go on for so long. It's so much obvious crap.

It's kind of like this, I think:

xkcd: Duty Calls

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Yes, and it is a public purpose if the government wants to encourage stability among its citizens.

This is too vague; might not the government pursue "stability among its citizens" by establishing a very powerful police presence in every street corner? Might not the government pursue "stability among its citizens" by mandating that they live in special government housing to keep an eye on them and force them to take on jobs to further "stabilize" the milieu? You're just giving a goal but not a means.

It is a public purpose if the government wants to encourage happiness of its citizens.

Might it not do so by, say, rewarding everyone with a million dollars? Again, this is just too vague.

It is a public purpose if the government wants to ensure support of the children of its citizens.

Again too vague. Might this not entail, for example, that children are taken to a facility away from their parents where they are raised by designated children-raisers and given federal funds?

all of the items I listed are for a public purpose. That is: the government feels that it is in the best interest of the public for the public to have options that make them stable, happy, etc.

One can be stable, happy, etc. without marriage. To be sure, the purpose of marriage certainly does stabilize, promote happiness, etc., but it does so by certain means, those being, of course, attaching mothers and fathers to their children and to one another.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

It's fine if you want that to be the purpose for your own marriage, but if you want others to give it any weight, you'll have to actually give an argument for your position.

What if I told you that I already have and that your not noticing it is you problem, not mine?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What if I told you that I already have and that your not noticing it is you problem, not mine?

Repeatedly stating your position is not an argument.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

How can an OP with such a flawed premise even go on for so long. It's so much obvious crap.

Glorious rebuttal. Crushing objection. I render to your unmatched wisdom and intellect.

 

[gnomon]

Glorious rebuttal. Crushing objection. I render to your unmatched wisdom and intellect.

Yet you cannot provide a logical proof that your first premise and your second premise leads to your conclusion. Which you actually labeled, incorrectly, your third premise.

Until you can logically connect two premises into a logical conclusion your spouting sophistry.

So I maintain my penis is more interesting. Nothing you have stated in this thread is more interesting than my penis. Namely because you cannot properly construct two premises leading to a conclusion.

So all hail the interestedness of my penis. Shall we put it to a poll?

Edit: Yes, I just invented the word interestedness. Isn't it great. That means we have achieved something with this thread. Which is creativity. Centered around my penis.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Yet you cannot provide a logical proof that your first premise and your second premise leads to your conclusion.

This is tantamount to claiming that my argument is logically invalid, i.e. that the premises do not deductively guarantee their conclusion. You probably have no idea what this means in the first place. But since you are charging that my argument is in fact logically invalid, then I press you to demonstrate just how so.

Which you actually labeled, incorrectly, your third premise.

Don't blame me, blame the bullet-point format.

Until you can logically connect two premises into a logical conclusion your spouting sophistry.

So says the guy who probably doesn't even know what "logic" even means in the first place.

Grow up, gnomon, or at least read a book or two.

 

[Curious George]

This is too vague; might not the government pursue "stability among its citizens" by establishing a very powerful police presence in every street corner? Might not the government pursue "stability among its citizens" by mandating that they live in special government housing to keep an eye on them and force them to take on jobs to further "stabilize" the milieu? You're just giving a goal but not a means.



Might it not do so by, say, rewarding everyone with a million dollars? Again, this is just too vague.



Again too vague. Might this not entail, for example, that children are taken to a facility away from their parents where they are raised by designated children-raisers and given federal funds?



One can be stable, happy, etc. without marriage. To be sure, the purpose of marriage certainly does stabilize, promote happiness, etc., but it does so by certain means, those being, of course, attaching mothers and fathers to their children and to one another.

yes, one can be stable and happy without marriage. But turning marriage into a legal contract was to encourage this.

I am sorry but these are the reasons. I am sorry you feel they are vague. The government can do that which it has been granted powers to do. Where the government oversteps that for which we have given the government authority, a problem arises. So some of your examples- I suppose the government could do these. For instance, if the government wanted to put a policeman on every corner and could fund such an aspiration, then yes- it could. But police power is traditionally a power over which a state has authority. So, when I say government here- I mean state. The second suggestion about mandate of government housing- This is outside the realm of constitutional authority. So no they could not.

However, recognizing marriage is within the realm of a state governments authority.


I could continue through your list if you really want. But I think that I have made my point. Let me know if the concept of government authority and public policy is still beyond your grasp, and I will try to remedy your lack of knowledge.

 

[gnomon]

This is tantamount to claiming that my argument is logically invalid, i.e. that the premises do not deductively guarantee their conclusion. You probably have no idea what this means in the first place. But since you are charging that my argument is in fact logically invalid, then I press you to demonstrate just how so.



Don't blame me, blame the bullet-point format.



So says the guy who probably doesn't even know what "logic" even means in the first place.

Grow up, gnomon, or at least read a book or two.

I've at least read three books.

Where does that leave us?

 

[Me Myself]

Again, why individuals get married is irrelevant; an individual could have an innumerable amount of reasons as to why he marries. These would just be private reasons which would not add up to any one public purpose of marriage.

What is relevant, then, is the essential public purpose of marriage. Which just is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another.

The public purpose of marriage is to validate legally the kind of union that the public wants to have legally validated. There was a time when this union meant a man and a woman.

Today the concept has expanded.


The law is created for the people. The public is created from the sum of all the individuals.

Thus, saying that the individual purposes of marriages are irrelevant to the public purpose of marriage is like saying color is irrelevant to a painting, fabric irrelevant to a rug, content irrelevant to message.

You dont determine the public purpose of marriage.

The public determines it.

 

[Me Myself]

Glorious rebuttal. Crushing objection. I render to your unmatched wisdom and intellect.

Oh no, it is not that he is glorious, it is more than your arguments dont set a high standard, so it may appear his arguments were glorious from down there from where you were..

 

[gnomon]

Oh no, it is not that he is glorious, it is more than your arguments dont set a high standard, so it may appear his arguments were glorious from down there from where you were..

Oh I am glorious.

All shall bask in my penis glory in this thread!:thud:'

Whether it be pointed laughter or recognition of absolute renal failure......it shall be penile glory. Let the angels sing! Let the scrotum tuck in! Without viagra even!

Not Plato, nor his student Aristotle or his other student Jimmy have achieved such argumentative success as I. I Penis. Even Derek Jacobi has extended an offer to portray my penis.

Ahh.

 

[Me Myself]

Oh I am glorious.

All shall bask in my penis glory in this thread!:thud:'

Whether it be pointed laughter or recognition of absolute renal failure......it shall be penile glory. Let the angels sing! Let the scrotum tuck in! Without viagra even!

Not Plato, nor his student Aristotle or his other student Jimmy have achieved such argumentative success as I. I Penis. Even Derek Jacobi has extended an offer to portray my penis.

Ahh.

I didnt say you werent glorious, I said that it's not that.

 

[Curious George]

The oublic purpose of marriage is to validate legally the kind of union that the public wants to have legally validated. There was a time when this union meant a man and a woman.

Today the concept has expanded.


The law is created for the people. The public is created from the sum of all the individuals.

Thus, saying that the individual purposes of marriages are irrelevant to the public purpose of marriage is like saying color is irrelevant to a painting, fabric irrelevant to a rug, content irrelevant to message.

You dont determine the public purpose of marriage.

The public determines it.

But the government also determines it. Granted we determine who governs us- so I guess this is very similar. But in some cases, Governments (the people) have wanted to make it illegal for homosexuals to get married. I think that this is overstepping their boundaries. Same-sex marriage should not be illegal even if 98% of the people do not want to allow same-sex marriage. This is because for every valid reason that marriage legally exists, same-sex marriage should also exist for those reasons. I gave a list of some of the reasons. If same sex marriage should exist for the reasons which heterosexual marriage does, then not allowing same-sex marriage violates both equal protection and due process in the 14th Amendment.

No state should be allowed to prevent same-sex marriage until there that state can overcome the 14th amendment arguments. In a time not so long ago, many courts upheld the denial of this civil right to same-sex couples based on the reasoning that there was not enough research to support same-sex marriage, so the legislature could reasonably error on the side of caution. Unfortunately, that time is no longer.

The states have had plenty of time to compile research, and there exist plenty of models that counter attitudes that allowing same sex marriage will cause the sky to fall. The OP is attacking a very specific argument for same sex marriage which is not the argument on which the courts that struck down DOMA or have allowed same sex marriage have relied. It is an overt use of intellectual dishonesty, in hopes to pigeonhole a couple of laymen advocates in a desperate attempt to win some hollow victory for purposes of self gratification.

Unfortunately for the OP, he devastatingly underestimated some of the members here. I am only sad that a couple of other users did not also add to this thread. But, I guess everyone has RL which demands attention or they get tired of having to reiterate the basics every time a anti-homosexual or anti-gay marriage thread surfaces.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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.

There were also cultures that had same-sex marriage or marriage including what we would call third gender people and others. It wasn't only between men and women.

Let's not even talk about how marriage largely had to do with property, arranged marriages marrying off little children, women not being to own property, etc.

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

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

 

[s2a]

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.

And I invite you to present compelling evidences that opponents of "gay marriage" are not bigots or religiously motivated...

I think, however, that, most of the time, these accusations are simply false.

Well, duh... bigots never see themselves as being so...

("I have nothing against colored people, as long as they know their place...")...*face palm*

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.).

Oh, you mean "bigots", ok...

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.

OK. sounds nearly coherent, except that lacking of any compelling evidences or examples on your part exempting... "I really really feel it's kinda really really bad"... because...

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).

Fair enough...

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."

Let's begin here then. IS is, or is it not? Do you see discrimination here. as exampled, or not?

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 on quotee another is valid, the real issue in contention, before the debate even gets started.

Wow. OK then...define for all for time everlasting then... the definitive definition of "marriage" as tou claim to understand it to mean?

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

Heavens no...

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.

Perhaps those folks that have remained in a committed and sustained relationship over 30 years might categorize a symbiotic relationship and shared ideals/goals/outcomes as a bit more that "liking" the other person (not, of course, to be confused with the 3 week everlasting "true romance" imbroglios that only hetero couples at age 17 can account as "true love"), perhaps then Fred and Bob might repent and send the Almighty a letter of apology for their 30 years of commitment to one another, bowing to the 48 hors of "true love" that Vegas seems to sprout like kudzu...

If only...

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.

It's not? Maybe that might explain the 50%+ divorce rate amongst hetero couples then?

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.

Agreed. We certainly would not wish to condone marriage, much less allow marriage, to be left in the hands of silly bubble headed people of any age, background, ethnicity, religion, or tastes in fried foods. We need the wise and experienced, um, you know, people like you to render judgement and unbiased opinion on such matters...

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.

So, please define what the "public purpose of marriage" must be to two folks in love that are 80+ years of age...

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).

It would? Interesting... but do continue...

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.

*face palm*

You DO understand, do you not... that the good ole U.S. of A., is first and foremost a nation of laws, established/enforced by citizens, and not imposed by adherents of specific religious beliefs or generalized nutjubs, correct? This may tend to explain why lynch mobs and the KKK do NOT exemplify ideals of democracy or protections of individual civil liberties...

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?

OK, so...it is...

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?

Awww. No definition? I'm so confused...

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

Well, you are of no help so far... but hey, who knows...

Now, I'd like to present the Argument from Consistency Contra same-sex marriage:

Oh goody...

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.

 

[s2a]

1. Cool. Kinda like what might be gleaned from reading the Old Testament in the Bible...except any aspects of "loving commitment" are not mentioned or deemed as mandatory therein, since women are only seen as chattel or property, like a herd of cows to be bartered... but who can say what "love" is with 18 wives, I mean...really?
   

   [*]Supporters of same-sex marriage are opposed to these configurations of marriage.

An interesting claim. Whom do you cite as source of such validations/proclamations?

1. Therefore, their position is incoherent.

I perceive more than a bit of incoherency here, but let's reserve judgement as to whether or not proponents of same-sex marriages are the confused ones in maters of law or even morality...

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.

Um...Bigot.

And yes, "slippery slope" arguments are, by their very definition, fallacious argument (saying it "ain't so" doesn't alter that flaw). Promising (or worse, foretelling of ""bad/awful/horrific outcomes") that "may/might/kinda maybe" forecasts of unknowable/unpredictable events is at very least mildly ignorant, and at worst...egregious fear mongering absent any and all available facts.

"It could happen" arguments are in line with similar claims that "The End is
Near!"

Well, of course it is, is it not?

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.

No, it's much easier than that.

Any, I mean ANY "slippery slope" fallacious rationale is discredited the moment it is demonstrably presented as false, or untrue. It no longer affords the "bogeyman" hypothesis as credible, nor provides and/or any evidences as disproof.

Fact is, marriage equality/same-sex unions/marriage has been ongoing around the globe for nearly two decades now... and almost a decade in the US.... and, what?

What slippery slope prediction of doom and gloom has befallen us? Has the Vatican imploded? Jerry Falwell University gone atheist? Some rise in matricide/fratricide/homicides? What?

Any drop offs of straight people getting married? Any? ANY?

Any higher incidences of divorce now in straight people married over 25 years? (you know...people like me and mine)?

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.

It is, of course, and most painfully, patently so.

You lose in crash and burn glory,...and may the gayness and equality of the pains, slings and arrows of same sex marriages haunt you to your dying and divorced alone days...

I look forward to your responses and feedback!


-- SD

I kinda doubt it, but share what you will...


Bigot

 

[McBell]

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

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

Since you have completely ignored this fact the whole thread....

 

[McBell]

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

I completely agree.
It is childish to prevent same sex marriage.

Now it is merely a question of how long will you be stomping your foot on the ground whining about it not being fair?

Your pretty little speeches sound new, but after one removes all the fluff and window dressing it is clear that you have not brought anything new to the debate.