Wednesday, March 03, 2010

Facebook Debate on Same-Sex Marriage: Part 2

Here is Part 2 in my debate on same-sex marriage. Also see Part 1. My words will be in tan, Windy's in brown, Josh's in gray, and E.D.'s in the golden brown color that I typically use for Scripture verses. Mine is the only voice in favor of traditional marriage.

Let's get right to it:

if you claim to recognize red herring arguments, can you at least see that the majority of your points are slippery slope arguments (logical fallacies)? In other words, if we do A, it'll lead to B, C, and D. Or, "if we allow same sex marriages, it'll lead to mothers marrying sons, people marrying goats, etc. Faulty argument form, unless you can prove that A NECESSARILY leads to B, C, D. You can't.

Ok, now, the "rights" point. Legal or civil rights are rights granted by a political system. Natural or moral rights are rights that are not contingent upon laws. Natural/moral rights are universal, and not dependent upon a particular governing party. I think a main difference is that some people see same sex marriage as a natural right, and others see it as a civil right. Nonetheless, it's pretty easy to distinguish that any law that discriminates against a certain group (or person) ought not to be a law. And shouting "this is amurica, you can love it or leave it" isn't really what our democratic process is about. A ban on same sex marriage is ENTIRELY religious based, as are many of our laws. Ought we have laws based upon religious beliefs? No. Do we? Sadly, yes.

Ok, the "hating on African Americans" part is pretty self-explanatory. You stated that laws were based upon morality and implied that if something is illegal, it's because it's immoral. It was pointed out that if that were true, it would be morally right to own slaves, as it was once allowed by law. ... See More

BTW, if your interested, here's a link to other logical fallacies. Back in undergrad, I took a class called "Logic and Mr. Limbaugh" where we dissected arguments he'd made, seeing that most of them were fallacies. Christian apologists use many of the same faulty argument forms.

here's a link to a good essay listing the various arguments against gay marriage.

My friend Julie posted this on my wall.....
"Same-sex marriage has very little to do with the kind of things talked about in the passgaes of the Bible that some people think refer to homosexuality. Homosexuality as we know it today was not referenced until the mid 1800's and the word "homosexuality" is never used in the Bible. Even opposite sex ... See Moremarriage was quite different then, than it is ... See Morenow. Cherry-picking those laws that we still want to enforce (usually on others) is often just a way of feeling better about our own failures. Here is an excellent resource that describes how many Christians view the "clobber pasages"" (0.06%) of the Bible: http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/whatthebiblesays.pdf

E.D. .... to respond to your previous comment, I was not using the "slippery slope" argument b/c I never said, nor do I think, that legal acceptance of same-sex marriage will necessarily lead to legal acceptance of the other relationships I listed. Windy said that "all consenting adults should be granted the same privileges and rights as any other human is allowed." I was simply pointing out that, if we use that criteria to determine which relationships society should legally recognize, then we would have to begin recognizing incestuous relationships as well. Just because two adults happen to consent to the relationship and even want it a great deal, that itself does not prove that the relationship should be recognized.

In your second paragraph you make many points that I would like to take in turn. First, I agree with your definition of legal/civil and natural/moral rights. But, the question remains: How do we determine whether or not someone has a legitimate claim to something? If it's a legitimate claim, it's a "right." If it's an arbitrary claim, it's a "want." I think a claim is legitimate only if it is justified morally, and if it has its basis in some good that should be honored. Under this definition, same-sex marriage cannot qualify as a right.

Now, I realize that this begs the further question: how do we determine whether or not something is moral or good? As a Catholic, the Bible and the teachings of the Church are my guide, and while one could argue that these should be the guides for ALL men, I think it is also true that natural law and every man's faculty of reason can and should also lead him to the conclusion that same-sex marriage is immoral and thus no one has a legitimate claim to it.

Some articles on how the irreligious man should come to this conclusion:You also said, "any law that discriminates against a certain group (or person) ought not to be a law." But, not all discrimination is unjust. Our laws against stealing discriminate against kleptomaniacs. Should they for that reason be repealed? Our laws against pedophilia discriminate against adults who are sexually attracted to minors. Should they for that reason be repealed? Arguing that a law should be repealed b/c it discriminates is not enough. You have to prove that the discrimination in question is unjust.

Finally, you said that "A ban on same sex marriage is ENTIRELY religious based," but that is "ENTIRELY" not true, as the articles I linked you to should adequately reveal.

The "hating on African Americans part" is based on argumentation that I didn't even make, so it's entirely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Also, thank you for the link to the logical fallacies. I am already very well aware of them.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's ironic that supporters of gay marriage try to compare their cause with the civil-rights movement when the latest polls show that the majority of African Americans strongly oppose gay marriage

Anonymous said...

Julie is correct but her arguement is a "red herring". The Scriptures never condemn "homosexuality", that is true. That is, they do not condemn those with same sex attraction. What they condemn are those who participate in certain kinds of sexual behavior. In 1 Corinthians (?) Saint Paul lists "sodomites" and "catamites" (of course he uses the Greek equivilants) as among those who will not inherit the Kingdom. Obviously he is not referring to "gay people". He is referring to those who engage in sodomy.

Related Posts with Thumbnails