« Links Mentioned on the 9/09/14 Show | Main | Christianity's Uniqueness »

September 10, 2014

Comments

I think that when someone says that the arguments that were used to justify banning interracial marriages are the same arguments now being used to justify banning same sex marriage, we need to ask a few questions:

1) Can you identify, exactly, what the argument is?

2) what are the premises in each case? Are they the same, or different? Are they true in each case? In which cases are the premises supported, if at all?

3) Why do you say this is the same argument?

My guess is that the only "sameness" of the arguments is that in both cases some person P claims that the Bible says X, therefore we ought to do Y.

But it doesn't follow that since in one case Y is clearly wrong, any argument that follows the same pattern is the same argument (and therefore also wrong).

We've had this argument before.

I think the argument Same-Sex Marriage proponents are making really just comes down to this.

  1. Same Sex Marriage proponents are talking about marriage and rights and stuff.
  2. Inter-Racial Marriage proponents are talking about marriage and rights and stuff.
  3. Inter-Racial marriage is OK.
  4. Therefore, Same-Sex Marriage is OK
Q.E.D.

When you press them to really prove that the cases of Same-Sex and Inter-Racial Marriage are logically isomorphic (which is the minimum condition for applying the same moral principles to both cases), they either fall flat on their faces trying to demonstrate the isomorphism, or they act as if the request indicates a pedantic and disputatious nature on your part. Or, often, the first followed by the second.

Great point, WL. I've found that people these days have a lot of difficulty analyzing things in terms of principles. They know the "right" words and the "right" outcomes, so they put the first together to achieve the second. It's not about thinking through principles anymore. This article haunts me.

Plenty of reason to think there is nothing wrong with homosexual marriage, without comparing it to racial marriage.

And plenty of inaccurate things said in the attempt to say homosexual marriage is immoral

“marriage between men and women is a pre-political, naturally emerging social institution. Men and women come together to create children, independently of any government.”

“By contrast,” Morse goes on to write, “same-sex ‘marriage’ is completely a creation of the state…."

Wrong wrong wrong. Sex has been going on since humans have existed, marriage is a social and political thing for as long as there has been marriage, there has been politics. In fact, the concept of marrying for love is a relatively new one, Marriage for the longest time has been about tying alliances, or increasing social standing, or gaining wealth, AKA politics. Marriages have always been a product of the state too, whether that state be big or small. (if it be a tribe, it would be a product of the tribal state/government.)

So herosexual sex is natural, and heterosexual marriages are a product of government.

So homosexual sex is natural, something people do on their own independent, or even in defiance of the state, something that has gone on a long time (as though amount of time is proof of anything) And of course being recognized by the state, just like heterosexuals, is at its core. No version of such laws require said unions be supervised by any religion that objects to them. Back when, marriage didn't matter to the state as much as it does now (things like, spouses and relatives can visit a sick relative in a hospital or tax credit, etc, didn't exist like that back when)

"Great thinkers—including champions of human rights—knew that gender matters for marriage, and none thought that race does"

You put the premise of your conclusion into your argument for it. You can claim that X person thought this, but to claim they "knew it" already leaves no room for thinking. Rather then a debate, it becomes a soapbox for you.

You can't even say that they all thought this, It sounds like your saying, because there is no material saying they thought homosexual marriage was alright, that is proof that they were against it. It wasn't even a subject back then for them to contemplate much.

Also, some of those guys lived during a time where church ruled supreme. http://markhumphrys.com/science.religion.html Look at all the people who have died for science that we know for fact is real, even most extreme of christians don't question things like the earth being round, or that it revolves around the sun. But spreading these thoughts further back in time could mean death.

You think considering all that, any "great thinker" would dare go out on a super limb and risk their life for homosexual marriage, a concept that wasn't even really out there at the time? No they wouldn't.

And even if a "great thinker" believes something, doesn't mean its true. Some "great thinkers" have been racist and had other crazy ideas. Not everyone is right about everything.

"The sexual difference between a man and a woman, however, is central to what marriage is."

Marriage is about reigning in and controlling the power of the instinct of sex and making sure kids were taken care of. Anything else is only your belief or that of religion.

"Men and women regardless of their race can unite in marriage"

Men & men and women & women regardless of their race could unite in marriage with the right laws. Well, even without the laws they can, it just becomes a matter of not being recognized by the state.

"children regardless of their race deserve moms and dads. "

Children deserve someone carrying for them, who can devote enough time to them plus still have the required funds for it too. To presume having two different genders offers any additional benefit is only that, your presumption.

Well it boils down to this. There is no great inherent differences between male and female thoughts. Most of the difference in thinking are derived from environment (see any nature verses nurture debate) which strongly asserts gender roles on people. And even if genitalia did affect what kind of thoughts a person has and their overall personality, there are always one off AKA exceptions.

If having a female and male personality is what is important for kids and for society and what not. Then what is wrong with a male with a female personality and a male with a male personality getting together, or a female with a male personality, and a female with a female personality from getting together, in marriage, even having kids.

Or to flip this around, if say a female with a male personality, and a male with a male personality were to get married and have kids, would that be a crime against nature and the state and the kids? Why wouldn't you be up in arms about there not being a yin and a yang involved in that family, because of genitalia? People can hide those, it's called modesty.

By saying all that, I am by no means saying there is such a thing as a male and female personality, I in fact do not believe this. But I am supposing it for the sake of argument.

You missed the point there, "anon". The article was about why the same-sex marriage debate is not like the interracial marriage issue. That's what is being addressed above. Your tirade focuses on why it doesn't prove homosexuality is wrong. So what? That wasn't the point of the article.

The main point of the article was to say that talking about "interracial" marriage comparison wasn't proof that those against homosexual marriage being in the wrong. The purpose of that being to say that homosexual marriage is wrong, and says and argues so multiple times. In each bit of the article is strong anti-homosexual marriage sentiment.

There is one way they are similar, and that is both have faced ignorant intolerance. Anyone who compares the two is pretty much only making that comparison point.

“marriage between men and women is a pre-political, naturally emerging social institution. Men and women come together to create children, independently of any government.”

“By contrast,” Morse goes on to write, “same-sex ‘marriage’ is completely a creation of the state…."

Wrong wrong wrong. Sex has been going on since humans have existed, marriage is a social and political thing for as long as there has been marriage, there has been politics.

Nice try.

Claim 1: Marriage between men and women is a pre-political, naturally emerging social institution.

Claim 2: Same-sex marriage is a (political) creation of the state.

"No, No, No" says 'anon' while sex has been around as long as there have been people, marriage is a social and political thing.

There was never any dispute about marriage being a social institution. Look at claim #1...that's exactly what it says. Anon's claim that marriage is a social and political thing is an effort to slide from social to political as if the two are the same or so closely related that it makes little difference.

But the fact is that the first states arose from families. In other words, from already existing male-female marriages. If there ever was a time before male-female marriage, it was also a time without politics. But there has been a time with male-female marriage but without politics.

“There is no great inherent differences between male and female thoughts. Most of the difference in thinking are derived from environment (see any nature verses nurture debate) which strongly asserts gender roles on people.”

The irony in this statement is that just 9 paragraphs up you were touting some sort of scientific high ground.

http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/how-male-female-brains-differ
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders

Hi anon,

Having witnessed firsthand the harm of father absenteeism, to not only families but communities, I couldn’t disagree more with your dismissive opinion towards the importance of having both a mother and father in the home. Not saying it can’t be done, just saying that it is not the way that it was meant to be done.

Hey anon,
Here is a quote from your high-priest, Obama:

"We know the statistics—that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it"

He said this on June 15, 2008.


You say, "Children deserve someone carrying for them, who can devote enough time to them plus still have the required funds for it too. To presume having two different genders offers any additional benefit is only that, your presumption."

Your statement that "children deserve someone carrying for them" and not a father and a mother flies in the face of all sociology research. The facts are very inconvenient for you when it comes to the role of fathers and mothers and that women cannot be "fathers."

"No version of such laws require said unions be supervised by any religion that objects to them."

For now.

It is inevitable that that will change.

Churches will face a choice: Marry gays or lose your tax exempt status.

The reasoning will precisely track with the nonsense we see going on with InterVarsity and CSU in the other thread.

Well.... in the end you say that marriage is colorblind but that it same-sex marriage cannot be "gender blind". These are both problematic statements. The first one is problematic because being colorblind in marriage ignore the race and culture of a person who is a part of an interracial relationship. Erasure only causes more of a hegemonic construct to the relationship. The second statement is problematic because gender and sex are two separate constructs. Sex is biologically determined and cannot be changed unless through surgery ( this is controversial as to if it actually changes the sex but for the sake of this argument we can assume that it does.) For those that believe that you cannot change sex through surgery, a man who becomes a woman, who is attracted to the female sex, still has the sex of a male therefore his marriage, even though it would appear to be a same sex marriage, is not. Gender is a social construct that is created through societal norms that are established early on in life. sex and gender do not correlate to each other.

The comments to this entry are closed.