This blog is littered with multiple challenges I have issued to proponents of neutering marriage through the years. Without exception these challenges have all gone unmet, many without even an attempt.
In the comment stream of another blog I made another challenge. I challenged another commenter to refute an argument against neutering marriage. He was not able to do so, but in the interest of fairness, I thought I'd give the readers here a shot. So here goes:
- “Same-sex marriage” is irrational.
- Laws should not be irrational.
- Therefore we should not recognize “same-sex marriage.”
To refute that argument you need to either show that
- “Same-sex marriage” is rational, or
- Laws should be irrational
Your ignorance does not establish either point. That you disagree with, can’t see, can’t hear, or just plain don’t think you like a point does not prove its opposite. You need to actually state a rational case to establish either point. Introducing new points (aka tangents) other than the two possible refuting points neither refutes the above argument nor proves either point that does.
Note: For those who doubt the case for #1, above, we have made that case on this blog literally thousands of times, but for those who may be unfamiliar, the best place to start is with our seminal post written over 5 years ago, The 800lb Gorilla in the Room. That argument has stood the test of time. Despite the morphing and shifting arguments on the other side of this debate, from Goodridge to Perry, the 800lb Gorilla has never been changed and has never been countered.
Same sex marriage is no more irrational than the marriage of affair partners.
ReplyDeletePete, see the part about tangents.
ReplyDeleteOne hundred years ago, same sex marriage would not have seemed rational. We don't live 100 years ago. We live in a time when marriage has been redefined to satisfy the whims of randy heterosexuals.
ReplyDeleteGiven that marriage is little more than the state recognition of a temporary relationship between two adults, it is rational to allow same-sex couples to marry.
Peter, you'd have a much better case trying to argue that same-sex marriage is no more immoral than the marriage of affair partners than you are in trying to argue that it is no more irrational. You seem to be confusing the two concepts.
ReplyDeleteDid the marriage, post-divorce, of affair partners seem irrational 100 years ago? I don't think that would have been a word that was used in opposing it even then.
Pete: One hundred years ago, same sex marriage would not have seemed rational. We don't live 100 years ago.
ReplyDeleteEven if all the premises are true, that tells us nothing about whether "same sex marriage" is rational or would "seem rational" today.
We live in a time when marriage has been redefined to satisfy the whims of randy heterosexuals.
False. If that were true, the more "randy heterosexual" someone was, the more likely they would be married, which is clearly not the case.
Given that marriage is little more than the state recognition of a temporary relationship between two adults...
False premise.
...it is rational to allow same-sex couples to marry.
Utter nonsense. This is a talking point in search of a debate. Pete wants to hijack all discussions about marriage to be discussions about "affair partners."
There is no logical relationship between "temporary relationships" and "same-sex couples," therefore the treatment of one does not require any treatment for the other.
From now on, if you see any deleted comments by Pete, it will be because they mentioned "affair partners."
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete"I recall discussing marriage and divorce with my grandmother sometime around 1980. She objected to the idea that people could divorce because they didn't love each other any more. I wish I could remember her exact words. "
ReplyDeletePersonally, I would agree with your grandmother. There are many legitimate reasons why someone has to divorce their spouse, physical/emotional abuse or misuse of funds siphoning away from the needs of the children. These no-fault laws actually benefit the spouse that who broke their vows.
From my limited experience though is that divorce attorneys don't want to deal with the couple's issues. Their job is simply to cut property and set up a schedule for the children. It really goes against the grain of what it means to be an advocate though, of course you don't want the law nit-picking on small things, but its an injustice for a spouse to be defenseless also.
For all advocates of SSM/neutered marriage:
ReplyDeleteMany of you essentially argue this. Call it General Argument One:
"Because we've already made Change A, therefore we might as well now make Change B, because there is no reason to make Change A and not Change B (SSM)".
Yet most SSM advocates also strongly object, and cry foul, when those of us who oppose it make the following argument. Call it General Argument Two:
"If we make Change B (SSM), therefore we might as well then make Change C, because there is no logical reason to make Change B and not Change C".
I think it is clear that if General Argument One is legitimate, then General Argument Two is also legitimate. If one can make the former, they---or anyone else---can make the latter.
And that if one objects to the use of General Argument Two, then they should for consistency avoid General Argument One.
So please, those who support neutering marriage, if you use General Argument One, don't scream unfairness or irrelevancy if we use General Argument Two.
Fair enough?
R.K.,
ReplyDeleteGeneral Argument Two is bad logic just as General Argument One is. Bad logic cannot be used to discredit other bad logic.
By preceding General Argument Two by the explicit premise that "If this reasoning holds, then...," you convert General Argument Two from merely another example of bad logic to a Proof by Contradiction wherein a premise is shown to contradict its logical conclusion.
Another bad argument against marriage that Chairm regularly points out is this:
Relationship A (Marriage) has nothing to do with Activity B (Procreation) because participants of Relationship A are not forced to do Activity B.
This is another standard argument of neutered marriage activists that they are required to make because any relationship between marriage and procreation that is allowed to exist makes same-sex couples wholly unqualified. Instead, they posit, marriage is about two people in love or some other poor excuse for government involvement. One can then show that their original argument is bad because:
Then if this reasoning holds, Relationship C (Neutered Marriage) has nothing to do with Activity D (Loving each other) because participants of Relationship C are not forced to do Activity D.
Those who don't want to accept your General Argument Two try to dismiss it as a "Slippery Slope" fallacy. The example I provide above, which is the same refutation as used in General Argument Two, shows these detractors are wrong since the refutation, above, is clearly not a slippery slope.
Here is my earlier comment, rewritten to omit the objectionable term.
ReplyDeleteResponding to RK @ 8:25 pm:
I know that morality and law interact at some level, but I'm not familiar with the history and philosophy behind all this. If I recall correctly, Natural Law is an an exercise in establishing a rational basis for morality. It seems to me that the way law has developed in the US, the state needs some sort of rational basis for law. Morality isn't sufficient in and of itself, is it?
If the rational case for marriage has to do with providing support for children (and economically vulnerable spouses who put their energy into raising the children) then I think it's possible to argue that it's irrational for the state to allow easy divorce, especially when young children are involved. Such action violates the rational basis for state-recognition of marriage.
I recall discussing marriage and divorce with my grandmother sometime around 1980. She objected to the idea that people could divorce because they didn't love each other any more. I wish I could remember her exact words.
She may have said that it was crazy, or perhaps she said it didn't make sense. Whatever the words she used, it was clear that she was making a case built on rationality rather than morality. Allowing for divorce in such cases undermined marriage for everyone. As she saw it, society couldn't function if we allowed for such divorces.
Pete: I think it's possible to argue that it's irrational for the state to allow easy divorce...
ReplyDeleteThis is still off topic since the handling of divorce and the handling of same-sex couples aren't related. There are arguments for and against no-fault divorce, none of which involve same-sex couples.
The question of how hard or easy a divorce should be is one of degrees and is not likely to be settled strictly logically. Logic tends to handle best the true/false questions. The "how much" questions are usually best answered empirically.
It's not just me drawing the connection between the widespread acceptance of divorce and same-sex marriage. Fukuyama is hardly a crackpot, or a raging liberal.
ReplyDeletePeter, by your reasoning, once the voting age was lowered to 18, did this make it rational to lower the drinking age to 18 as well?
ReplyDeleteMany states thought it did, and look what happened.
Pete: It's not just me...
ReplyDeleteArgumentum ad populum doesn't make something true.
Fukuyama is hardly a crackpot, or a raging liberal.
Neither does an appeal to authority.
Is it too much to ask commenters, particularly in a thread about rational arguments, to actually make rational arguments??
Nor, should I point out, is something irrational only because it is unwise. Peter, you are confusing the two concepts, which are very different. But because of this confusion it seems you would regard the lowering of the legal drinking age to 18 to be irrational now (because it had bad effects) but not when first proposed (because it seemed to flow so logically from lowering the voting age). Is this a fair assessment?
ReplyDeleteYou see, like lowering the drinking age, lowering the marriage age to 15 would be a totally unwise change. But not an irrational one, unlike same-sex marriage.
R.K.
ReplyDeleteAs a point of advice, something that was already tangential to the post is not served by even more tangents, however interesting they are.
Besides, I'm contemplating giving Peter the John Howard status. As you know Peter, like John, have a pet topic they keep bringing up in every conversation no matter how tangential. It is like hosting a dinner party and having an Amway person trying to network during the gathering. Surprisingly, everything anyone is talking about seems to be related to Amway.
For John, surprisingly everything is related to genetic engineering and human manufacture. For Peter, surprisingly, everything is related to the family death spiral of adultery, divorce and re-marriage.
I know I've been guilty of this in the past which is one reason I came to Opine, to have front page posts on my pet topics rather than try to inject my agenda in everyone else's posts. And just so you know, I think you've made at least three front-page quality comments in this thread. Unfortunately they may never be seen or appreciated because they are buried in a thread where no one would expect such arguments.
I understand your point, op-ed. In the last two posts, my point was not meant to be about a tangential issue, but I was using that issue to bring us back to what rational and irrational really mean (as Peter is misunderstanding those terms) so that we can then really address the point of the thread.
ReplyDeleteI believe that I have acted according to the terms of your comment policy.
ReplyDeleteDisputes of fact and of opinion are why we are here. We may disagree with you, just as we hope you share your disagreements with us. Being friendly will usually invite friendly replies. We can and will delete otherwise great posts for unseemly profanity.
But it is your blog. If you would like me to stop participating, simply ask.
Unlike John Howard, who knows no one who was cloned or harmed by cloning, I know four families who were torn apart by that thing which I have been asked not to mention.
Pete: I know four families who were torn apart by that thing which I have been asked not to mention.
ReplyDeletePete, your topic is not relevant to the subject matter of this post. We simply don't want all discussions hijacked by your issue or John Howards no matter how many people you may know. If you feel strongly about it you may create a guest post and email it to me. In your own posts you can discuss your topic to your heart's content but you may not hijack everybody else's posts.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSame for you, John. If you feel strongly about your pet peeve you can email me and we'll set you up with a guest post where you can discuss it all you want. You may not hijack others' posts, however.
ReplyDelete