Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Logical Wedge Argument Contra Gay Marriage

SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 5:29:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What do you guys think of the following logical wedge argument contra same-sex marriage? (Logical wedge argument as in contrast to the psychological version of the wedge argument; I'm not tooting my own douche-horn here...)

Also, keep in mind that this is not a simple slippery slope argument, so accusations that it is would be both unwarranted and displays of ignorance, be it willful or unintended.

P1) If you accept the proposal, as support of same-sex marriage entails, that marriage, instead of being an institution established to oversee the responsibilities attendant upon procreation, is actually a conventional institution that exists to join/recognize individuals who are "lovingly committed" to one another, regardless of that love's fecundity, then logic demands that you also accept a "marriage" between 4 men and 4 women who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between 1 man and 16 women who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between a brother and a sister who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between a brother and his father who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or even a "marriage" between a man and his deceased wife who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or even a "marriage" between a man and his dog who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or even a "marriage" between a man and his car who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or indeed anything whatsoever that one may want to call "marriage," for someone could always argue that even the "loving commitment" criterion is as arbitrary and open to challenge as the heterosexual criterion is.

P2) Polyamorous "marriages," polygamist "marriages," incestuous "marriages," "marriages" between living and deceased people, "marriages" between father/child & mother/child, "marriages" between a human and an animal, and "marriages" between a human and an object are increasingly immoral and unacceptable.

C: Therefore, one ought not accept or be in support of same-sex "marriage".
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 5:39:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The analogies between family members and polyamorous marriage can be accepted without much of an impact (meaning there's not much of a moral argument against them anyways so the reductio doesn't follow). The rest of the analogies i.e., living/deceased, man/car, and man/dog are unwarranted since dead people, automobiles, and animals aren't capable of entering into contracts so they can't get married inasmuch as you can't get married to someone who can't consent.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 7:05:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 5:29:40 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
What do you guys think of the following logical wedge argument contra same-sex marriage? (Logical wedge argument as in contrast to the psychological version of the wedge argument; I'm not tooting my own douche-horn here...)

The Fool: If you can't establish any moral content. aka HARM, OR GOOD>

its not a moral Case.
Also, keep in mind that this is not a simple slippery slope argument, so accusations that it is would be both unwarranted and displays of ignorance, be it willful or unintended.


P1) If you accept the proposal, as support of same-sex marriage entails, that marriage, instead of being an institution established to oversee the responsibilities attendant upon procreation, is actually a conventional institution that exists to join/recognize individuals who are "lovingly committed" to one another, regardless of that love's fecundity, then logic demands that you also accept a "marriage" between 4 men and 4 women who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between 1 man and 16 women who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between a brother and a sister who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between a brother and his father who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or even a "marriage" between a man and his deceased wife who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or even a "marriage" between a man and his dog who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or even a "marriage" between a man and his car who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or indeed anything whatsoever that one may want to call "marriage," for someone could always argue that even the "loving commitment" criterion is as arbitrary and open to challenge as the heterosexual criterion is.

P2) Polyamorous "marriages," polygamist "marriages," incestuous "marriages," "marriages" between living and deceased people, "marriages" between father/child & mother/child, "marriages" between a human and an animal, and "marriages" between a human and an object are increasingly immoral and unacceptable.


C: Therefore, one ought not accept or be in support of same-sex "marriage".

The Fool: I will be honest with you, You are going to lose. Its best to cut you loses. First and form most you are dealing with an Ideologist conception.

That is you have a verbal TAG. The Term By with you store and categories the "Idea" Referred to by those terms.

In this case Marriage, for the term "Marriage" refers to the Man and woman and such. And it is Specific

It is as true as can be that they have no business, Inserting themselves or manipulating the concept of marriage between man and woman.

They are just TAKING THE TERM Marriage and now referring to something else.

One is about love for another and are most sacred of all The BIRTH OF LIFE!

The other is a MIMIC, they are the same, and the rest is ideas.

You can Switch the terms

Let X be=A
Let B be= O

Do you get the illusion.

That is all they are DOING! AND YOU BELIEVE IT AS SOMETHING MORE.

To tell you the truth its not even possible. The Government doesn't really have such powers, its only because you allow them to.

For example, Jew have many events. Which are Not government Regulated and If affects ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

They do these event and they are as official as any type of event. They don't need to give a Rats Azz about what the government says. Do you get that its and illusion. .

All they can do is SAY WORDS. Blah, blah, blah.

You could all just deny the claim an THEY CAN"T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT EVER.

All they can do is bang on a stick. You can just reject it regardless. They really just have never had those kind or powers.

They are just playing with Terms.

Your best bet is to just lets them have there own, Gay love, whatever they terms they use. They can't change your conceptions in your mind.

To be honest, I will tell you the truth, and a lot of people won;t like it. They will be mad, they will complain and give one irrational statement of ideology after another. They may join hands and sing Hymns, Sensor or vote things into existence.

But the actual marriage, is the actual fusion of two people creating life. A new life.
There is nothing more beautiful then that.

Everything Else is Idle CHATTER.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 7:11:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 5:29:40 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
C: Therefore, one ought not accept or be in support of same-sex "marriage".

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. Assuming your premises are true, your conclusion should be:

C': Therefore, marriage IS an institution established to oversee the responsibilities attendant upon procreation, and is NOT actually a conventional institution that exists to join/recognize individuals who are "lovingly committed" to one another, regardless of that love's fecundity.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 7:37:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hint, if your premises look more like books, your probably not doing it right.

Try again.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 7:53:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 7:11:44 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/14/2012 5:29:40 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
C: Therefore, one ought not accept or be in support of same-sex "marriage".

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. Assuming your premises are true, your conclusion should be:

C': Therefore, marriage IS an institution established to oversee the responsibilities attendant upon procreation, and is NOT actually a conventional institution that exists to join/recognize individuals who are "lovingly committed" to one another, regardless of that love's fecundity.

How so?

I'm giving a logical version of the wedge argument. In order for an argument to be a wedge argument, it must have a negative conclusion. Here is its form:

P1) Once proposal (or moral judgment) A is accepted, logic demands accepting more and more sweeping proposals (or moral judgment), namely B, C, D, etc.

P2) B, C, D, etc. are increasingly unacceptable and immoral.

C: Therefore, proposal (or moral judgment) A shouldn"t be accepted.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 8:29:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 7:53:09 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 12/14/2012 7:11:44 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/14/2012 5:29:40 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
C: Therefore, one ought not accept or be in support of same-sex "marriage".

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. Assuming your premises are true, your conclusion should be:

C': Therefore, marriage IS an institution established to oversee the responsibilities attendant upon procreation, and is NOT actually a conventional institution that exists to join/recognize individuals who are "lovingly committed" to one another, regardless of that love's fecundity.

How so?

Because your argument is a modus tollens, and takes this form:

1. If P, then Q.
2. Not Q.
3. Therefore, not P.

Now, just look at your first premise and see what "P" is. Your conclusion must be the negation of P. But there's no "ought" in your first premise, so there can't be an "ought" in your conclusion.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 9:16:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 7:53:09 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 12/14/2012 7:11:44 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/14/2012 5:29:40 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
C: Therefore, one ought not accept or be in support of same-sex "marriage".

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. Assuming your premises are true, your conclusion should be:

C': Therefore, marriage IS an institution established to oversee the responsibilities attendant upon procreation, and is NOT actually a conventional institution that exists to join/recognize individuals who are "lovingly committed" to one another, regardless of that love's fecundity.

How so?

I'm giving a logical version of the wedge argument. In order for an argument to be a wedge argument, it must have a negative conclusion. Here is its form:

P1) Once proposal (or moral judgment) A is accepted, logic demands accepting more and more sweeping proposals (or moral judgment), namely B, C, D, etc.

P2) B, C, D, etc. are increasingly unacceptable and immoral.

C: Therefore, proposal (or moral judgment) A shouldn"t be accepted.

The Fool: Where is the moral Part? This is like Kiddi Logic
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 10:03:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 8:29:27 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/14/2012 7:53:09 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 12/14/2012 7:11:44 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/14/2012 5:29:40 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
C: Therefore, one ought not accept or be in support of same-sex "marriage".

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. Assuming your premises are true, your conclusion should be:

C': Therefore, marriage IS an institution established to oversee the responsibilities attendant upon procreation, and is NOT actually a conventional institution that exists to join/recognize individuals who are "lovingly committed" to one another, regardless of that love's fecundity.

How so?

Because your argument is a modus tollens, and takes this form:

1. If P, then Q.
2. Not Q.
3. Therefore, not P.

Now, just look at your first premise and see what "P" is. Your conclusion must be the negation of P. But there's no "ought" in your first premise, so there can't be an "ought" in your conclusion.

Are you saying that wedge arguments are invalid?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 10:23:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 5:29:40 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
What do you guys think of the following logical wedge argument contra same-sex marriage? (Logical wedge argument as in contrast to the psychological version of the wedge argument; I'm not tooting my own douche-horn here...)

Also, keep in mind that this is not a simple slippery slope argument, so accusations that it is would be both unwarranted and displays of ignorance, be it willful or unintended.


P1) If you accept the proposal, as support of same-sex marriage entails, that marriage, instead of being an institution established to oversee the responsibilities attendant upon procreation,

Okey stop right there, we all know that most if not all people who play the procreation card against gay marriage don't also want to see infertile or fertile couples who declare they don't want to have kids be denied marriage.

is actually a conventional institution that exists to join/recognize individuals who are "lovingly committed" to one another, regardless of that love's fecundity, then logic demands that you also accept a "marriage" between 4 men and 4 women who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between 1 man and 16 women who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between a brother and a sister who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between a brother and his father who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or even a "marriage" between a man and his deceased wife who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or even a "marriage" between a man and his dog who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or even a "marriage" between a man and his car who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or indeed anything whatsoever that one may want to call "marriage," for someone could always argue that even the "loving commitment" criterion is as arbitrary and open to challenge as the heterosexual criterion is.

Your logic doesn't stand here, even if we accept that marriage should be granted to those who are or want to be..."lovingly committed" even working with this criteria it doesn't follow that marriage would be granted to people and cars, or people and animals or people and dead people as they can't commit to such an arrangement's, ya know cause they are animals, dead and cars.

P2) Polyamorous "marriages," polygamist "marriages," incestuous "marriages," "marriages" between living and deceased people, "marriages" between father/child & mother/child, "marriages" between a human and an animal, and "marriages" between a human and an object are increasingly immoral and unacceptable.


C: Therefore, one ought not accept or be in support of same-sex "marriage".
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 10:23:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 10:03:57 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Are you saying that wedge arguments are invalid?

No, I just think you need to reformulate the argument. Maybe something like this.

1. If being in love is a good reason to allow two people to get married, then we ought to allow a brother and sister to marry as long as they love each other.
2. We ought not allow a brother and sister to marry just because they love each other.
3. Therefore, being in love is not a good reason to allow two people to get married.

But you seem to want to make a stronger claim than that. You don't want to stop at just showing that some argument for same sex marriage is a bad argument. You want to show that same sex marriage should not be allowed. But you can't show that just by showing that some argument for same sex marriage is fallacious. After all, same sex marriage could be a good idea for some other reason that you haven't considered. To make an argument against same sex marriage, the 'P' in your argument has to say something like, "Same sex marriage should be allowed." For example, you could argue something like this:

1. If same sex marriage should be allowed, then so should polygamy.
2. Polygamy should not be allow.
3. Therefore, same sex marriage should not be allowed.

But the problem is trying to substantiate that first premise. You can't do it just by looking at the reasons people try to justify same sex marriage and applying it to polygamy sense it's always possible that there's some reason you hadn't considered that would justify same sex marriage without also justifying polygamy.

I think the best you can do, really, is to poke holes in the arguments for same sex marriage. I think it would be very hard to make an argument against same sex marriage without relying on divine revelation. One of the better ways is to appeal to natural teleology, but I personally don't find those arguments very persuasive.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 10:30:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 10:03:57 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 12/14/2012 8:29:27 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/14/2012 7:53:09 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 12/14/2012 7:11:44 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/14/2012 5:29:40 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
C: Therefore, one ought not accept or be in support of same-sex "marriage".

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. Assuming your premises are true, your conclusion should be:

C': Therefore, marriage IS an institution established to oversee the responsibilities attendant upon procreation, and is NOT actually a conventional institution that exists to join/recognize individuals who are "lovingly committed" to one another, regardless of that love's fecundity.

How so?

Because your argument is a modus tollens, and takes this form:

1. If P, then Q.
2. Not Q.
3. Therefore, not P.

Now, just look at your first premise and see what "P" is. Your conclusion must be the negation of P. But there's no "ought" in your first premise, so there can't be an "ought" in your conclusion.


Are you saying that wedge arguments are invalid?

The Fool: It blows.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 11:01:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 9:16:18 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 12/14/2012 7:53:09 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 12/14/2012 7:11:44 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/14/2012 5:29:40 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
C: Therefore, one ought not accept or be in support of same-sex "marriage".

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. Assuming your premises are true, your conclusion should be:

C': Therefore, marriage IS an institution established to oversee the responsibilities attendant upon procreation, and is NOT actually a conventional institution that exists to join/recognize individuals who are "lovingly committed" to one another, regardless of that love's fecundity.

How so?

I'm giving a logical version of the wedge argument. In order for an argument to be a wedge argument, it must have a negative conclusion. Here is its form:

P1) Once proposal (or moral judgment) A is accepted, logic demands accepting more and more sweeping proposals (or moral judgment), namely B, C, D, etc.

P2) B, C, D, etc. are increasingly unacceptable and immoral.

C: Therefore, proposal (or moral judgment) A shouldn"t be accepted.


The Fool: Where is the moral Part? This is like Kiddi Logic

Is like kiddie logic? This IS kiddie logic... it's like watching a two year old trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
Tsar of DDO
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 11:33:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 5:29:40 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
What do you guys think of the following logical wedge argument contra same-sex marriage? (Logical wedge argument as in contrast to the psychological version of the wedge argument; I'm not tooting my own douche-horn here...)

Also, keep in mind that this is not a simple slippery slope argument, so accusations that it is would be both unwarranted and displays of ignorance, be it willful or unintended.


P1) If you accept the proposal, as support of same-sex marriage entails, that marriage, instead of being an institution established to oversee the responsibilities attendant upon procreation, is actually a conventional institution that exists to join/recognize individuals who are "lovingly committed" to one another, regardless of that love's fecundity, then logic demands that you also accept a "marriage" between 4 men and 4 women who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between 1 man and 16 women who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between a brother and a sister who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between a brother and his father who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or even a "marriage" between a man and his deceased wife who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or even a "marriage" between a man and his dog who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or even a "marriage" between a man and his car who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or indeed anything whatsoever that one may want to call "marriage," for someone could always argue that even the "loving commitment" criterion is as arbitrary and open to challenge as the heterosexual criterion is.

P2) Polyamorous "marriages," polygamist "marriages," incestuous "marriages," "marriages" between living and deceased people, "marriages" between father/child & mother/child, "marriages" between a human and an animal, and "marriages" between a human and an object are increasingly immoral and unacceptable.

C: Therefore, one ought not accept or be in support of same-sex "marriage".

Try again, but include the presupposition: legal consent is necessary for a marriage to be performed.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 5:26:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 11:33:06 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/14/2012 5:29:40 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
What do you guys think of the following logical wedge argument contra same-sex marriage? (Logical wedge argument as in contrast to the psychological version of the wedge argument; I'm not tooting my own douche-horn here...)

Also, keep in mind that this is not a simple slippery slope argument, so accusations that it is would be both unwarranted and displays of ignorance, be it willful or unintended.


P1) If you accept the proposal, as support of same-sex marriage entails, that marriage, instead of being an institution established to oversee the responsibilities attendant upon procreation, is actually a conventional institution that exists to join/recognize individuals who are "lovingly committed" to one another, regardless of that love's fecundity, then logic demands that you also accept a "marriage" between 4 men and 4 women who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between 1 man and 16 women who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between a brother and a sister who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between a brother and his father who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or even a "marriage" between a man and his deceased wife who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or even a "marriage" between a man and his dog who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or even a "marriage" between a man and his car who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or indeed anything whatsoever that one may want to call "marriage," for someone could always argue that even the "loving commitment" criterion is as arbitrary and open to challenge as the heterosexual criterion is.

P2) Polyamorous "marriages," polygamist "marriages," incestuous "marriages," "marriages" between living and deceased people, "marriages" between father/child & mother/child, "marriages" between a human and an animal, and "marriages" between a human and an object are increasingly immoral and unacceptable.

C: Therefore, one ought not accept or be in support of same-sex "marriage".

Try again, but include the presupposition: legal consent is necessary for a marriage to be performed.

Well, it wouldn't be if we're only talking about the oversight of that which follows from unprotected sex in the absence of an abortion.

It seems that this is the point where carpe diem becomes c'est la vie.
Tsar of DDO
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 12:01:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 5:29:40 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
What do you guys think of the following logical wedge argument contra same-sex marriage? (Logical wedge argument as in contrast to the psychological version of the wedge argument; I'm not tooting my own douche-horn here...)

Also, keep in mind that this is not a simple slippery slope argument, so accusations that it is would be both unwarranted and displays of ignorance, be it willful or unintended.


P1) If you accept the proposal, as support of same-sex marriage entails, that marriage, instead of being an institution established to oversee the responsibilities attendant upon procreation, is actually a conventional institution that exists to join/recognize individuals who are "lovingly committed" to one another, regardless of that love's fecundity, then logic demands that you also accept a "marriage" between 4 men and 4 women who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between 1 man and 16 women who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between a brother and a sister who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between a brother and his father who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or even a "marriage" between a man and his deceased wife who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or even a "marriage" between a man and his dog who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or even a "marriage" between a man and his car who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or indeed anything whatsoever that one may want to call "marriage," for someone could always argue that even the "loving commitment" criterion is as arbitrary and open to challenge as the heterosexual criterion is.

P2) Polyamorous "marriages," polygamist "marriages," incestuous "marriages," "marriages" between living and deceased people, "marriages" between father/child & mother/child, "marriages" between a human and an animal, and "marriages" between a human and an object are increasingly immoral and unacceptable.

C: Therefore, one ought not accept or be in support of same-sex "marriage".

Sounds a lot like the arguments I've posted time and again...with the exception of marriage with animal, object, deceased which of course are all non sequiturs. Everything else that you posted I think is spot on.

The SSM agenda, like virtually all liberal issues, is based on the redefinition of an established norm. The end result of this reformation is a term so broadly defined that it is no longer anything in particular and thus simply ceases to be. So let's define marriage, for example:

Marriage is an agreed upon union between a man and a woman with the purpose of establishing a familial unit that has the potential to add progeny to it and thus continue the civil society.

We can see that FAMILY is a key aspect to marriage; whether it be inherited family (in-laws, etc.), offspring, or adopted members, family is central to the concept of marriage. People MAY choose many other reasons for marriage, but any that lie outside of these are really only ancillary. Because we recognized the importance that the family is to civil society, we have empowered our government to recognize this crucial institution and allow for laws that help it and encourage it.

Every man and woman of legal age in the US has this right, whether they be straight or gay (or any other of the multitude of "labels" that are designed to redefine sexuality out of existence). Contrary to some people's opinions: no one's rights are being violated. Marriage is and has always been between a man and a woman (as explained above) so proponents for SSM are in dire need to redefine marriage in order to claim that their rights are indeed being violated. This is just like the anti-miscegenation laws of the past in which they attempted to redefine marriage as that between a man and a woman of the same race.

Adults that wish to form bonds but are outside the scope of marriage, have access to forming civil unions. Every state (except maybe Connecticut and Georgia) recognizes civil unions, and people in CU are able to get many of the same rights as married folk. IMHO, people for SSM should devote themselves to CU in order to try and get the remaining 2 states to accept them and to work within the states and federal government to perhaps modify the benefits extended to CU.

While many on the left decry that CU are "marriage apartheid" or akin to "segregation", this is essentially a specious argument because SSM and marriage are INHERENTLY not equal. Theoretically, one could make a law declaring that 1 + 1 = 3, but the fact still remains" 1 + 1 does NOT equal 3. This is why SSM proponents insist on redefining marriage in typical liberal style so that marriage then becomes a FFA!

What if we did take this approach to marriage, and allowed for SSM to be equal to marriage? Well, for the EXACT same reasons one must also allow for plural marriages and incestuous marriages! At this point, there would be absolutely no reasonable argument for banning plural marriage as well as incestuous marriages, such as a man or woman marrying his/her offspring or siblings marrying each other (so long as they are all of legal age). With this new "all-inclusive" definition of marriage, who'll be turned down? What arguments can you possibly make against it? If the incestuous marriage is same-sex, there can't be any offspring; if the incestuous marriage is opposite-sex then they can always use birth control and there's always abortion. And there's nothing wrong with that, right? Come to think of it, not all marriages are necessarily sexual in nature, so we needn't worry about that anyways.

So here we are with same-sex, plural, and incestuous marriages all OK and acceptable, but why stop there? Why are we denying "so-called" minors their rights too? I mean, let's be totally rational about this: humans are entering puberty and maturing earlier than ever before and our laws really haven't kept up. Perhaps the legal age for consent should be the average age of entering puberty + a couple a years or so, making it 10 or 12, right? And perhaps adulthood a few more years past that? Why not?

Well? Why not?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 12:24:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 5:29:40 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
What do you guys think of the following logical wedge argument contra same-sex marriage? (Logical wedge argument as in contrast to the psychological version of the wedge argument; I'm not tooting my own douche-horn here...)

Also, keep in mind that this is not a simple slippery slope argument, so accusations that it is would be both unwarranted and displays of ignorance, be it willful or unintended.


P1) If you accept the proposal, as support of same-sex marriage entails, that marriage, instead of being an institution established to oversee the responsibilities attendant upon procreation, is actually a conventional institution that exists to join/recognize individuals who are "lovingly committed" to one another, regardless of that love's fecundity, then logic demands that you also accept a "marriage" between 4 men and 4 women who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between 1 man and 16 women who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between a brother and a sister who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or a "marriage" between a brother and his father who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or even a "marriage" between a man and his deceased wife who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or even a "marriage" between a man and his dog who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or even a "marriage" between a man and his car who have a "loving commitment" to each other, or indeed anything whatsoever that one may want to call "marriage," for someone could always argue that even the "loving commitment" criterion is as arbitrary and open to challenge as the heterosexual criterion is.

P2) Polyamorous "marriages," polygamist "marriages," incestuous "marriages," "marriages" between living and deceased people, "marriages" between father/child & mother/child, "marriages" between a human and an animal, and "marriages" between a human and an object are increasingly immoral and unacceptable.

C: Therefore, one ought not accept or be in support of same-sex "marriage".

I hate this arguement. Its the same arguement everyone makes, except its wrapped in well written logical wedge, as you call it. Gay marrige is not like 1 woman and 16 men. Thats illogical. Any arguement being made to dispute your point is futile. We all k knw why 1 woman cant marry 16 men. Marrige does have a sanctity that should be protected but the sanctity is between 2 people not man and woman.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 12:59:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 12:24:34 PM, Df0512 wrote:
I hate this arguement. Its the same arguement everyone makes, except its wrapped in well written logical wedge, as you call it. Gay marrige is not like 1 woman and 16 men. Thats illogical. Any arguement being made to dispute your point is futile. We all k knw why 1 woman cant marry 16 men. Marrige does have a sanctity that should be protected but the sanctity is between 2 people not man and woman.

See, but if the tie to procreation and the biological/cultural/social nourishing of progeny to continue civil society is considered, then the reason why marriage is restricted to two people becomes clear. But take that away and you have no logical basis to deny "marriage" to 33 women and 78 men who all "love" each other.

The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other?

Marriage is an institution that exists to oversee the responsibilities attendant upon procreation from a socio-economic viewpoint. As such, I cannot imagine a more vital and fundamental social institution. For if we reflect on what marriage is tasked with - namely, the producing and bringing up of the next generation of society in the most biologically, culturally, and socially nourishing familial unit - then we can come to see and understand why it is so important and why the government, too, sees it as important.

Unfortunately, though, if the supposition that marriage is entirely conventional so that it is up to us to decide what marriage is about in light of changing standards and that marriage merely exists to publicly join individuals who are lovingly committed to one another, then, according to its being conventional, there's no way that it could be ruled out that this "contractual agreement" criterion could be as open to challenge as the heterosexual criterion is. Now, I'm not making an empirical or probabilistic claim here such that it is likely that, eventually, someone or some group of individuals down the line will come to argue that the contractual agreement is as arbitrary or open to challenge; I'm claiming that, according to marriage being "conventional and malleable according to changing standards" clause, there is no way to rule out the "contractual agreement" criterion as being "discriminatory" or unfounded.

Imagine, for a minute, some years down the future in which a relatively large group of of individuals who seek to "marry" something as absurd as their dog (or whatever) gather to claim that the "between humans" clause is "discriminatory" and "promoting inequality" because it is preventing them from marrying the animal of their choice they "truly love". "Can't you tell that we love each other?" they could claim. "Why do you care who or what I marry?" "Why are you discriminating against my zoo-sexuality?" "I was born this way!" "This 'between humans' clause is nothing but a tool employed by our backwards opponents to prevent us from receiving the civil liberties we deserve to marry the animal that we love!" "Imagine how stupid these opponents of human-animal marriage will look like in 30 years! They'll look just like the people who wanted to prevent interracial marriage!"

Why think, if marriage is conventional and based on the "loving commitment" clause as supporters of same-sex marriage allege, that "between two humans" would not be open to challenge?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 1:37:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 12:59:04 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Imagine, for a minute, some years down the future in which a relatively large group of of individuals who seek to "marry" something as absurd as their dog (or whatever) gather to claim that the "between humans" clause is "discriminatory" and "promoting inequality" because it is preventing them from marrying the animal of their choice they "truly love".
1) Non-Persons (animals, inanimate objects, ect.) cannot enter into a contract.

2) No one is suggesting that non-persons be allowed to enter into contracts.

3) It does not follow that if persons are allowed to enter into contract that non-persons be allowed to enter into contract.

"Can't you tell that we love each other?" they could claim.
That's irrelevant; there is no legal objection against the marriage of a man and a woman who do not love each other.

"Why do you care who or what I marry?"
Because you cannot marry "things" that cannot enter into contract because it is a reciprocal covenant.

"Why are you discriminating against my zoo-sexuality?"
Marriage to animals does not necessarily follow from "Zoo-sexuality."

"I was born this way!"
Non sequitur.

"This 'between humans' clause is nothing but a tool employed by our backwards opponents to prevent us from receiving the civil liberties we deserve to marry the animal that we love!"
It's not a clause, it is a legal and logical necessity that parties involved in a contract are able to do so.

"Imagine how stupid these opponents of human-animal marriage will look like in 30 years!
Non sequitur.

They'll look just like the people who wanted to prevent interracial marriage!"
That's incongruent analogy. Marriage has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman BUT it was actually the anti-miscegenation laws that attempted to redefine it as that between a man and a woman of the same race. This is the same thing that advocates for same-sex marriage are attempting to do.

Why think, if marriage is conventional and based on the "loving commitment" clause as supporters of same-sex marriage allege, that "between two humans" would not be open to challenge?
I am not aware of any "good" arguments for ANY marriage whose sole basis is "loving commitment" clause.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 6:22:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
See, but if the tie to procreation and the biological/cultural/social nourishing of progeny to continue civil society is considered, then the reason why marriage is restricted to two people becomes clear. But take that away and you have no logical basis to deny "marriage" to 33 women and 78 men who all "love" each other.

But you can't take that point away, monogamy is a necessity no matter the culture of a relationship. Also, we have already jumped the biological hurdle. Our population can afford to accept the gay marrige. The world as it is now is already over populated.

The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other?

Marriage is an institution that exists to oversee the responsibilities attendant upon procreation from a socio-economic viewpoint. As such, I cannot imagine a more vital and fundamental social institution. For if we reflect on what marriage is tasked with - namely, the producing and bringing up of the next generation of society in the most biologically, culturally, and socially nourishing familial unit - then we can come to see and understand why it is so important and why the government, too, sees it as important.

Gay people can have their own children you know. There are plenty of ways 2 men or 2 women can have a child. They can also adopt children as well. Think of all the children in the world now that don't have parents. And there is no evidence that shows gay parents will have gay children.

Unfortunately, though, if the supposition that marriage is entirely conventional so that it is up to us to decide what marriage is about in light of changing standards and that marriage merely exists to publicly join individuals who are lovingly committed to one another, then, according to its being conventional, there's no way that it could be ruled out that this "contractual agreement" criterion could be as open to challenge as the heterosexual criterion is. Now, I'm not making an empirical or probabilistic claim here such that it is likely that, eventually, someone or some group of individuals down the line will come to argue that the contractual agreement is as arbitrary or open to challenge; I'm claiming that, according to marriage being "conventional and malleable according to changing standards" clause, there is no way to rule out the "contractual agreement" criterion as being "discriminatory" or unfounded.

You can't say "eventually" you don't know that. And even if they do that doesn't make it a valid point. Marrige isn't just "conventional and malleable according to changing standards". It is more than that, so you cant assume thats the only thing that matters.

Imagine, for a minute, some years down the future in which a relatively large group of of individuals who seek to "marry" something as absurd as their dog (or whatever) gather to claim that the "between humans" clause is "discriminatory" and "promoting inequality" because it is preventing them from marrying the animal of their choice they "truly love". "Can't you tell that we love each other?" they could claim. "Why do you care who or what I marry?" "Why are you discriminating against my zoo-sexuality?" "I was born this way!" "This 'between humans' clause is nothing but a tool employed by our backwards opponents to prevent us from receiving the civil liberties we deserve to marry the animal that we love!" "Imagine how stupid these opponents of human-animal marriage will look like in 30 years! They'll look just like the people who wanted to prevent interracial marriage!"

That is an assumption. You dont know that will happen.

Why think, if marriage is conventional and based on the "loving commitment" clause as supporters of same-sex marriage allege, that "between two humans" would not be open to challenge?

I suppose it can be. Doesn't make the points valid. And those are all extremely exaggerative hypothetical scenarios.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 3:19:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 6:22:34 PM, Df0512 wrote:
But you can't take that point away, monogamy is a necessity no matter the culture of a relationship.
How in the world did you arrive at that? The first and foremost necessity is a heterosexual relationship; that's always been the case. Then there's even been polygamy. These 2 come before there's ever been any same sex marriages.

Also, we have already jumped the biological hurdle.
I have no idea what this means. If by this you are implying that humans can successfully procreate without the sexes, then you couldn't be more hopelessly wrong.

Our population can afford to accept the gay marrige.
It's not about "affording acceptance" of SSM, it's about whether it's "right" as a whole for our society.

The world as it is now is already over populated.
And when the world tells us that it is over populated, then I'll take it under consideration. Till then, the individual's right to life is what matters most.

Gay people can have their own children you know. There are plenty of ways 2 men or 2 women can have a child.
Yes, but that doesn't mean they should.

They can also adopt children as well. Think of all the children in the world now that don't have parents. And there is no evidence that shows gay parents will have gay children.
Children are always best off with both parents: a mother and a father. This has been shown to be so time and time again.

You can't say "eventually" you don't know that. And even if they do that doesn't make it a valid point. Marrige isn't just "conventional and malleable according to changing standards". It is more than that, so you cant assume thats the only thing that matters.
Marriage is that of a relation between a man and a woman, it's not "just conventional and malleable according to changing standards" like same sex couples. Read your own words.

That is an assumption. You don't know that will happen.
If we allow SSM on the grounds that they're rights are being deprived, then legally we MUST also allow for polygamy as well as incestuous marriages. In order for SSM to be denied they're rights, they must be allowed to redefine marriage to include Same Sex couples and whatever grounds are used to allow for that redefinition MUST be allowed for the redefinition to include polygamy and incestuous marriages otherwise other peoples rights will continue to be violated.

The purpose of marriage is to form a family and continue the civil society. I will even venture to say that hetero couples that will not have children shouldn't get married. On the other hand, those couples could always change their minds; they could formally adopt; they could act as parental figures to other direct or in-law family members; etc.

As you know, neither 2 men nor 2 women can procreate; nor could they supply their children (adopted or conceived artificially) with male and female parenting, thus depriving them of a normal and healthy upbringing and further denigrating the civil society. Instead, we need to concentrate on fixing the problems we have now: hetero couples and individuals that continue to have children out of wedlock or that walk away from marriages and potential families.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 7:26:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This argument fails against the "ridiculous" examples for the reasons as noted. The argument fails against the Polygamy and Familial examples as it begs the question of assuming that "Love each other" is the SOLE defining characteristic being advocated for.

Just as "dead things" fails on the basis of dead things being unable to enter into contracts, so too does extending SSM to Polygamy fail because the gender argument does not affect the number argument. Even if the "marriages are for procreation" argument wasn't hilariously fallacious, that wouldn't support the idea of preventing polygamy on its own.

The prevention of Familial marriage is AFAIK based on an attempt to prevent (as much as possible) inbreeding, which is not a problem for SSM, and so the situations are not analogous, and cannot be combined by the premise. Familial SSM might be a good point to bring up...but then, you'd have to get support that Familial SSM was immoral.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 9:59:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 7:26:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
This argument fails against the "ridiculous" examples for the reasons as noted. The argument fails against the Polygamy and Familial examples as it begs the question of assuming that "Love each other" is the SOLE defining characteristic being advocated for.
Strawman: the argument for Polygamy and "Familial" marriage is not that they "Love each other as the SOLE defining characteristic"; actually, it's not even a NECESSARY component to ANY position regarding marriage!

Just as "dead things" fails on the basis of dead things being unable to enter into contracts, so too does extending SSM to Polygamy fail because the gender argument does not affect the number argument.
This is completely erroneous: non sequitur. The fact that non-persons cannot enter into contract has NOTHING to do with whether or not "persons" can. The argument for SSM isn't about "gender" it's IN SPITE OF gender. Basically, it's that adults should be able to get married REGARDLESS of gender BECAUSE they have claims to those rights as well. The problem is that polygamists can use the same arguments as well: adults should be able to get married REGARDLESS of number BECAUSE they have claims to those rights as well. Actually, polygamists have a better claim as it has a more recent history in the US.

Even if the "marriages are for procreation" argument wasn't hilariously fallacious, that wouldn't support the idea of preventing polygamy on its own.
The argument of "marriage for procreation" is not hilariously fallacious as it is the PRIMARY purpose of marriage: to form a familial unit. This is also an argument against polygamy as a family unit consists of a mother and a father.

The prevention of Familial marriage is AFAIK based on an attempt to prevent (as much as possible) inbreeding, which is not a problem for SSM, and so the situations are not analogous, and cannot be combined by the premise.
(1) Inbreeding isn't a problem between same sex Familial marriage.
(2) In the case of opposite sex Familial marriage, there's always (A) abstinence , (B) birth control, (C) abortion, and (D) the right to inbreed.

Familial SSM might be a good point to bring up...but then, you'd have to get support that Familial SSM was immoral.
Incestuous Marriage (better than saying familial) is indeed immoral, but then again so is SSM!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 3:19:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
@tBoonePickens:

"Strawman: the argument for Polygamy and "Familial" marriage is not that they "Love each other as the SOLE defining characteristic"; actually, it's not even a NECESSARY component to ANY position regarding marriage!"

It's the premise of the wedge argument that is the original post. So, yes, it is.

"This is completely erroneous: non sequitur. The fact that non-persons cannot enter into contract has NOTHING to do with whether or not "persons" can. The argument for SSM isn't about "gender" it's IN SPITE OF gender. Basically, it's that adults should be able to get married REGARDLESS of gender BECAUSE they have claims to those rights as well. The problem is that polygamists can use the same arguments as well: adults should be able to get married REGARDLESS of number BECAUSE they have claims to those rights as well. Actually, polygamists have a better claim as it has a more recent history in the US."

They may have that claim, however, they are making an argument against the limitation of NUMBER, not GENDER. SSM proponents have not addressed any possible arguments regarding limiting the number of participants, because it is unnecessary for their point; they point out that the "gender" component has no validity beyond the religious. Polygamists would need to establish the same point, except regarding the limitation on the number of participants, in order for the cases to correlate. You can't just swap nouns and say the arguments are identical, unless they actually are.

"The argument of "marriage for procreation" is not hilariously fallacious as it is the PRIMARY purpose of marriage:"
That is, of course, ridiculous. Procreation is not required, nor is even ABILITY to procreate, so it cannot possibly be the "PRIMARY purpose of marriage".

"to form a familial unit."
Which is of course different than procreation, and can be fulfilled with SSM.

"This is also an argument against polygamy as a family unit consists of a mother and a father."
Without a reason to require it to be limited in that way, you're simply asserting your religion is better than anyone else's. As much fun as that is for you, it's selfish and hypocritical. I'd hope that wouldn't be your position.

"Incestuous Marriage (better than saying familial) is indeed immoral, but then again so is SSM!"

Why is incestuous marriage immoral, if not for the inbreeding? And, of course, why is SSM immoral? These are not established in the wedge argument that we were asked to talk about. Of course, to debate them runs the risk of falling down the rabbit hole, when the original question was about the argument, which I maintain still fails.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 10:53:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/2/2013 3:19:36 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
@tBoonePickens:

"Strawman: the argument for Polygamy and "Familial" marriage is not that they "Love each other as the SOLE defining characteristic"; actually, it's not even a NECESSARY component to ANY position regarding marriage!"
It's the premise of the wedge argument that is the original post. So, yes, it is.
Fair enough.

"This is completely erroneous: non sequitur. The fact that non-persons cannot enter into contract has NOTHING to do with whether or not "persons" can. The argument for SSM isn't about "gender" it's IN SPITE OF gender. Basically, it's that adults should be able to get married REGARDLESS of gender BECAUSE they have claims to those rights as well. The problem is that polygamists can use the same arguments as well: adults should be able to get married REGARDLESS of number BECAUSE they have claims to those rights as well. Actually, polygamists have a better claim as it has a more recent history in the US."
They may have that claim, however, they are making an argument against the limitation of NUMBER, not GENDER. SSM proponents have not addressed any possible arguments regarding limiting the number of participants, because it is unnecessary for their point; they point out that the "gender" component has no validity beyond the religious. Polygamists would need to establish the same point, except regarding the limitation on the number of participants, in order for the cases to correlate. You can't just swap nouns and say the arguments are identical, unless they actually are.
I know that the SSM proponents are not making an argument about NUMBER, but it is irrelevant because it is the STRUCTURE of the argument that LEADS to NUMBER. In other words, the reason that SSM should be allowed is because "limiting the GENDER creates a violation of rights."

We can easily see that "limiting the NUMBER creates a violation of rights." So basically the argument is: "limiting the _______ creates a violation of rights." And this is why I find the argument to be incorrect from the get go. If we simply realize that the right that exists is "for any man to marry any woman, and vice versa" then we can clearly see that NO rights are being violated because ANY man can marry any woman (and vice versa) regardless of their sexual orientations. It defeats the SSM argument as well as the polygamist argument; the polygamist & SSM advocates then need to present arguments as to why marriage should be REDEFINED.

"The argument of "marriage for procreation" is not hilariously fallacious as it is the PRIMARY purpose of marriage:"
That is, of course, ridiculous. Procreation is not required, nor is even ABILITY to procreate, so it cannot possibly be the "PRIMARY purpose of marriage".
(1) "Purpose" is defined subjectively.
(2) No one said that procreation is REQUIRED in a marriage; it is PREFERRED.
(3) The purpose of marriage is to form a FAMILY. A familial unit consists of a husband and a wife and CAN LEAD to children through procreation and/or other means.

"to form a familial unit."
Which is of course different than procreation, and can be fulfilled with SSM.
No it cannot; see above.

"This is also an argument against polygamy as a family unit consists of a mother and a father."
Without a reason to require it to be limited in that way, you're simply asserting your religion is better than anyone else's. As much fun as that is for you, it's selfish and hypocritical. I'd hope that wouldn't be your position.
(1) It IS that way REGARDLESS of religion.
(2) It is up to SSM proponents to EXPLAIN why it should be otherwise.

SSM have the BOP.

"Incestuous Marriage (better than saying familial) is indeed immoral, but then again so is SSM!"
Why is incestuous marriage immoral, if not for the inbreeding?
(A) Why is inbreeding immoral?

(B) So you are for non-inbreeding incestuous marriages?

And, of course, why is SSM immoral?
Because it is deviant behavior that is detrimental to the civil society.

These are not established in the wedge argument that we were asked to talk about. Of course, to debate them runs the risk of falling down the rabbit hole, when the original question was about the argument, which I maintain still fails.
Indeed it does not fail as I have explained above.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 3:41:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 7:26:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
This argument fails against the "ridiculous" examples for the reasons as noted. The argument fails against the Polygamy and Familial examples as it begs the question of assuming that "Love each other" is the SOLE defining characteristic being advocated for.

Just as "dead things" fails on the basis of dead things being unable to enter into contracts, so too does extending SSM to Polygamy fail because the gender argument does not affect the number argument. Even if the "marriages are for procreation" argument wasn't hilariously fallacious, that wouldn't support the idea of preventing polygamy on its own.

The prevention of Familial marriage is AFAIK based on an attempt to prevent (as much as possible) inbreeding, which is not a problem for SSM, and so the situations are not analogous, and cannot be combined by the premise. Familial SSM might be a good point to bring up...but then, you'd have to get support that Familial SSM was immoral.

Tsk, tsk...

See, the only reason why marriage (properly understood) is restricted to two individuals of the opposite sex is because of that coupling's potential to lead to the creation of new members of society to be raised culturally and biologically in the most nourishing familial unit by their natural, biological parents. The purpose of marriage - not to be confused with and irrelevant to the subsidiary purposes of the individuals entertaining marriage - is to oversee the responsibilities upon procreation from a socio-economic viewpoint. In other words, it is simply not germane that a man and woman decide to get married to enjoy tax benefits, or to enjoy a beautiful wedding reception in a fancy resort in Thailand amongst easily inebriated socialites, or because they love each other, etc., etc., etc. It doesn't matter what the individuals' intentions are when considering/getting married; what is important is the purpose of marriage per se.

Now imagine if that tie to procreation is rejected, as you seem to do. Now what basis exists for restricting marriage to 12 men and 15 women all "love each other" and are "committed to" one another. You cannot appeal to the tie to procreation you have already rejected. So upon what basis can the state then deny that poly-amorous clusterfudge (pun intended) marriage? I can see no basis for it do deny such an absurd pairing "marriage." Same with a father and his son who are lovingly committed or a woman and her grandfather, etc., etc., etc. So what can the supporter of same sex "marriage" do at this point in order to prevent these absurdities from being realized? Not much, I submit. All he could do is simply impose some utterly arbitrary legal threshold to limit "marriage" to two individuals. But not only would that open the door to all manners of incestuous "marriages" and the like, but would, as already noted, have no rational or legal basis to maintain and would so be completely open to challenge.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 3:53:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/3/2013 3:41:26 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 1/1/2013 7:26:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
This argument fails against the "ridiculous" examples for the reasons as noted. The argument fails against the Polygamy and Familial examples as it begs the question of assuming that "Love each other" is the SOLE defining characteristic being advocated for.

Just as "dead things" fails on the basis of dead things being unable to enter into contracts, so too does extending SSM to Polygamy fail because the gender argument does not affect the number argument. Even if the "marriages are for procreation" argument wasn't hilariously fallacious, that wouldn't support the idea of preventing polygamy on its own.

The prevention of Familial marriage is AFAIK based on an attempt to prevent (as much as possible) inbreeding, which is not a problem for SSM, and so the situations are not analogous, and cannot be combined by the premise. Familial SSM might be a good point to bring up...but then, you'd have to get support that Familial SSM was immoral.

Tsk, tsk...

See, the only reason why marriage (properly understood) is restricted to two individuals of the opposite sex is because of that coupling's potential to lead to the creation of new members of society to be raised culturally and biologically in the most nourishing familial unit by their natural, biological parents. The purpose of marriage - not to be confused with and irrelevant to the subsidiary purposes of the individuals entertaining marriage - is to oversee the responsibilities upon procreation from a socio-economic viewpoint. In other words, it is simply not germane that a man and woman decide to get married to enjoy tax benefits, or to enjoy a beautiful wedding reception in a fancy resort in Thailand amongst easily inebriated socialites, or because they love each other, etc., etc., etc. It doesn't matter what the individuals' intentions are when considering/getting married; what is important is the purpose of marriage per se.

Now imagine if that tie to procreation is rejected, as you seem to do. Now what basis exists for restricting marriage to 12 men and 15 women all "love each other" and are "committed to" one another. You cannot appeal to the tie to procreation you have already rejected. So upon what basis can the state then deny that poly-amorous clusterfudge (pun intended) marriage? I can see no basis for it do deny such an absurd pairing "marriage." Same with a father and his son who are lovingly committed or a woman and her grandfather, etc., etc., etc. So what can the supporter of same sex "marriage" do at this point in order to prevent these absurdities from being realized? Not much, I submit. All he could do is simply impose some utterly arbitrary legal threshold to limit "marriage" to two individuals. But not only would that open the door to all manners of incestuous "marriages" and the like, but would, as already noted, have no rational or legal basis to maintain and would so be completely open to challenge.
Excellent! Very eloquently stated!

SSM, like most other liberal/progressive causes, is an attempt at redefining social norms and practices in such a vague way as to loose its original meaning: heck loose all meaning! When marriage becomes so broad and meaningless a term, why would the state incentivize it? It wouldn't. It would be against the states best interest to do so.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 7:16:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
@SovereignDream:

Tsk, tsk yourself. If procreation was the sole reason for marriage, that would in fact be an argument FOR polygamy: not only would there be a higher likelihood of more children, but there would be more opportunity for genetic mixing.

Further, it is NOT, nor has it ever in the modern era, been a required element of marriage, as has already been pointed out to you.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!