Total Posts:127|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Three Bad Arguments for Same-Sex Marriage

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2012 8:23:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
by Timothy Hsiao (AKA Contradiction)

Many popular arguments for same-sex marriage are philosophically bankrupt. In this article, I offer a short critique of three of the most common arguments in its favor.

1. "Legalizing same-sex marriage will result in benefits for same-sex couples"

According to this argument, same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because they will be better off if allowed to marry. The phrase "better off" is usually cashed out in a variety of ways and includes economic benefits, legal benefits, and social benefits. It is also sometimes said that those involved in wedding related occupations would also benefit.

Putting aside the question of whether or not there actually would be increased economic prosperity and the like, why should we legalize something merely because it would benefit others? I"m sure that many would be benefited if the government enacted tax breaks for marrying one"s car, but obviously the government is under no obligation to do so. Admittedly this is a silly example, but it illustrates the point that simply because some policy will yield benefits if enacted doesn"t mean that it ought to be enacted. What"s really doing the work in this argument isn"t the perceived benefit, but the assumption that same-sex couples are entitled to such benefits. However, this simply begs the question against the opponent of same-sex marriage.

2. "Same-sex couples love each other"

Proponents of this argument hold that because same-sex couples can genuinely express love and affection for each other that they therefore ought to be given the right to marry. Without getting into the deeper philosophical question of what love actually is, I readily grant that same-sex individuals do experience a sense of romantic or erotic attraction to one another (and we can refer to this as being love).

But this by itself is wholly inadequate. Many have these same attractions to all sorts of things"other people, children, animals, inanimate objects, themselves, etc. Obviously, in many cases, this doesn"t confer upon them a right to marry the object of their desire. We all recognize that certain desires are deviant and disordered. Why? Because such desires are not aimed toward their proper goal. Disorder presupposes order. What is thus relevant is not romantic attraction in general, but a certain type of romantic attraction that is ordered toward the right end.

Absent any argument as to why "love" between same-sex couples is rightly ordered, the mere fact that they may "love" each other is not enough to bestow upon them a right to marry. The same goes with consent. Two (or more) people may consent to nearly anything with anyone, but that alone does not establish a right to what they consent to. Certainly, romantic attraction and consent are important for a marriage, but neither are sufficient. Contrary to what the Beatles said, love is not all you need. Something else has to do the work.

3. "Legalizing same-sex marriage is like legalizing interracial marriage"

This argument from analogy"one common to many court rulings"is completely baseless. Most who argue against same-sex marriage reason on the basis that marriage is a natural institution which is ordered around the procreative type-act. That is, male-female complementarity is a necessary condition for a marriage. It is for this reason that anti-miscegenation statutes were unjust, as race had absolutely no bearing on the intrinsic possibility of procreation between a male and female of different racial backgrounds. The same rationale, however, cannot be extended to same-sex marriage. Unlike race, gender is relevant to the essence of marriage in that there is not even the potential for procreative activity between two individuals of the same gender. There is no point of comparison between the two. If anything, this analogy actually counts against the case for same-sex marriage. (For more on this point, see Francis Beckwith"s "Interracial Marriage and Same Sex Marriage.")

Timothy Hsiao is a philosophy student at Florida State University. His interests are in the areas of applied ethics and jurisprudence. He is a regular contributor to Ethika Politika.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funniest Comment:

"3 Bad Arguments for Interracial Marriage"

By Scott Forschler (after Timothy Hsaio)

1. "Legalizing interracial marriage will result in benefits for interracial couples"

What"s really doing the work in this argument isn"t the perceived benefit, but the assumption that interracial couples are entitled to such benefits. However, this simply begs the question against the opponent of interracial marriage.

2. "Interracial couples love each other"

We all recognize that certain desires are deviant and disordered. Why? Because such desires are not aimed toward their proper goal. Something else has to do the work of showing that this love is properly directed.

3. "Legalizing interracial marriage is like legalizing intraracial marriage"

This argument is completely baseless according to its critics. Most who argue against interracial marriage reason on the basis that marriage is a natural institution which is ordered around racial purity in procreation. That is, male-female racial identity is a necessary condition for a marriage. It is for this reason that marriage statutes banning voluntary intraracial marriages contrary to the parental wishes of the couple would be unjust, as parental wishes have absolutely no bearing on the intrinsic possibility of preserving racial purity. The same rationale, however, cannot be extended to interracial marriage. There is no point of comparison between the two.

Tim, YOU beg the question by ignoring the fact that "all the work" in your argument is being done by something you haven"t defended: your choice to determine that the essence of marriage is biological procreation from intercourse of the two partners (which can be satisfied by just raping someone and dragging her back to your cave), and not love, caring for and raising children, and sustaining relationships, all of which require much more morally sound and higher human capacities. Unless and until you can defend this, your argument is no better than the one I gave; if it rests, as I strongly believe it does, on an arbitrarily chosen & defended traditional and religion-specific conception of morality which does great harm in its implementation, then your meta-principle of choosing and defending such an arbitrary principle implicitly entails acceptance of the argument I have just suggested against interracial marriage, which is based on an equally arbitrary and harmful principle of "traditional" marriage.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2012 8:24:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just now realizing how long this OP looks and that no one will read it.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2012 8:27:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/27/2012 8:24:14 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Just now realizing how long this OP looks and that no one will read it.

You are suffering from what is known on DDO as "Charleslbinitis".
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Wishing4Winter
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2012 8:36:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is interesting,however disregarding the three aforementioned arguments in favor of SSM, do you believe there is any merit to the case for same sex marriage?
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2012 8:57:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/27/2012 8:27:44 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 11/27/2012 8:24:14 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Just now realizing how long this OP looks and that no one will read it.

You are suffering from what is known on DDO as "Charleslbinitis".

IS THERE A VACCINE YET?!?!?!!

HEELLLLLPPPP!!!!!!!

THE MERCHANT'S TALE
An old lecher finally decides to get married
1245 Whilom there was dwelling in Lombardy Once upon a time
A worthy knight that born was of Pavie, born in Pavia
In which he lived in great prosperity;
And sixty years a wifeless man was he,
And followed aye his bodily delight always indulged
1250 On women, there as was his appetite, wherever he liked
As do these fool"s that been secular. worldly
And when that he was pass"d sixty year "
Were it for holiness or for dot"ge senility
I can not say " but such a great cour"ge desire
1255 Had this knight to be a wedded man,
That day and night he does all that he can
T'espyen where he might" wedded be, To see
Praying our Lord to granten him that he
Might onc" know of thilk" blissful life of that
1260 That is betwixt a husband and his wife,
And for to live under that holy bond
With which that first God man and woman bound:
"No other life," said he, "is worth a bean!
For wedlock is so easy and so clean
1265 That in this world it is a paradise."
Thus said this old" knight that was so wise.
An extended passage in "praise" of marriage
And certainly, as sooth as God is king, As sure as
To take a wife, it is a glorious thing,
And namely when a man is old and hoar! white-haired
1270 Then is a wife the fruit of his treas"re:
Then should he take a young wife and a fair,
On which he might engender him an heir, On whom / beget
And lead his life in joy and in sol"ce,
Whereas these bachelor"'s sing "Alas!"
1275 When that they finden any adversity
In love, which is but childish vanity. is only CANTERBURY TALES 8

1
1295: "What does it matter if Theophrastus chooses to lie." Theophastus's anti-feminist tract
figures earlier, in the Wife of Bath's Tale. Her fifth husband liked reading it.

2
1296-7: "Do not marry for the sake of economy, to save on household expenses" (such as
servants). Presumably a pun is intended on husbandry = "economy" and also "marriage."
And truly, it sits well to be so, it's appropriate
That bachelors have often pain and woe;
On brittle ground they build, and brittleness
1280 They find" when they ween" sikerness. imagine certainty
They live but as a bird or as a beast
In liberty and under no arrest, no constraint
Whereas a wedded man in his estate condition in life
Liveth a life blissful and ordinate ordered
1285 Under this yoke of marr"age y-bound;
Well may his heart in joy and bliss abound.
For who can be so buxom as a wife? so obliging
Who is so true and eke so ententife also so attentive
To keep him, sick and whole, as is his make? & healthy / mate
1290 For weal or woe she will him not forsake. For good or ill
She is not weary him to love and serve,
Though that he lie bedridden till he starve. till he die
Ignore the misogamists
And yet some clerk"s say it is not so, clerics, scholars
Of which he Theofrast is one of tho'. T: an anti-feminist
1295 What force though Theofrastus list to lie?
1
What matter / chooses
"Ne take no wife," quod he, "for husbandry economy
As for to spare in household thy dispense.
2
A tru" servant does more diligence works harder
Thy goods to keep" than thine own" wife,
1300 For she will claim half part all her life.
And if that thou be sick, so God me save,
Thy very friend"s or a tru" knave good f. / servant
Will keep thee better than she that waiteth aye always
After thy goods, and has done many a day. After = For
1305 And if thou take a wife unto thine hold, keeping
Full lightly mayest thou be a cuck"wold." v. easily / deceived husband
This sentence and a hundred thing"s worse opinion
Writeth this man. There God his bon"s curse! May God ERCHANT'S TALE 9

1
1313-4: Pasture is grazing land; commune is land or rights held in common with others;
moebles is movable items like furniture.
But take no keep of all such vanity " take no notice / nonsense
1310 Defy Theofrast, and hearken me: listen to
A wife is God"'s gift" verily. truly
All other manner gift"s hardily, certainly
As land"s, rent"s, pasture, or commune, common land
Or moebles, all been gift"s of Fortune,
1
chattels
1315 That passen as a shadow upon a wall.
But dread" not, if plainly speak I shall,
A wife will last and in thine house endure
Well longer than thee list, per"venture. than you want, maybe
Marriage is a full great sacrament.
1320 He which that has no wife I hold him shent. wretched
He liveth helpless and all desolate "
I speak of folk in secular estate. i.e. not priests
And hearken why I say not this for nought
That woman is for mann"'s help y-wrought: created
1325 The high" God, when he had Adam mak"d
And saw him all alon", belly-naked,
God of his great" goodness said" then:
"Let us now make a help unto this man
Like to himself." And then he made him Eve.
1330 Here may you see, and hereby may you prove
That wife is man's help and his comfort,
His paradise terrestre and his desport. p. on earth & his joy
So buxom and so virtuous is she So obedient
They must" need"s live in unity:
1335 One flesh they been, and one flesh, as I guess,
Has but one heart in weal and in distress. good times
A wife! Ah, Saint" Mary, ben'citee! bless us !
How might a man have any adversity
That has a wife? Cert"s, I cannot say. certainly
1340 The bliss" which that is betwixt them tway, two
There may no tongu" tell or heart" think.
If he be poor, she helpeth him to swink. to work
She keeps his goods and wasteth never a deal.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2012 9:11:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I thought the most popular reason for allowing same sex marriage was because there's no fvcking reason not to allow it.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2012 9:12:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I was typing a response to the first three arguments when I realized you'd posted someone else's response already. Since that response covered everything on the third arguments, I'll post my reactions to the first two.

At 11/27/2012 8:23:33 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:


1. "Legalizing same-sex marriage will result in benefits for same-sex couples"


This is actually not the argument. This is only the argument for why same-sex couples want their marriages recognized, and not why it should be legal.


2. "Same-sex couples love each other"


Again, this is not the whole argument. Same-sex couples still have to be able to consent, which an animal, toaster, or child can't.
yang.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2012 9:13:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/27/2012 9:11:28 PM, drafterman wrote:
I thought the most popular reason for allowing same sex marriage was because there's no fvcking reason not to allow it.

lol quoted for truth.
yang.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2012 9:15:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/27/2012 9:13:22 PM, tulle wrote:
At 11/27/2012 9:11:28 PM, drafterman wrote:
I thought the most popular reason for allowing same sex marriage was because there's no fvcking reason not to allow it.

lol quoted for truth.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2012 9:24:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/27/2012 9:11:28 PM, drafterman wrote:
I thought the most popular reason for allowing same sex marriage was because there's no fvcking reason not to allow it.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2012 12:30:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Pointless thread, in my opinion. The gay marriage movement went insane years ago.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2012 1:10:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
3 even worse arguments for same sex marriage

1) Gay sex keeps the evil alien overlords away
2) It will be hysterical watching homophobes struggle to cope with it
3) There is a correlation between states that allow gay marriage and states that legalize marijuana
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2012 2:15:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/27/2012 9:11:28 PM, drafterman wrote:
I thought the most popular reason for allowing same sex marriage was because there's no fvcking reason not to allow it.

Here's a reason: Writing amendments and laws takes to allow gay marriage takes a lot of time, work and energy. Our representatives should be working on more important stuff like making sure our whole freakin' economy doesn't meltdown due to massive tax hikes and unsustainable deficits. Worrying about distractions like whether a gay couple can get married or not is the last thing those knuckleheads running our country should be doing.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2012 2:53:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/27/2012 9:13:22 PM, tulle wrote:
At 11/27/2012 9:11:28 PM, drafterman wrote:
I thought the most popular reason for allowing same sex marriage was because there's no fvcking reason not to allow it.

lol quoted for truth.

The truth is, in my opinion, there is no good reason to allow it, and a weak argument against it.

The only argument that SSM advocates have is that it's unfair. That may be, but I don't see them trying to de-criminalize incest, polygamy, or sexually active "minors" (not children, but teens), let alone talk about allowing them to marry. They are hypocritical in this sense, except those that say to get rid of marriage all together, but then SSM isn't really their issue, is it?

The government cares about marriage for two reasons:
1. Procreation, as a marriage is not valid unless sex has occurred, to my understanding.
2. Strengthening the familial unit, with spousal previlige, next of kin, auto inheritence, etc.

Gays cannot procreate, thus they shouldn't be allowed to marry. If they can marry, why not brother and sister? The reason is society doesn't want kids with 11 toes, but obviously, if gays can marry, procreation is not relevant. This is the weak argument, but unfortunately, it is the best one there is for either side, except for not recognizing ANY marriage.

Personally, I think there should be a legal distinction between gay marriages and straight ones, because I believe there will need to be distinctions in various legal matters. However, the benefits (SS survivorship, next of kin, etc.) should be the same for whatever the government is responsible for.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2012 2:56:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/28/2012 2:15:12 AM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 11/27/2012 9:11:28 PM, drafterman wrote:
I thought the most popular reason for allowing same sex marriage was because there's no fvcking reason not to allow it.

Here's a reason: Writing amendments and laws takes to allow gay marriage takes a lot of time, work and energy. Our representatives should be working on more important stuff like making sure our whole freakin' economy doesn't meltdown due to massive tax hikes and unsustainable deficits. Worrying about distractions like whether a gay couple can get married or not is the last thing those knuckleheads running our country should be doing.

Largely, this is a state issue, as the federal government only cares about marriage for very few purposes, like tax filing status and SS benefits. I think passing a law that says federal law will bend to the laws of the particular state would suffice, much like how I believe "community property" works for taxes.
My work here is, finally, done.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2012 3:34:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/27/2012 at some indeterminate time, Timothy Hsiao (AKA Contradiction) wrote:

1. "Legalizing same-sex marriage will result in benefits for same-sex couples"

Obviously, this depends on the circumstance. For homosexuals in the military or who end up having long stays in the hospital, there are obviously benefits that extend past just marriage. However, for the most part, the benefit of legally-acknowledged marriage for gay people is legally-acknowledged marriage. Of course, that's desirous in its own right, lest no one would get married and marriage in general just wouldn't exist.

2. "Same-sex couples love each other"

Yes, one can love anything. However, not any two sets of things can love one another. The distinction between what one can and cannot acceptably marry has always been the ability for both parties to make such a decision rationally under the eyes of the law. Accordingly, one cannot marry a child (in most states), an animal, a car, or a chair. Including someone of the same sex doesn't follow, because someone of the same sex could very well have the capacity to share such a feeling, make such a decision, and commit to it (within reason).

3. "Legalizing same-sex marriage is like legalizing interracial marriage"

Well, the fact is interracial marriage was once (and remains to a degree) controversial due to racism, or a negative interpretation of people perceptively from a given ethnic group. People from the LGBT community likewise suffer from negative social implications, and they're barred from marriage for similar reasons. So, I think the comparison follows, although it's not a perfect and neat comparison. But, nothing is, really. That's why it's a comparison, but not necessarily a parallelism.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2012 6:00:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/28/2012 2:53:28 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/27/2012 9:13:22 PM, tulle wrote:
At 11/27/2012 9:11:28 PM, drafterman wrote:
I thought the most popular reason for allowing same sex marriage was because there's no fvcking reason not to allow it.

lol quoted for truth.

The truth is, in my opinion, there is no good reason to allow it, and a weak argument against it.

LOL, what? There is no good reason to let people chew gum or smoke tobacco either, but that does not mean that the government should be able to ban it.
The only argument that SSM advocates have is that it's unfair.
It also violates liberty.
That may be, but I don't see them trying to de-criminalize incest, polygamy, or sexually active "minors" (not children, but teens), let alone talk about allowing them to marry. They are hypocritical in this sense, except those that say to get rid of marriage all together, but then SSM isn't really their issue, is it?

Was it hypocritical of abolitionists to not support rights for women? It is not their duty to support reforming the system for all people. This is a pretty silly argument.
The government cares about marriage for two reasons:
1. Procreation, as a marriage is not valid unless sex has occurred, to my understanding.
Um, based on what? The purpose of marriage is not procreation. The purpose of marriage is to make a public commitment to stay together. That's it. Marriage has no other purpose; procreation can occur outside of marriage.

Is Stephen Hawking's marriage invalid because he is incapable of having sex? Marriages are not valid because you says so; they are valid based because the people who are participating in them say they are. You cannot impose your standards on people and demand that they fulfill them. What is the basis for this nonsensical claim?
2. Strengthening the familial unit, with spousal previlige, next of kin, auto inheritence, etc.

Gays cannot procreate, thus they shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Um, no. What about sterile couples? What about paralyzed individuals or people like Stephen Hawking? What about old couples who want to get married? These people should all be free to marry because they have a natural right to get married.
If they can marry, why not brother and sister?
They should be able to.
The reason is society doesn't want kids with 11 toes,
Who cares what society wants? Since when did society have the right to limit my freedom?
but obviously, if gays can marry, procreation is not relevant.
You are starting to catch on, are you not?
This is the weak argument, but unfortunately, it is the best one there is for either side, except for not recognizing ANY marriage.

Nope. The reason is that people have the right to marry any consenting adult he or she deems it to marry.
Personally, I think there should be a legal distinction between gay marriages and straight ones, because I believe there will need to be distinctions in various legal matters. However, the benefits (SS survivorship, next of kin, etc.) should be the same for whatever the government is responsible for.
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2012 6:14:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/27/2012 8:23:33 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
by Timothy Hsiao (AKA Contradiction)

Many popular arguments for same-sex marriage are philosophically bankrupt. In this article, I offer a short critique of three of the most common arguments in its favor.


1. "Legalizing same-sex marriage will result in benefits for same-sex couples"

According to this argument, same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because they will be better off if allowed to marry. The phrase "better off" is usually cashed out in a variety of ways and includes economic benefits, legal benefits, and social benefits. It is also sometimes said that those involved in wedding related occupations would also benefit.

Putting aside the question of whether or not there actually would be increased economic prosperity and the like, why should we legalize something merely because it would benefit others? I"m sure that many would be benefited if the government enacted tax breaks for marrying one"s car, but obviously the government is under no obligation to do so. Admittedly this is a silly example, but it illustrates the point that simply because some policy will yield benefits if enacted doesn"t mean that it ought to be enacted. What"s really doing the work in this argument isn"t the perceived benefit, but the assumption that same-sex couples are entitled to such benefits. However, this simply begs the question against the opponent of same-sex marriage.

2. "Same-sex couples love each other"

Proponents of this argument hold that because same-sex couples can genuinely express love and affection for each other that they therefore ought to be given the right to marry. Without getting into the deeper philosophical question of what love actually is, I readily grant that same-sex individuals do experience a sense of romantic or erotic attraction to one another (and we can refer to this as being love).

But this by itself is wholly inadequate. Many have these same attractions to all sorts of things"other people, children, animals, inanimate objects, themselves, etc. Obviously, in many cases, this doesn"t confer upon them a right to marry the object of their desire. We all recognize that certain desires are deviant and disordered. Why? Because such desires are not aimed toward their proper goal. Disorder presupposes order. What is thus relevant is not romantic attraction in general, but a certain type of romantic attraction that is ordered toward the right end.

Absent any argument as to why "love" between same-sex couples is rightly ordered, the mere fact that they may "love" each other is not enough to bestow upon them a right to marry. The same goes with consent. Two (or more) people may consent to nearly anything with anyone, but that alone does not establish a right to what they consent to. Certainly, romantic attraction and consent are important for a marriage, but neither are sufficient. Contrary to what the Beatles said, love is not all you need. Something else has to do the work.

3. "Legalizing same-sex marriage is like legalizing interracial marriage"

This argument from analogy"one common to many court rulings"is completely baseless. Most who argue against same-sex marriage reason on the basis that marriage is a natural institution which is ordered around the procreative type-act. That is, male-female complementarity is a necessary condition for a marriage. It is for this reason that anti-miscegenation statutes were unjust, as race had absolutely no bearing on the intrinsic possibility of procreation between a male and female of different racial backgrounds. The same rationale, however, cannot be extended to same-sex marriage. Unlike race, gender is relevant to the essence of marriage in that there is not even the potential for procreative activity between two individuals of the same gender. There is no point of comparison between the two. If anything, this analogy actually counts against the case for same-sex marriage. (For more on this point, see Francis Beckwith"s "Interracial Marriage and Same Sex Marriage.")

Timothy Hsiao is a philosophy student at Florida State University. His interests are in the areas of applied ethics and jurisprudence. He is a regular contributor to Ethika Politika.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funniest Comment:

"3 Bad Arguments for Interracial Marriage"

By Scott Forschler (after Timothy Hsaio)

1. "Legalizing interracial marriage will result in benefits for interracial couples"

What"s really doing the work in this argument isn"t the perceived benefit, but the assumption that interracial couples are entitled to such benefits. However, this simply begs the question against the opponent of interracial marriage.

2. "Interracial couples love each other"

We all recognize that certain desires are deviant and disordered. Why? Because such desires are not aimed toward their proper goal. Something else has to do the work of showing that this love is properly directed.

3. "Legalizing interracial marriage is like legalizing intraracial marriage"

This argument is completely baseless according to its critics. Most who argue against interracial marriage reason on the basis that marriage is a natural institution which is ordered around racial purity in procreation. That is, male-female racial identity is a necessary condition for a marriage. It is for this reason that marriage statutes banning voluntary intraracial marriages contrary to the parental wishes of the couple would be unjust, as parental wishes have absolutely no bearing on the intrinsic possibility of preserving racial purity. The same rationale, however, cannot be extended to interracial marriage. There is no point of comparison between the two.

Tim, YOU beg the question by ignoring the fact that "all the work" in your argument is being done by something you haven"t defended: your choice to determine that the essence of marriage is biological procreation from intercourse of the two partners (which can be satisfied by just raping someone and dragging her back to your cave), and not love, caring for and raising children, and sustaining relationships, all of which require much more morally sound and higher human capacities. Unless and until you can defend this, your argument is no better than the one I gave; if it rests, as I strongly believe it does, on an arbitrarily chosen & defended traditional and religion-specific conception of morality which does great harm in its implementation, then your meta-principle of choosing and defending such an arbitrary principle implicitly entails acceptance of the argument I have just suggested against interracial marriage, which is based on an equally arbitrary and harmful principle of "traditional" marriage.

lol @ all of this
Tsar of DDO
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2012 6:34:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/28/2012 6:00:19 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 11/28/2012 2:53:28 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/27/2012 9:13:22 PM, tulle wrote:
At 11/27/2012 9:11:28 PM, drafterman wrote:
I thought the most popular reason for allowing same sex marriage was because there's no fvcking reason not to allow it.

lol quoted for truth.

The truth is, in my opinion, there is no good reason to allow it, and a weak argument against it.

LOL, what? There is no good reason to let people chew gum or smoke tobacco either, but that does not mean that the government should be able to ban it.

We aren't banning anything. Marriage is a religious union. Marriage licenses are benefits given out by the state.

The only argument that SSM advocates have is that it's unfair.
It also violates liberty.

To not get government benefits? I see.

That may be, but I don't see them trying to de-criminalize incest, polygamy, or sexually active "minors" (not children, but teens), let alone talk about allowing them to marry. They are hypocritical in this sense, except those that say to get rid of marriage all together, but then SSM isn't really their issue, is it?

Was it hypocritical of abolitionists to not support rights for women? It is not their duty to support reforming the system for all people. This is a pretty silly argument.
The government cares about marriage for two reasons:
1. Procreation, as a marriage is not valid unless sex has occurred, to my understanding.
Um, based on what? The purpose of marriage is not procreation. The purpose of marriage is to make a public commitment to stay together. That's it. Marriage has no other purpose; procreation can occur outside of marriage.

That's right. Except, obviously, the government does not subsidize personal relationships, despite what you may believe.

Is Stephen Hawking's marriage invalid because he is incapable of having sex? Marriages are not valid because you says so; they are valid based because the people who are participating in them say they are. You cannot impose your standards on people and demand that they fulfill them. What is the basis for this nonsensical claim?

The courts cannot inquire into the procreative capacity of a couple for cases like these.

2. Strengthening the familial unit, with spousal previlige, next of kin, auto inheritence, etc.

Gays cannot procreate, thus they shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Um, no. What about sterile couples? What about paralyzed individuals or people like Stephen Hawking? What about old couples who want to get married? These people should all be free to marry because they have a natural right to get married.

Again, being sterile is irrelevant as I explained.

If they can marry, why not brother and sister?
They should be able to.

Of course they should. They should NOT have their relationship subsidized because it is not a procreative or even healthy union.

The reason is society doesn't want kids with 11 toes,
Who cares what society wants? Since when did society have the right to limit my freedom?

They don't, obviously. No freedom is being limited. And no, NO child deserves to have physical or mental handicaps because their father wanted to pork his sister.

but obviously, if gays can marry, procreation is not relevant.
You are starting to catch on, are you not?

Obviously marriage isn't only about procreation. The only argument, I think, that could stop gays from getting marriage licenses is that it is not a healthy union and/or that they cannot raise children as well as normal couples.

This is the weak argument, but unfortunately, it is the best one there is for either side, except for not recognizing ANY marriage.

Nope. The reason is that people have the right to marry any consenting adult he or she deems it to marry.

That's right. Nothing to do with having their relationship subsidized.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2012 6:35:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wait, Contradiction wrote this? Tell him to come back already.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2012 6:44:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/28/2012 6:35:01 AM, MouthWash wrote:
Wait, Contradiction wrote this? Tell him to come back already.

Did he leave after that nonsense with WriterDave?
Tsar of DDO
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2012 6:45:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/28/2012 6:44:17 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/28/2012 6:35:01 AM, MouthWash wrote:
Wait, Contradiction wrote this? Tell him to come back already.

Did he leave after that nonsense with WriterDave?

I'm not sure. He said he'd be back once quick debate (opinions) were released. Someone tell him.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2012 6:56:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
lol, I skipped over the fact that it was Tim and then thought 'hey, this sounds a lot like Contradiction' when I read the third argument.

Anyway, I don't think any of these arguments are the main reason. The main reason is simply that marriage has become the ultimate expression of love between two people in our society, and gay couples want to take part in that.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2012 6:58:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/28/2012 6:34:02 AM, MouthWash wrote:

We aren't banning anything. Marriage is a religious union.
This is utter baloney. Mating-for-life and mating rituals can be found in a multitude of animals. Marriage is an contract between two individuals; it is not a religious union. If two Atheists were left on the planet and they decided to get married, their marriage would be just as valid as that of two Jews in modern society.
Marriage licenses are benefits given out by the state.

They are not "benefits". Marriage licenses are a mechanism of dictating who gets married, and they should be abolished entirely or distributed equitably.
The only argument that SSM advocates have is that it's unfair.
It also violates liberty.

To not get government benefits? I see.

Yes. Gays are paying for other people to get benefits, so they have every right to take them out. To say otherwise is advocating theft (but you're no stranger to that, I wager).

Also, if I start advocating that the government not recognize Jewish marriages, would you be ok that? Like, the state is under no obligation to subsidize the production of Jewish children and it doesn't violate any of their rights as citizens to take that away from them. I think I'll start advocating that now.
That may be, but I don't see them trying to de-criminalize incest, polygamy, or sexually active "minors" (not children, but teens), let alone talk about allowing them to marry. They are hypocritical in this sense, except those that say to get rid of marriage all together, but then SSM isn't really their issue, is it?

Was it hypocritical of abolitionists to not support rights for women? It is not their duty to support reforming the system for all people. This is a pretty silly argument.
The government cares about marriage for two reasons:
1. Procreation, as a marriage is not valid unless sex has occurred, to my understanding.
Um, based on what? The purpose of marriage is not procreation. The purpose of marriage is to make a public commitment to stay together. That's it. Marriage has no other purpose; procreation can occur outside of marriage.

That's right. Except, obviously, the government does not subsidize personal relationships, despite what you may believe.

I never said that it should.
Is Stephen Hawking's marriage invalid because he is incapable of having sex? Marriages are not valid because you says so; they are valid based because the people who are participating in them say they are. You cannot impose your standards on people and demand that they fulfill them. What is the basis for this nonsensical claim?

The courts cannot inquire into the procreative capacity of a couple for cases like these.

Of course they can. Doctors can determine whether or not individuals are sterile. We can easily require people to submit fertility test results before they obtain licenses. Do you think that should be done?
2. Strengthening the familial unit, with spousal previlige, next of kin, auto inheritence, etc.

Gays cannot procreate, thus they shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Um, no. What about sterile couples? What about paralyzed individuals or people like Stephen Hawking? What about old couples who want to get married? These people should all be free to marry because they have a natural right to get married.

Again, being sterile is irrelevant as I explained.

False. Fertility tests can be submitted, and it's obvious that women past menopause are not going to have children. Hawking is not going to have children. We know that this is the case, so why should we recognize their marriage?
If they can marry, why not brother and sister?
They should be able to.

Of course they should. They should NOT have their relationship subsidized because it is not a procreative or even healthy union.

If society is recognizing marriages, then yes, they should receive equal recognition because they are paying the government for those services.

Jewish marriages should not receive recognition because they don't produce mentally stable offspring. Therefore the gov. should not subsidize them. Fair?
The reason is society doesn't want kids with 11 toes,
Who cares what society wants? Since when did society have the right to limit my freedom?

They don't, obviously. No freedom is being limited.
The freedom to get married is.
And no, NO child deserves to have physical or mental handicaps because their father wanted to pork his sister.

Children don't "deserve" anything. That child would not exist otherwise, so he is better off than he would have been if he didn't exist.
but obviously, if gays can marry, procreation is not relevant.
You are starting to catch on, are you not?

Obviously marriage isn't only about procreation. The only argument, I think, that could stop gays from getting marriage licenses is that it is not a healthy union
Based on what? How is it not a healthy union?
and/or that they cannot raise children as well as normal couples.

Danielle has already thrashed you on this debate, and it's utterly retarded anyways. I know someone who was raised by two lesbians. She is attending an Ivy League institution with me, and last year, the two of us were the only individuals in the class we were in together to receive As.
This is the weak argument, but unfortunately, it is the best one there is for either side, except for not recognizing ANY marriage.

Nope. The reason is that people have the right to marry any consenting adult he or she deems it to marry.

That's right. Nothing to do with having their relationship subsidized.

If they are part of society, then yes, the relationship should be subsidized because the government owes that to its citizens.
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2012 6:58:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/28/2012 6:56:19 AM, Kinesis wrote:
lol, I skipped over the fact that it was Tim and then thought 'hey, this sounds a lot like Contradiction' when I read the third argument.

Anyway, I don't think any of these arguments are the main reason. The main reason is simply that marriage has become the ultimate expression of love between two people in our society, and gay couples want to take part in that.

If he returns, I'm going to have a Jacques Derrida moment on every debate he initiates or participates in against gay marriage.
Tsar of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2012 7:00:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/28/2012 6:35:01 AM, MouthWash wrote:
Wait, Contradiction wrote this? Tell him to come back already.

Contradiction is a joke. It's well-documented on DDO (I have PMs, and it's all over the forums and his other debates) that I have literally been begging him to debate the issue of gay marriage for a year and a half. He has debated everyone else on the subject, but refuses to debate me. He claims he needs "more time." Meanwhile, his arguments are going to be the exact same ones (at least they should be, or we can assume that they are) that he's used in the 10 other debates where his position was exactly the same. All he has to do is copy and paste - at least the first round for sure. The last I heard, 6 months before the summer he promised me he would debate it over the summer. Obviously that never happened. The fact is that he is scared to debate me because he knows I'll tear apart his stupid arguments that some people are naive enough to find half-way decent just because he's semi-articulate while most other homophobes aren't. I guess there is a correlation of ignorance among them or something. But the bottom line is, if Contradiction ever comes back (he won't), I should have first dibs to refute his nonsense because I've been asking/promised to for 18 months. The fact that some people actually believe that those were remotely good arguments only makes me want to debate him even more.
President of DDO
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2012 7:00:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yeah, I just did a Google search and I see no source that says that the government subsidizes marriage except anti-gay marriage sites. So, there is no objective evidence that the government pays people for getting married. Nice try to make a dumb argument, MouthWash.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2012 7:02:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, if marriage is a religious contract and then claim that the government subsidizes marriage, the government is violating the First Amendment by subsidizing marriage.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2012 7:03:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/28/2012 6:56:19 AM, Kinesis wrote:
The main reason is simply that marriage has become the ultimate expression of love between two people in our society, and gay couples want to take part in that.

Even if the true reason is more symbolic than practical, I don't think the "ultimate expression of love" is why gay people want to get married. Also, we can't stereotype gay people and say they want to get married because of XYZ. Everyone, gay or straight, wants to get married for completely different reasons.
President of DDO