Rationality and fallacy in same-sex marriage

I refuse to sit here in silence to be spoon-fed rhetoric, propaganda, and demonization couched in terms of nonsensical and outmoded appeals to “universal rationality” as doubters and critics are demonized and made to be the objects of a most hateful spite and slander propagated by all too many proponents of same-sex marriage.

Alleged "lay intellectuals" popularly trumpet (in quite an astounding flurry) "slippery slope fallacy!" in response to any and all doubts raised about same-sex marriage, as if the word "fallacy" were somehow a magical catch-all "argument" in and unto itself. In this context, the "slippery slope" response is nearly always a naive, frivolous dodging of the issue evidenced in the repeated attempt to shift some imaginary burden of proof onto those who have already plainly delineated legitimate doubts about same-sex marriage.

It is not asserted naively or facetiously (as if the assertion were either), “If we allow same-sex marriage then we will “have to” allow polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage.” If proponents of same-sex marriage had any smidgen of the courtesy they demand be shown to themselves (and declare themselves to possess and exhibit), they would both stop misrepresenting and stop encouraging the misrepresenting of the legitimately delineated doubts concerning same-sex marriage, as being nothing more than the equivalent at face value of this assertion, and stop propagating the patronizing interpretation of this assertion that it represents a “slippery slope fallacy.”

There is no “slippery slope fallacy” committed here in this context, because it is recognized as the implicit premise of proponents of same-sex marriage that given: 1) a desire of a people for equality, and 2) there being no "rational" (whatever that means) basis or impotency for or by which to fail to grant that people equality, that we “have to” grant this equality. Not only is this the common premise of proponents of same-sex marriage, but it is also the gist of their argument.

Putting aside for the moment the outmoded and nonsensical implicit appeals made by proponents of same-sex marriage to some non-existent “universal enlightenment rationality” as a means of propagating their devious strong-arm tactics in rhetoric, propaganda, and demonization, on the aforementioned grounds alone proponents of same-sex marriage completely and utterly fail to make their case and are incapable of adequately responding to the doubts that have been raised repeatedly, other than by this rhetoric, propaganda, and demonization.

In the very terms proponents of same-sex marriage wish to frame the debate there is no more a “rational” basis on which to restrict marriage between consenting adult siblings than is there to restrict marriage between otherwise same-sex couples.

The only potentially “rational” argument for restricting marriage between consenting adult siblings is the “genetic pool” argument. But in the worst case the risk posed by a single-generation, incestuous partnership is either not significantly or not at all greater than the risk posed by a non-incestuous partnership of individuals having a strong genetic disposition to mild hereditary illnesses and defects, a risk which we as a society have concluded is not sufficient to prevent the recognition of marriage.

And in the average or best case, the “genetic pool” risk posed by an incestuous partnership is completely nullified. In the first case, members of an incestuous partnership can choose not to produce at all, as we as a society have concluded is not a decision sufficient to prevent the recognition of many heterosexual marriages. And in the second case, members of an incestuous partnership can – as same-sex couples currently do and must – choose adoption or a surrogate mother and entirely avoid any risk to the “genetic pool”.

Finally, and even if you are still convinced that the “genetic pool” argument has merit, it still can not possibly have merit in the case of a consenting-adult, male-male, incestuous partnership, because such a partnership by biological reality is exempt from the “genetic pool argument”.

In the case of a consenting-adult, incestuous partnership, premise (1) is clearly satisfied. And I assure you that premise (2) is satisified also, but in the interests of common decency if you really have any doubts as to its satisfaction, you will have to look for information to verify this on your own. It doesn't help that for members of such a partnership to openly request recognition in marriage would open themselves up to prosecution, much as was the case for homosexual partnerships and different-race partnerships in the past.

But such a defense on terms of the same-sex marriage proponent is not necessary, because the “universal enlightenment rationality” with which proponents of same-sex marriage wish to frame the debate is entirely fictitious, nonsensical, and outmoded.

Make no mistake. This is not a debate between religion and reason. It is a debate between competing systems of values and competing rationalities.

Not as much as you or I would like to believe. The truth of the matter is that, in the curious logic of Constitutional law, 'substantive due process' jurisprudence is nothing but slippery slope. As much as I'd like to think otherwise, the cultural conservatives have a valid point. You and I, being rational people, know the slippery slope is pretty sketchy as a matter of logic - but when it comes to the nuts and bolts of constitutional court decisions, slippery slope quasi-logic is quite relevant.

I've seen enough stupidity here alone to know that rationality is not a universal trait.

And would somone please define "slippery slope" for me.

Originally posted by :

inkidinkido

Alleged "lay intellectuals" popularly trumpet (in quite an astounding flurry) "slippery slope fallacy!" in response to any and all doubts raised about same-sex marriage, as if the word "fallacy" were somehow a magical catch-all "argument" in and unto itself. In this context, the "slippery slope" response is nearly always a naive, frivolous dodging of the issue evidenced in the repeated attempt to shift some imaginary burden of proof onto those who have already plainly delineated legitimate doubts about same-sex marriage.

I have yet to see a logical or even legitimate reason why same sex couples should not have their marriages legally recognized.

It is not asserted naively or facetiously (as if the assertion were either), “If we allow same-sex marriage then we will “have to” allow polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage.”

Yes just as when the Supreme Court lifted the ban on interracial marriage it also allowed polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage.





There is no “slippery slope fallacy” committed here in this context, because it is recognized as the implicit premise of proponents of same-sex marriage that given: 1) a desire of a people for equality, and 2) there being no "rational" (whatever that means) basis or impotency for or by which to fail to grant that people equality, that we “have to” grant this equality. Not only is this the common premise of proponents of same-sex marriage, but it is also the gist of their argument. [/quote] Oh the slipper slope is allover the place here.



Basically you are saying that

Allowing same sex marriage will lead to:

A) Pologamy

B) The destruction of western civilization

C) Incestuous marriage

D) Wide spread practice of bestiality and/or necrophilia

E) Ingown toenails

F) All of the above



And you chose Answer C.



There are hundreds of variations to this prediction of dire results if same sex marriages become legally recognized. What horror will result from same sex marriages vary from poster to poster but none of them hold up to even the most casual scrutiny.

Slippery slopes can be valid arguments but ONLY if a causal connection between the event being protested (legal recognition of same sex marriages) and the dire results (incest/tooth decay/bestiality) Unfortunately there is no causal relationship between the two. In fact there is evidence for the reverse. Legal recognition of same-sex unions exist in a number of countries, it has been recognized in Sweden for over a generation. If your slippery slope were to have validity there should be evidence that incestuous marriage is on the rise in Sweden and legally sanctioned incestuous marriage at that. To the best of my knowledge and research ability, incestuous marriages are still illegal in Sweden and there is no incest rights organization poised to exploit same-sex marriage there. In fact in all places that same sex marriage is legally recognized your slippery slope has not occurred.

The possible reasons for this are few:

Americans are intrinsically different from Swedes (or Canadians or the Dutch or the Taiwanese and so on. This does not appear to be the case at all for multiple reasons including many Americans claim decent form these cultures, aside from language differences the societies are remarkably similar and so on.

Another reason might be that incestuous marriages are not only legal n these places but going on with great frequency and for whatever reason the governments of these countries are keeping it a secret.

A third and far more reasonable reason is that the slippery slope you present is simply a fallacy.





The argument that legal recognition of same sex marriage leads invariably to incest rests on a couple of assumptions. The first is that incestious impulses are morally and psychologically equivalent to being homosexual, since both are diversions from what you personally define as the “norm”. Ultimately the two are not equivalent. Even the Catholic Church, which believes that homosexuality is an "objective disorder," concedes that it is a profound element of human identity. It speaks of "homosexual persons," for example, in a way it would never speak of "incestious persons." Even in the very use of the term "homosexuals" we are embracing this view point that sexual orientation is a part of the personality and that polygamy is an activity.



So where is the logical connection between accepting same-sex marriage and sanctioning polygamy? It is a completely separate question whether or not the government should extend the definition of marriage to include more than one spouse or to allow related individuals to marry and so on.



Your argument is just a slippery slope and a fallacy.

As I said, a lot of constitutional jurisprudence (reasoning deployed by courts - dunno why they need such a fancy word) is nothing but the slippery slope. So, while the moral argument is fatally flawed due to the slippery slope fallacy, the legal fears are somewhat reasonable.

Slippery Slope means that A with lead to B. The fallacy is that there exists no cause and effect between A and B.

In the case of Homosexual marriage: The argument is that Homosexual Marriage will lead to Polygamy. I have yet to find anyone that can demonstrate a cause and effect relationship between the two. Therefore, it is a Slippery Slope Fallacy.

In reality, polygamists can attempt to change marriage law to include more than 2 people, but that is a seprate issue than homosexuals trying to change the law to read any two, unrelated consenting adults. The two issues are related, but there is no reason to think that one will lead to the other.

here's the casual link:

if we allow gay marriages the courts will have a legal precedent to redefine marriage and that allowing only hetereosexual marriages is inherently discriminatory.



http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed..._polygamy_next/

Is lawful polygamy next?

By Jeff Jacoby, 1/15/2004

THREE ADULTS who want to live together as a husband and two wives asked a federal court this week to strike down Utah's ban on polygamy as a violation of their constitutional rights.

ADVERTISEMENT

The plaintiffs are G. Lee Cook and D. Cook, a married husband and wife, and J. Bronson, the woman who wants to join them in a "plural marriage." According to the lawsuit, the Cooks and Bronson share "sincere and deeply held religious beliefs" in polygamy as it was practiced in the early decades of the Mormon Church. Acting on those beliefs, the three of them went on Dec. 22 to the Salt Lake County Clerk's Office, where Mr. Cook and Ms. Bronson applied for a marriage license. But since Cook acknowledged that he was already married, the license was refused.

"The law makes it very clear that they can't be married to more than one person," the county clerk told the Salt Lake Tribune. "We're here issuing licenses according to the law." That law is written right into Utah's Constitution, which declares: "Polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited." And that, the plaintiffs argue, deprives them of their religious freedom and privacy rights under the Constitution.

It's an open-and-shut case, of course. They haven't got a prayer. Or have they?

Last June, in Lawrence v. Texas, the US Supreme Court overturned a Texas antisodomy law on the grounds that the Constitution protects "an autonomy of self that includes freedom of . . . certain intimate conduct." Five months later, guided in part by Lawrence, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that the age-old ban on same-sex marriage was "incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy." The essence of civil marriage, said the SJC in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, is simply "the exclusive and permanent commitment of the married partners to one another."

Well, if that, constitutionally speaking, is what makes a marriage -- the intimate union of permanently committed partners -- why shouldn't the trio in Utah be allowed to marry? On what principled ground can they be denied the protections and benefits of matrimony?

To be sure, Utah isn't Massachusetts, and federal court isn't the SJC. But logic is logic. If judges in one jurisdiction can decide that the right to marry includes the right to change the definition of marriage, judges in another jurisdiction can do the same.

Some advocates argue that it is insulting to compare a gay person's wish for a same-sex spouse with a polygamist's wish for multiple spouses. "Gay people are not asking for the right to marry anyone," writes Andrew Sullivan, a leading gay writer. "We're asking for the right to marry someone. Would-be polygamists already have a legal option: to marry a single other person."

But of course gay people have always had exactly the same option. They are free to marry someone of the opposite sex, and throughout history, countless homosexuals have done exactly that. Nevertheless, Sullivan claims, for gays and lesbians, opposite-sex marriage "is no meaningful option at all."

Isn't that exactly what the Utah plaintiffs would say about binary marriage? According to a "doctrinal overview" they filed with the court, so-called fundamentalist Mormons regard plural marriage as "a doctrine revealed by God, obedience to which is necessary for their desired eternal exaltation." Outlandish? Until very recently, that is what the vast majority of Americans thought about same-sex marriage, too.

The implication of Lawrence and Goodridge is that the only people entitled to decide whether an intimate relationship is meaningful enough to deserve legal protection are the parties to that relationship themselves. If other courts follow suit, the damage inflicted on the social order as we know it will be considerable.

This is why the power to define marriage has always been vested in the political branches of government, not the courts. The Massachusetts Constitution is explicit on the point: "All causes of marriage, divorce, and alimony . . . shall be heard and determined by the Governor and Council, until the Legislature shall, by law, make other provisions." As recently as 1999, the Supreme Judicial Court acknowledged that marriage was the Legislature's domain. "We recognize a family may no longer be constituted simply of a wage-earning father, his dependent wife, and the couple's children," the SJC said in Connors v. City of Boston, but "adjustments in the legislation to reflect these new social and economic realities must come from the Legislature."

The question for the Massachusetts Legislature is whether it will reclaim its authority to say what marriage means or meekly submit to the high court's power play. Lawmakers, too, take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and they have a duty to resist when judges overstep their bounds. If they fail to do so, the fallout may spread far and wide. The lawsuit in Salt Lake City is just a taste of things to come.

__________________

The logical flaw in your argument is that polygamists are not covered under discrimination laws. Discrimination laws cover Race, Age, Gender, Religion and Sexual Orientation. Out of that list, only religion is universally accepted as a choice, but one's faith is covered. Discrimination laws will never (maybe) be extended to include items that are universally accepted as personal choices.

Actually, there does exist a specific difference between same sex marriages and polygamy. As far as I see it, the only argument for same sex marriages is that gays/lesbians are being denied the advantages that heterosexual couples enjoy (tax breaks, easier to do certain things, etc). If we change what we now call marriage to a civil union, then we can give marriage back to the church and let them do with it as they please. However, the legal and feduciary advantages of marriage should not (and constitutionally cannot be) denied to homsexuals.

However, the same does not apply to polygamy. How would the advantages go? Frankly, I don't care if 18 different people end up in one uber-marriage, but I certainly don't want to create some sort of tax loophole.

there you have it.
they want to get married for religious reasons.

__________________