These two pieces have created quite a bit of discussion. As such, many of the same arguments I have heard regarding gay marriage have been re hashed by liberals and other misguided folks who think they are standing up for the less fortunate among us.
1)It isn't up to any of us to tell others who they can or can't spend the rest of their lives with and that includes gays.
I don't want to tell anyone how to spend the rest of their lives however marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman. There is a reason for that. One man and one woman is the best environment to raise children. While marriage has taken on many different roles in its history, its primary function is to define the proper family unit as one mother, one father, and children. The overwhelming majority of marriages lead to children. The two aren't separated, and including gays leads to entirely different function for marriage. That leads to all sorts of unintended consequences, and proponents of gay marriage are either oblivious to them or even worse they simply don't care about these unintended consequences.
2)Government shouldn't be in the business of marriage anyway. Marriage is a personal and religious institution and thus government should stay out.
This is sneaky debating point. On the one hand, marriage brings with it all sorts of government benefits. Whether it is property ownership (homestead rights and automatic joint tenancy), wills, hospital visits, or any number of other benefits, marriage carries all sorts of weight within the law. In fact, many gay marriage proponents are hoping that gay couples get many of these benefits. Thus, on the one hand, proponents want gays to get the same benefits and on the other hand, they say that government should stay out of marriage.
3) Not allowing gay marriage segregates portions of our society and denies them similar rights, benefits, and privileges.
Using terms like segregating certainly makes denying gay marriage sound very nefarious. First, the gay relationship is inherently unequal. There is no natural way to create children from a gay relationship. If one relationship leads naturally to children and another doesn't, how do both deserve the same rights, benefits and privileges?
4) The 9th Amendment gives gays the RIGHT to get married because anything not enumerated in the Constitution is left to the states.
The 9th Amendment gives the states the ability to make gay marriage legal. Of course, creating law is something elected officials are supposed to do. If a state legislature got enough votes to make gay marriage legal that is one thing, however the only time that gay marriage has been made legal is when a handful of unelected judges created law rather than interpreted it.
5) The United States Supreme Court, through various rulings, has made marriage a RIGHT and thus open to gays.
The Supreme Court doesn't create rights. The Constitution does. Congress creates laws and the Supreme Court interprets them. The Supreme Court cant' create anything. All the Supreme Court can do is interpret. An activist court may in fact have created something that wasn't there but in that case the court was stepping way out of the bounds of its duty. That said, the only rights we have are those enumerated in the Constitution. Once we start inventing rights that aren't in the Constitution, we increase the size of government, bureaucracy, and we increase the power of government.
6)You can't argue against gay marriage unless you are gay or you understand what it's like to be gay.
In that case, almost no one can argue for or against anything. Only military personnel can say anything about war policy. Only teachers can say anything about education policy. Only doctors can say anything about medical policy, and only lawyers can argue about the law. No one can with credibility then say anything about almost anything. Of course, that is a nonsensical argument.
7) There is no evidence that gay marriage will open up a Pandora's box to all sorts of other relationships like swingers, transvestites, and polygamists to get married and thus it is a red herring to argue that gay marriage would open up such a can of worms.
The reason folks like me believe this so called "red herring" is because the arguments for it lead naturally to such thoughts. If gay marriage is about equality, then why in the world would we stop at gay marriage. If this is about the 14th amendment, which means that all people are treated equally under the law, then gay marriage must lead naturally to open up marriage to any relationship. If marriage is about equality, then we must be equal to all relationships. If gay marriage should have equal standing to traditional marriage then all relationships must also be given equal rights under marriage as well.
8) So what if other alternative relationships are given equal treatment, there is nothing wrong with that.
There are all sorts of folks that are looking to make gay marriage legal and they all have different perspectives and agendas. Fortunately, the same folks that make argument seven aren't usually then making argument eight. Once again, proponents of gay marriage are NOT aware of the law of unintended consequences. If any relationship can be treated by the title of marriage, then the idea of marriage is cheapened. Furthermore, the proper family is redefined. What these folks want is a society that is secular in a manner that we have never seen before. I am liberatarian at heart however that doesn't mean I am willing to spin our society on its head in the name of liberatarianism.
9)Marriage is about love not family. If two people are in love, they should have the RIGHT to get married.
Marriage is not now and never has been merely about love. I know this because nearly all marriages have lead to children. This isn't merely a coincidence. It takes a mother and father to create the child, and so it is only natural that they raise the child. Marriage is the institution that defines the family unit that is best for raising children. If it is merely about love, what defines the proper family unit?
10) Families come in all shapes and sizes and one mother and one father is not the only way to raise children. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it is the best way.
I can usher out all sorts of statistics about one parent households, however I will just counter this argument with logic. If it takes a mother and father to create a child, isn't it only natural and best for one mother and one father to raise them.
If you enjoyed this piece, see how I counter other liberal misconceptions here and here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
You write that gay marriage will open up the "rights" for other types of marriage. This is correct.
In Australia where gay marriage is legal, Muslims are demanding polygamy to be legal. Their argument is that since gay marriage is legal, all forms of marriage should then be legal.
What this nation needs is a standard of marriage that is defined as one man (age 18+) and one woman (age 18+) and nothing else. No parental permission for younger children (why should parents be allowed to sell their daughters off at an earlier age [they do this in Muslim nations]). Once it has been set, it should be considered the society's standard.
I think most of your arguments contain errors of fact or logic. For the moment, I will focus on two.
You claim that marriage has historically been about the union of one man and one woman, but there are many historical examples of societies that allowed husbands to have more than one wife.
You claim that since it takes one mother and one father to produce a child, it's logical to conclude that it is "natural" to have one mother and one father raise them. There are many species of animals that require a mother and a father to produce a child and then the "natural" result is that the child is raised by either one or neither of the parents.
These objections to your argument come from an opponent of gay marriage, so they aren't prompted by disagreement with the result of your argument, but my analysis of the strength of them.
I didn't say that historically marriage has been about children, though for the most part that is true.
You can of course find examples of anything. You can find examples of societies that allow one man to marry thousands of women. The Egyptians allowed it. So what? That doesn't mean that it ever worked to society's benefit.
What I actually said was that the overwhelming majority of marriages wind up in children, which is the basis for my argument that marriage is NOT merely about love but a family.
As for your other argument, I don't much care what other animals do. Really, I don't care. Other animals don't have much brain power and they haven't evolved like we have. Other animals sometimes travel in packs. So what. Humans don't usually travel in packs their entire lives.
Again, if it takes one mother and one father to create a child, that is the best combination to raise it.
As for other mysterious arguments that don't make sense you can come back and enlighten me.
As for other mysterious arguments that don't make sense you can come back and enlighten me.
Let's just stick with these arguments for now, because you haven't responded to them.
What I actually said was that the overwhelming majority of marriages wind up in children. . .
What you actually said was marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman. Always is a pretty strong word. If marriage really had always been defined that way, you wouldn't find examples of societies that allow one man to marry thousands of women. But as you acknowledge, you do find those examples. So your claim that "marriage has always been defined this way" turns out to be false, so any argument that depends on marriage being defined that way--like your argument, for example--is also false.
You ask whether such plural marriages are good for society--but I'm not arguing with you about whether gay marriage is a good idea. I'm arguing about whether your arguments against it are good arguments. They are not.
As for your other argument, I don't much care what other animals do.
But if as a matter of logic--which is what you claimed--it followed that requring a mother and a father to produce a child naturally meant that a mother and a father should raise them, that would be true in all species. Logical arguments are about the form of the argument, not the content.
To put it another way, and restrict the argument to humans as you now seem to want to do--if it takes a mother and a father to produce and infant, doesn't it follow logically that it takes a mother and a father to breastfeed an infant? Well no, it doesn't. I think even you can see that. So while it may (or may not) be the case that a mother and a father are the best unit for raising a child, that conclusion does not follow logically from the premise that it takes a mother and a father to produce a child.
Again, what I'm analyzing here is the quality of your arguments. They are poor. Forget about the conclusions for a minute, and study the structure of what you are saying. Does it conform to the rules of logic? Are statements which are offered as empirical facts true? No, in both cases.
Fine, it hasn't always been defined as one man and one woman, overwhelmingly it has, and where marriage strayed those societies, not coincidentally, decayed. What is your point?
There are kooks everywhere and in some place somewhere marriage was something beside one man and one woman, and of course, in all of those societies, they broke down eventually, but of course that is likely mere coincidence.
Actually, I never said all species raised their off spring as one mother and one father. What I said is that is the natural thing since it is the same combination that creates the child. It is silly beyond belief for someone to argue gay marriage by throwing out other species that raise their off spring in other combinations. Those species live far different lives than us. Their brain power is far smaller than ours and their goals in life are far different.
To bottom line, one mother and one father is not best, according to you, because you can find other species of animals that don't do it that way.
That argument speaks for itself.
Fine, it hasn't always been defined as one man and one woman, overwhelmingly it has, and where marriage strayed those societies, not coincidentally, decayed. What is your point?
My point is that you claimed that one argument against gay marriage is that marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman. All I claimed was that your particular argument was flawed. Instead of admiting that argument was flawed, you want to move onto another argument. Let's not do that just yet. Do you agree that the argument "Gay marriage is wrong because marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman" is a lousy argument, because it ignores historical data that disproves the premise?
It is silly beyond belief for someone to argue gay marriage by throwing out other species that raise their off spring in other combinations.
It's silly beyond belief for your to claim that I'm arguing for gay marriage when I've explained that I'm not, and that I oppose gay marriage. All I am doing is analyzing your arguments to see if they are sound. I don't know how much clearer I can be about it.
Your argument was that the conclusion that the team of a mother and a father are best to raise children follows logically from the premise that it takes a mother and a father to produce a child. This conclusion does not follow logically, and I think I demonstrated persuasively that it does not. You want to claim, instead, that I have argued something else:
To bottom line, one mother and one father is not best, according to you, because you can find other species of animals that don't do it that way.
Please show me where I said one mother and one father is not best? What I said was that one father and one mother may or may not be the best--you have to determine which is the case using some other method besides a logical deduction from the premise that it takes one mother and one father to produce it.
If you are going to respond to me, please respond to the points I am making which--as I said previously--have to do with the quality of your arguments, not the conclusions you've reached.
Look, you aren't a defense attorney, or maybe you are, and this isn't a trial. As such, impugning my credibility by pointing out an inexact statement is not necessary. I have already acknowledged my statement was not exact. You are now beating a dead horse. The audience can decide if that is or isn't important.
As to your second argument, again, we will let the audience decide. I think it follows logically that if one mother and father create the child they should raise. You don't because other animals don't do it that way.
As for your third argument, I am not talking about any animals but humans. We are advanced far beyond other animals. We don't travel in packs in the wild as a form of life, and thus, I don't think the comparison is very proper. Again, if one mother and one father create the child then one mother and one father should raise the child.
Now, we are going round and round on these. You said you had other problems so point those out. You have exhausted these two. The audience knows where each of us stands.
"marriage is NOT merely about love but a family"
What is a "family" without love?
"impugning my credibility by pointing out an inexact statement is not necessary"
He's not impugning your credibility, he's showing you that you are a lousy debater! You say, "X logically implies Y" and he simply shows you that this is incorrect. I suspect he should save his effort, however, since you show the reading comprehension of goat. But that really shouldn't surprise me, either, given your stated positions on various topics. I mean, how intelligent could you possibly be if you chase off a defender of your position who is offering to help you make stronger arguments? Geez ...
"As to your second argument, again, we will let the audience decide."
See, "logical" doesn't mean "the majority agree with my conclusions." If you want to appeal to "common sense," then by all means, go ahead! But you appeal to "logic," which is a defined thing, and it's not up to your interpretation any more than 2 + 2 = 4 is open to your interpretation.
"I think it follows logically that if one mother and father create the child they should raise. You don't because other animals don't do it that way."
No, he uses that as an example to point out that **YOU'RE NOT BEING LOGICAL."** That's all! And he's right!
I think he can speak for himself, and furthermore, it is awfully presumptive to assume he is a he anyway.
He isn't showing anything regardless. First, I looked at my piece and I never said what the anonymous poster claimed I said, and even if I did, the basis of the argument changed little.
Whether all marriages were one man and one woman or just 99.999% were, the crux of the argument is the same. Those that pick at minutae thinking they are onto something are the ones that are poor debaters. I have taken on all comers on this blog and none have beaten me and you can check out the history for proof, and thus, I don't worry about my credentials as a debater.
I never said that most people think that one mother and one father is best. Though, in fact, most people do. I simply used logic to make my argument. If it takes one mother and one father to create the child then naturally one mother and one father should raise it.
If the basis of your argument is I am wrong, because there are animals species that do it differently, then so be it. If you think that is a strong argument so be it. That doesn't actually make it a strong argument.
For all the huff and puff, so far, here is the basis of the anonymous poster's argument. First, I am wrong because not all marriages are one man and one woman. Fine, 99.999% are and that is plenty strong. Second, I am wrong to say that one mother and one father is the best form of child rearing because certain wild animal speicies do it differently. Fine. If you think that is a strong argument, keep presenting it. Just don't be surprised if laughter follows.
Let me just add one thing because I forgot to address one other point. of course, family and love go together. I said that marriage isn't MERELY about love but family.
The basis of the gay marriage argument is that marriage is about an expression of love. It isn't. It is about defining the proper family unit, one mother one father and children.
In gay marriage it is merely about love and not family. That redefines marriage into something it was never intended to be. There are all sorts of unintended consequences to that.
I am a 15 year old High school student. I was raised in a very religious family and with two Heterosexual parents. I am not gay and I believe that the bann on gay marriage is wrong! But i thank you for taking the time to make yoor beliefs known. It helped me with my Pro gay marrige speech. Knowing your enemy is half the battle as they say. But Staying out of the lives of other people is the right thing to do. Gay marrige will NOT have anything to do with children and the definition of marriage. I was taught that marriage is when two people love each other, they decide to spend their lives together until death parts them... Why is that such a bad definition of marriage? And what gives gay couples such low standards they can't share wills or visit each other in the hospitail. And you shouldn't use Austrailia as an argument. Polygamy is against FEDERAL LAW! just like Pot. Polygamy is a completly different form of Marriage. Seriously that was a stupid argument.
First of all, calling an opponent of gay marriage an enemy is a horrible place to start. Ideological differences do not lead to being enemies. Second, you were taught wrong about what the definition of marriage is. It isn't about two people that love each other but rather the definition of the proper family unit. That's what marriage has been used for since its inception. Just because you were taught wrong doesn't mean that its function is any different.
Polygamy is against the law and so is gay marriage. If you make one legal the same argument can be made about the other. Frankly, if you have no problem with gay marriage you should have no problem with polygamy. If the combination of people is no issue why should the amount of people be. If you are asking society not to judge the combination of the couple involved in a marriage, how can you then turn around and judge a relationship in which the number of people is different. That is a fallacious argument. That said, good luck with your paper and let me know how it turns out.
1993!
sorry about the 1993! my computer messes up. What I was trying to type was that Polygamy isn't an argument. The definition of marriage to everyone (whether the small details are argued) is TWO PEOPLE! Just like sex after marriage. And the whole 'enimy' thing, I apologise to offend you. It was my teenager mentality. Because it is a commen saying. But I believe your definition of marriage is techinically correct, for the age of doweries and "divine rule' ages. But be glad we live in a place and time were we don't have to marry for that. That is why I was taught that way. Marriage can be about love now. Because we don't have to worry about anything else.
So that is why I believe you are right and I am right in the same way. And I actually thank you for handling my comment so maturly. Most people won't even listen to my ideas becuase I am fifteen.
The family unit comment kinda bugged me though. Same sex couples are just as capable as heterosexual couples. My friend is in all Advanced PLacement class and has been pre accepted into Standford at 15. Her mother is a lesbian. She is also straight and goes to church every sunday.
But I agree to disagree with you. I just think this argument with the immature people is hurting kids more than allowing dame sex marriage will. I have proved that there is a way to cencor marriage to children in schools in case it does pass. And all the in news fighting is proving to the children that it is ok to discriminate against people for being who they are. That is hurting them worse than just taking man and woman out of the definition of marriage.
Maybe that is one of those hypocratic adault thing (not saying you are) that they say "don't pick fun and discriminate" but than they do it. Like one of those 'mommy and daddy little white lie' thing. I just can't wait untill my voice really truely matters and I can make the difference. And thank you for the luck! :P
Actually the standard definition of marriage is one man and one woman.
You are a total hypocrite if that is how you view it Caitlin.
You are asking all those that you consider intolerant of the gay lifestyle to be more tolerant, and then you turn around and you are totally intolerant of all those with relationships that have more than two people.
I am not intolerant of any relationship. You can have whatever relationship you want but marriage is only one man and one woman.
How am I being a hypocrite for believing the same as you, that marriage is between two people? And I still beilieve that Marriage should be for love. The only reason it is standard of being 'man and woman' is because it is about a family unit. But you can have a perfectly fine family unit with two same sex couples. I just think that the standard definition of marriage is out of date. We have proof that same sex doesn't mess up anything and we no longer have anything material to gain fromthe standard definition of marriage.
oh and P.S. I apoligise that my spelling is terrible.
You're being a complete hypocrite. Why is love only reserved for two people? Who are you to judge someone else's relationship. If three people are in a relationship and they are all in love, who are to judge.
If swingers get together and they are all in love, who are you to judge?
I said marriage is for one man and one woman.
I don't judge who falls in love with whom, or what sorts of relationships are out there. If twelve people want to all live together and are all in love, that is their business, but they can't be married. Marriage is for one man and one woman.
You are now applying your own standard of love. Who are you to tell others what relationship is all right for love and what isn't. You are not an authority. Marriage, on the other hand, is specific to one man and one woman.
You argue that the marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman, thus this is the natural, fixed state of things.
However, Webster's Dictionary updated the definition to include marriage between two parties of the same sex. Why would this definition be changed or added to if it is fixed?
I'll tell you. Civilization and the very early forms of society started off simple and unstable. Men hunted, woman cooked, gathered, and tended to the small children. These roles were necessary to preserve and protect the society. Let's think about the theory of the Social Contract. Human beings instinctively are concerned more for their own interests and desires. But in order to protect their interests people agree to give up a little to get a little. "I won't kill you, if you won't kill me." "I won't steal your meat and raid your village if you abstain from the same." And so on. But how was this "contract," this understanding between people supposed to catch on? What, rely on people's instinctive common sense? Ha. The logical course of action is to teach it, to ingrain it within the people so that this idea, this mutual respect and agreement becomes inherent. Thus, religion and morality are born. Existence precedes essence. The brain must first exist for a mind to develop and a mind develops before concepts and ideas can be created and understood. Religion and its support of moral elements became very important for stabilizing society and keeping civilization in check. The family unit also played a very important role and was enhanced by religion and morality because it was such a basic foundation for maintaining the society.
But let's fast forward and we see that society is not a fixed institution. Morals are not fixed. There are gray areas. The development of human beings is not a fixed process. Sure there are physical elements that are fixed. Reproduction. Except not really. Because men donate their sperm and women their eggs. The physical bonding between a man and a woman is no longer necessary. However, the sperm and the egg are necessary elements. That's fixed. However, Earth has reached its carrying capacity for the human population. We are consuming ten times more the amount of resources in one day that we should be. So the possibility of a homosexual gene could be an attempt to curb this overpopulation. It's not a solid argument.
Also, the development of the male and female brain is not a fixed process. The development patterns vary greatly. In homosexual men, studies have shown development of the brain closely resembles that of a typical female brain... the same for homosexual females. So while a gay man may not be able to breastfeed a child, who's to say that he cannot provide adequate nurturing for that child? Are you to say? Society has advanced, even straight men can provide as much nurture for a child as a woman can.
Now, you claim that it is best for a man and a woman to raise children under the union of marriage not only because it "logically" follows the production of the children but because this is natural and it's the best environment to raise children in... However, how can you make such a claim when there are not two sides proportionately represented? Of course, studies and statistics and examples throughout history are going to imply that a mother/father household is the best environment to raise children because these types of families have ALWAYS been the majority. If you have 10 red marbles in a bag and 2 blue, the probability of pulling a marble out of the bag that is not red is very small.
As I have said before, society is an evolving institution, because human beings change and their needs change as well. All nations were once governed by a king and social classes were very defined and impossible to climb. Because society was then much simpler should it have always remained as such? Because the majority of nations operated under a kingship should it have remained that way? Think of what we have CREATED here in America. Individuality. The right to believe whatever you want, live by those beliefs, and the right to equal treatment under the law, so long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others. We have the opportunity to climb up the social ladder--from the bottom or the most unfortunate situations to the very top--if we chose to take advantage of such opportunities. Democracy. A nation of the people.
Words evolve and their meanings change overtime as well. Why must marriage remain fixed by that one common definition (not to discredit it). Because it's the best one? What else do we really have to compare it to? By the way, the slippery slope (not a red herring) of gay marriage leads to legalizing polygamy or the marriage between an animal or an object is a FALLACY. Slippery slopes are fallacies and illogical arguments. Philosophy 101.
Marriage between a man and a woman may have been the best way to raise a family back in the day... the old, old days. But look at today. Because that's what we're talking about here. This is the time we live in. Divorce rates on a continued rise (btw, divorce rates between same-sex marriages are much lower, then again, there aren't very many of them)and fewer marriages result in children (more children are born outside of marriage). Hello ladies and family planning.
If you aren't planning on having children should you be refused the right to be married? Should you have to settle for a civil union?
You also argue that marriage is specific to one man and one woman but by YOUR own definition and, I'm sure, the definition many other "misguided folks" support as well. I've reiterated the fact that the definition of words change over time because society changes, people change, culture changes, people develop new ideas--they aren't FIXED. I repeat. There is no perfect peach. Nothing is absolute.
The "gay relationship is inherently unequal." Last time I checked the word relationship wasn't strictly limited to reproduction... Homosexual relationships are not unequal simply because they cannot reproduce. They are different. Maybe we should also have to check a box that says "able to produce children" before we are allowed to get married. What about the woman or the man who have baby-making issues? Tough luck?
I speak for my own opinions. I respect your right to hold your own however I find the attitude with which you represent your opinions by to be very rude and condescending. Thus, I have replied with a bit of cheek. You conclude the discussion by saying HAHA, no one has defeated me yet? Seriously? Oh,well…
Thank you, Chelsea, for providing a bit of intelligent information regarding this issue. Mike Volpe - I have to agree with many other reviewers that this was a very badly argued discussion on your part, and your ability to stubbornly refuse that fact and not see the error of your ways is astounding. As for your argument that you have yet to lose an argument on here, not only did it sound childish and immature, but it also proved to most everyone reading this that you're completely oblivious to the first rule of arguing: realize that the opposing party /may be right/.
Also, I have to agree with one anonymous reviewer up there - "how intelligent could you possibly be if you chase off a defender of your position who is offering to help you make stronger arguments?"
As for your little spite with Caitlin, I find it very amusing that immediately after she told you that she respected you for responding to her comment in a mature, civil fashion, you reduced yourself to name-calling and finger-pointing to argue an issue that wasn't even at the fore-front of this debate.
I find it sufficient to say that I am definitely pro-gay rights. So basically, I disagree with a lot of things you've said on this blog, such as your belief that marriage can't be based solely on love, but there have to be kids involved. Sorry to break it to you, but there are many "traditional" couples that /can't have kids,/ some of which I know personally. Should I give them the memo to get a divorce because they can no longer be married according to your terms? Also, who says that a man and a woman together are best at raising children? I'm sure you're aware of this little term called "abuse" that many children experience - children raised by their mother and father. In those cases, maybe it's better for children to be removed from those environments, proving that children raised by a mother and father aren't always raised the best way.
Finally, what are these so called "unintended consequences" of gay marriage that you keep referring to? I suspect one of those may be the "slippery slope" effect that many others have already addressed, buy I'm dying to know what else you could mean by that.
Oh, and by the way, I was originally going to agree with some of the points you made that actually had some merit, but then decided against it because I figure you'll probably just jump down my throat when I'm trying to help like you've done with every other poster.
Post a Comment