Fallacies and lies in the gay marriage debate
Opponents of gay rights often object to gay marriage on the basis that it is “not traditional”—“traditional marriage”, they say, never included same-sex unions; therefore, to allow such would be to subvert what marriage is about.
Skipping quickly past the most obvious flaws in this argument—viz., first, that “traditional” and “non-traditional” do not necessarily correlate to “good” and “bad” at all; and second, that a non-traditional marriage is still a marriage—it is still a flimsy argument, for a series of reasons. Since I seem to repeat myself in comment threads, I will summarize my arguments here for future reference.
The most oft-raised objection is that the tradition of marriage has changed over time, thus appeals to tradition are vague and empty. For instance, going back a few decades or centuries we will find changes in
- whether people were encouraged or even allowed to choose their own spouses
- whether marriages could be dissolved by divorce
- whether women held equal power (legally) with their husbands
- whether the spouses could have different ethnic, cultural, and/or religious backgrounds
- and so on and so forth.
Some people misunderstand this argument and object that “same-sex unions were never part of the tradition!”—which is true, but completely misses the point. The point is that the tradition has always been plastic and has evolved over the decades and centuries, and rules have been changed or dropped—generally, it seems, as a delayed reaction to humanistic improvements in our culture. It is certainly true that “the spouses must be of different sexes” has always been one of those rules, but if other rules can be dropped, why can’t that one?
You may be reaching for the reply button to tell me that, wait!, there is a good reason!—that same-sex unions cannot “naturally” produce children, for instance. However, this is a red herring. If you must resort to any such argument, you are no longer arguing that gay marriage is wrong because it is non-traditional, but rather that it is wrong and non-traditional. If you want “It’s not traditional!” to be a reason against gay marriage, then you must be consistent. However, virtually nobody actually argues in favour of other, discarded aspects of the tradition. Therefore, “It’s not traditional!” is not really a motivation at all, but a rhetorical argument disingenuously wielded for want of better arguments.
While we are at it, let’s dismiss the motivation that same-sex marriages are invalid because they cannot result in children. First, this is simply untrue—lesbian couples can have children with the help of artificial insemination, or a male friend; gay male couples can have children with the aid of a surrogate mother; any gender configuration can raise children if they are adopted. Second, the people who argue that gay marriages should not be allowed because they do not result in children by “natural” means never seem to have the slightest urge to apply this criterion consistently, which would mean forbidding marriages
- where the woman is post-menopausal
- where the man is sterile or completely impotent
- where the woman is infertile
- where the man has had a vasectomy, or the woman a tubal ligation
- where the spouses are biologically capable of having children, but have no desire or intention to do so, and use contraceptives to ensure it will not happen.
If your criterion is that “marriage is for procreation”, then you should oppose these types of marriage every bit as firmly as you oppose same-sex marriage. If you don’t, then whatever your real reason is, it clearly isn’t the procreation angle.
Finally, something that is often overlooked is that defenders of “traditional” marriage tend to speak as though there were only one tradition (their own, of course). But this is not so, and while we may live in a culture evolved from and dominated by Judeo-Christian tradition, it’s not the only one around. The tradition of male-male eros in ancient Greece is well-known; in modern times, it is fairly clear that so-called Boston marriages often (though far from always) were, in effect, lesbian partnerships.
Around the world, there have been many cultures and traditions that allow, encourage, or celebrate same-sex relationships. Anthropologists have found several dozen African populations with female-female marriages, as well as male-male unions; North American indigenous cultures have recognised various fluid gender identities; pre-modern China had several examples of same-sex marriages.
Thus, to say that “Same-sex marriage is not traditional!” comes with the implicit assumption of confining yourself to one or a particular set of cultures. It’s highly traditional in some parts of the world—it just so happens that these traditions are not the dominant ones in the Western world.
On a lighter note, I recently came across one of the worst arguments I have ever heard in this debate:
To call a homosexual union a "marriage" is to equate it to "traditional marriage," which it is not. Again, this has nothing to do with discrimination, but changing the institution and definition of marriage and violating the first amendment right of freedom of religion. This includes religious expression.
This is so perversely wrong that it’s actually funny. Marriage, as it is currently defined in the United States, is constrained by the rules of the Judeo-Christian cultural background of the European settlers who invaded North America. To allow gay marriage would obviously not infringe on the right of Christians to marry people of the opposite sex. It might offend them, and they might for various absurd reasons feel that it devalues them, but it does nothing to prevent them from engaging in exactly the same religious rituals and religious ceremonies that they already do. It would not affect their rights—only the rights of the same-sex couples who would now be allowed to marry.
If anything (and this is what makes it so perverse), the current laws could be construed as a First Amendment violation! After all, by forbidding same-sex unions, the government is promoting one religion’s view of marriage (the Christian one) over the views of certain other religions (e.g. some African and indigenous North American ones). The current state of things has one religious tradition entrenched in the law—which is precisely what the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was written to prevent. (I’m not saying that a strong case could necessarily be made that “marriage for heteros only” is an Establishment violation, but if we are to talk violation, it is clearly the case that the status quo favours Christianity, rather than that a change would infringe on anybody’s religious rights.)
A great deal more could be said on this subject. This is not a piece of advocacy—I’m sure it’s clear that I do advocate recognising same-sex marriages every bit as much as hetero-sex marriages—but the aim here is to discuss some common fallacies and counterfactual claims that have been repeatedly issued in the course of debate. The next time these arise, I will simply provide a link to this post and say, “Here, go see why you are wrong”.
posted by Petter Häggholm
at
8:00 AM
21 Comments:
Your post appears to be entirely unfamiliar with natural law reasoning as applied to same-sex marriage; you and your readers would benefit from the link below:
http://www.princeton.edu/~anscombe/articles/finnisorientation.pdf
Okay, I've held back from commenting on this blog for quite some time due to the enormous amount of time it was sucking away from me. However I feel compelled to comment on this topic, especially the link provided by anonymous.
This article is not only blasting homosexuality as immoral, but all sexual activity outside of marriage for the sake of procreation. I won't even go into detail as to why I find this silly, but I will go on to some contradictions.
"For: a husband and wife who unite their reproductive organs in an act of sexual intercourse which, so far as they then can make it, is of a kind suitable for generation, do function as a biological (and thus personal) unit and thus can be actualising and experiencing the two-in-one-flesh common good and reality of marriage, even when some biological condition happens to prevent that unity resulting in generation of a child. Their conduct thus differs radically from the acts of a husband and wife whose intercourse is masturbatory, for example sodomitic or by fellatio or coitus interruptus.18 In law such acts do not consummate a marriage, because in reality (whatever the couple's illusions of intimacy and self-giving in such acts) they do not actualise the one-flesh, two-part marital good."
In layman's terms this means that any sexual act without the express intention of producing a child is in effect masturbatory and a waste of time. Never in the article does it explain why masturbation is not good, but merely begs the question and takes it as a given. It's only real attempt at justifying why masturbation is not good and therefor immoral are appeals to authority. Several ancient philosophers as well as many christian ones viewed masturbation as a waste of time and therefore immoral and therefore it make those acts immoral. I hate this kind of reasoning. It makes the world look so black and white. Actions don't have to be good or evil, they can be neutral. There are actions that are not meant to hurt people or help others and simply done for some form of self gratification. These actions are not harmful and therefor now what I would call evil. If this were the case then making candy would be evil, writing a journal that you have no intention of other people reading would be sinful. Listening to music would be sinful. I'm sorry, but you have to come up with a better reason why an action is immoral other than it doesn't contribute to the greater good, because the simple fact is that it doesn't take away from teh greater good either.
On the contrary, Anonymous, we've seen the Natural Law arguments many times, although they don't seem to be very consistent from person to person. Sometimes they take the form of, "God has declared such and such, therefore it is immoral." Sometimes they take the form of, "Such and such behavior is not 'natural,' therefore it is immoral." While it's true that we've declined to discuss the first form of the Natural Law argument, it should be obvious why we reject it - we're atheists and believe that no ancient myth should be taken as an authority on morality.
The second form of the Natural Law argument has little to say about homosexuality or gay marriage except for the matter of procreation, which Ziztur did specifically address at some length. Did you even read the post?
As for the document that you mention, there's a lot of text there, far too much to analyze in a comment. Having skimmed it lightly, it looks like the writer is very fond of heavy-handed, authoritative assertions, and very light on actual evidence or logical arguments.
That said, it's an interesting document, and I suggest you stick around the blog for a bit. Not only would we love to have you for some spirited debate, but I think I'll analyze that document in-depth in a series of blog posts.
Welcome to the blog!
“Your post appears to be entirely unfamiliar with natural law reasoning as applied to same-sex marriage; you and your readers would benefit from [a link].”
My post was intended, and explicitly said it was intended to address specific errors rather than making a general case for gay marriage rights. Of course, being a piece of writing, it is not capable of being either “familiar” or “unfamiliar” with anything at all; but being a piece of writing crafted for a specific purpose, it quite rightly omits the stuff you refer to because it is beside the point.
As for the document you provide, it’s tripe. It presupposes that homosexuality is immoral: The very first paragraph uses “homosexual acts” as a specific example of “immoral sexual acts”. Its argument about marital acts with its mentions of “procreative significance” is a horrible mess of pointless blather that basically boils down to “Sex must be about procreation; if it can’t lead to procreation, it must still be of the kind that would lead to procreation if not for the obstacles that prevent it”.
Having read a few such paragraphs I am disinclined to pay much attention to the document as a whole, so correct me if I’m wrong, but it further appears to me that it simply asserts that non-procreative (“masturbatory”) sex is wrong (what’s wrong with masturbation?). It seems to rest on a mix of Christian-centric assumptions and baseless assertions, and I must disagree with Flimsy: It’s not interesting, but merely tedious.
"As for the document you provide, it’s tripe."
I happen to enjoy tripe, thankyouverymuch. You're maligning a perfectly good offal.
I wonder what Team Ziztur's opinion is on the motivations of the opponents of gay marriage. I get the impression that many of the rank-and-file really wouldn't care if homosexual civil unions had the same legal rights as religious marriages, but they feel they are protecting the right of their religious institutions to exclude gays from *their* ceremonies. Kind of like segregationists who were worried about protecting the right to keep blacks out of *their* restaurants, in my opinion.
Do you guys think that all of those against gay marriage are bigoted? Is Big Bigotry in effect here? Certainly a lot of the power players are spewing hate, but is the average Maine Prop-1 voter acting out of hate?
-EdW
Honestly, EdW? Errrr . . . yeah, I do.
I'm always careful to consider, for example, that we humans (typically) have an overwhelming evolutionary instinct to protect babies, and that's why people are against abortion. Their motivation is to protect something that they are biologically hard-wired to view as a person.
That is not the case with gay marriage. Much of other issues can be accurately attributed to honest ignorance (abortion, evolution, legalization of pot, etc.), but I'm actually going to say that this is a different situation with gay marriage.
Nobody, or almost nobody, who opposes gay marriage thinks that government police will shackle two heterosexual men to an altar and force them to get married at gunpoint. I have to believe, for the sake of my own sanity and will to live, that only a very small minority of people who oppose gay marriage believe that it will actually destroy human society.
Usually, even with the rank and file, it boils down to, "I just don't think that the gay dudes should be able to get married." I think that "hate" is a bit strong, but so far as I can tell, it seems to me that opposition to gay marriage is a textbook example of what we would accurately term "bigotry."
My two cents. I can see room for disagreement, here.
Let us not confuse prescriptive christian law with descriptive natural law. Nature does not direct any particular species to procreate in general nor does it direct how that species MUST procreate. Nature simply provides the mechanism to do so and leaves it the choice of the individual members of each species to choose to procreate or not procreate. It is only the human-invented prescriptive laws with regard to human marriage and human procreation one must address. Are these prescriptive laws rational? These prescriptive laws in no way equate to natural laws in that such natural law is only descriptive, i.e., how one CAN procreate if one chooses, not how one MUST procreate. Let us not ignore the fact that it is also nature that makes artificial insemination possible just as it makes other methods possible. If nature did not make artificial insemination possible, it would not be. Of course, that one can technically create a child doesn't automatically make one a "parent" in the sense one is able and willing to nature the child to independence once it is created and birthed. Even "natural" breeders fail in that regard.
In any event, there is no genuinely factual and logically-consistent argument to prevent individuals from freely marrying those of their own choice. There is also no genuinely factual and logically-consistent argument to prevent individuals from freely engaging in intercourse with those of their choice.
Those who claim to have arguments justifying interference in the liberty of others to freely have sex with and freely marry whomever they choose do not, cannot and ought no longer be indulged by human culture wherever it is found. They are immature and their efforts to control the lives of other human beings the result of their immaturity. Collectively, human beings must decide if their culture is ruled by individuals of maturity or individuals of immaturity. This is always the conflict and the collective decision inconsistent.
Descriptive Natural Law==Naturalistic Fallacy.
There is a great irony of anyone argueing that what's natural is what should happen while using a computer.
Cancer is natural, Broken Bones are natural, rape may even have been natural in our ancestry (depending on your definitions). Saying we should act a certain way due to nature is absurd. The fact that humans are self conscious and thus able to CHOOSE not to obey instincts or act differently is a vital part of human nature. In fact it is natural for humans to act contrary to our natures. And that is a good thing. Every time you don't swipe a sandwich from a child because you're hungry you're going against natural law. Every time you flush a toilet you're being unnatural.
Ing,
The "naturalistic fallacy" you discuss does not apply to natural law reasoning in the Aristotle/Aquinas tradition. See the following (from Wikipedia):
"Philosophers such as St. Thomas Aquinas held that the "good" was a process of actualization, where the formal principle of a natural object fulfilled its final cause (purpose), such that a tree's purpose is to develop another tree, or a bouncy ball's is to bounce. The formal principle to Aquinas was defined through Aristotle as "that which makes a thing what it is". Thus the source of potency to accomplish all natural objects ends is through the formal cause of an object. For which Aquinas suggests a non-dualistic model for substance: Form and Matter. This argument still holds a lot of weight, against the supposed "naturalistic fallacy". Aquinas held that what is good, is what is natural, in that God created all things and they were good. However, he argued from human reason rather than faith, when he discussed the ontological significance. He suggested that the end (fulfillment of its purpose) is the good, and there are various degrees of Good, such as the processes of development in a living being. Arguably, happiness is the ultimate end for all human beings, and thus, all morality is in reference to what actualizes this "happiness". But Aquinas argued that there was an objective principle, not relative, which accomplished self-actualization. A simple example is that drugs simulate happiness, but are only "apparent/false" happiness, while integrity, reason, and love all flow with nature, and therefore permit actualization of the ultimate end: happiness."
Anonymous,
The text you quote appears to simply assert that whatever ‘naturally’ happens is good. Certainly this sidesteps the Naturalistic Fallacy, but on the other hand it’s far from clear that this definition of ‘good’ correlates to anything that most of us would agree on. For instance, the “process of actualization, where the formal principle of a natural object fulfilled its final cause (purpose)”, of an HIV virion, is to infect you and reproduce, slowly killing you. It is natural for HIV to kill people; by the definition you propose by citing Aquinas, it follows that HIV killing people is therefore good.
Needless to say, I disagree.
Actually, the text asserts that it is the fulfillment of the natural final cause (or purpose) that is good. Viruses actually represent a biological "devolving" from bacteria, which does not have the purpose of infecting and killing. Viruses represent a deviation from purpose, just as homosexual behavior represents a deviation from the purpose of the reproductive organs and thus a deviation from the good.
“Viruses actually represent a biological "devolving" from bacteria [citation needed], which does [sic] not have the purpose of infecting and killing [citation needed]. Viruses represent a deviation from purpose [citation needed], just as homosexual behavior represents a deviation from the purpose of the reproductive organs and thus [blank assertion] a deviation from the good.”
Viruses are not a de-evolving from bacteria. No such process as devolution exists.
There are several feilds of thought on the origins of virus
a) they're left over remains of a form of reproduction early life used that was not selected for and lost.
b) they are junk DNA/RNA that was discarded and encapsulated
c) they're descendants of an early form of protolife. When cells possibly only could replicate not reproduce viruses acted as parasites hijacking the cell machinery for their reproduction. It is hypothesized that viruses might have been the ancestral source of genetic material to the protein only cell and thus is a major contribute to the formation of 'true life'.
Either way they are OLDER than celled life and are not related in any meaningful way to modern day bacteria. Furthermore, this is a sidestep as many bacteria have 'death of the host' as a natural goal. Most prefer to keep their host alive as long as possible but Ebola and the Black Plague actually spread by progressing to a stage which is both fatal and contagious by casual contact.
Further FURTHERMORE, it is the natural state of a human infected with ebola to DIE. Should we with hold treatments for the flue since once infected it is only natural that you die (yes flue WAS one of the biggest homicidal pathogens before medical treatment made it a pussycat).
Further FURTHER FURTHERMORE. playing a saxophone is a deviation from the purpose of the respiratory organs and digestive organs (mouth, lips, cheeks). Therefore it is bad to play the saxophone because it uses body parts in a way not intended by nature?
Ing,
I agree with almost everything you said here (the general drift, and almost all the details), but one minor correction: The Black Plague is generally (though not universally) believed to have been a pandemic of bubonic plague, which is caused by Yesteria pestis—a bacterium, not a virus; however, ebola is a viral disease (Ebolavirus).
The argument obviously still stands, and if we so desired we could dig up many more lethal pathogens both viral and bacterial—and eukaryotic, for that matter. The only non-pathogenic domain seems to be Archaea…
"Three different theories have been proposed to explain the origin of virues.The first, the regressive theory of virus origins, proposes that viruses arise from free-living organisms like bacteria that have progressively lost genetic information ----- to the point where they become intracellular paprasties dependent upon their hosts to supply the functions thay have lost."
Source: http://library.thinkquest.org/26802/origin.html
So one of three main theories suggest that viruses evolved from bacteria (a theory we have not commented on one way or another). You arbitrary label this “devolving”, a phrase that has no clearly defined meaning. Even with this semantic liberty, you are merely asserting that this represents “deviation from purpose” (implicitly assuming that there exists some purpose, for which you have entirely failed to account).
Even if there were such a thing as “devolution”, and even if [d]evolutionary processes were teleological (neither of which premises I am prepared to grant), you are still resting on simple assertion when you claim that pathology is contrary to intended purposes.
You are arbitrarily choosing those relationships to hold up as “natural and therefore good” that fit your preconceived notion of what is appropriate: The Naturalistic Fallacy with an extra helping of disingenuity. At least most people who subscribe to the Fallacy are honest about it.
Wait, weren't you the one that asserted that the final cause (purpose) of an HIV virion is to infect and kill? Since we thus agree that purpose plays a role, the question is what is the purpose of the human reproductive organs? Obviously the male and female are complementary of one another.
"Wait, weren't you the one that asserted that the final cause (purpose) of an HIV virion is to infect and kill? Since we thus agree that purpose plays a role, the question is what is the purpose of the human reproductive organs?"
I'm afraid you've missed the point. The point of his example is that the "natural purpose" of many things in nature is harmful to human beings.
Your argument is that human reproductive organs have a "purpose," presumably to reproduce. That's quite true, from an evolutionary perspective. The "purpose" of venom is to injure or kill the target organism. And the "purpose" of viruses is to reproduce themselves in their host, possibly killing them. If we agree that none of these things are good things simply because they are 'natural,' because they are fulfilling their "purpose," why is homosexual activity immoral simply because it's NOT fulfilling our penis's and vagina's purpose?
The "purpose" of our hands is fine motor dexterity, to be used in our survival. Is it then immoral for us to use our hands for completely leisurely activities?
Here's another angle, one that I think is really obvious . . . If the "purpose" of our reproductive organs is for us to use them to reproduce, and it's immoral to deliberately go against the purpose of something, is it immoral for us to abstain from sex altogether? Wouldn't abstinence be the greatest immorality of all, to refuse to use our reproductive organs at all? Wouldn't that be the greatest violation of their "purpose"?
"I'm afraid you've missed the point. The point of his example is that the "natural purpose" of many things in nature is harmful to human beings."
Why is "harmful to human beings" the criteria of what is good or bad? The use of venom may be good for the snake (protecting its life), while the consequence is bad for the human being. The snake is certainly fulfilling its purpose.
"Is it then immoral for us to use our hands for completely leisurely activities?"
Why would the use of hands to play a musical instrument, for example, be against their purpose? Humans are naturally hard-wired to enjoy music.
"If the "purpose" of our reproductive organs is for us to use them to reproduce, and it's immoral to deliberately go against the purpose of something, is it immoral for us to abstain from sex altogether? Wouldn't abstinence be the greatest immorality of all, to refuse to use our reproductive organs at all? Wouldn't that be the greatest violation of their "purpose"?"
A "violation" requires an abusive act; there is no violative act when there is just a lack of activity.
"Why is "harmful to human beings" the criteria of what is good or bad?"
I am open to considering alternative criteria for what should be considered morally bad or ethically good.
"Why would the use of hands to play a musical instrument, for example, be against their purpose? Humans are naturally hard-wired to enjoy music."
Exactly my point. Humans are also naturally hard-wired to enjoy sex, even more so than music.
You claim (or you strongly imply) that using sex for any purpose other than reproduction has some aspect of immorality. However, you readily agree that it's just downright silly to condemn the use of our hands, feet, mouths, etc. for leisurely, pleasurable activities, even if those activities don't directly fulfill our most basic biological imperatives. Why is the use of our genitalia singled out for a different standard?
"A "violation" requires an abusive act; there is no violative act when there is just a lack of activity."
This would be our entire point, summed up. Your whole argument is to make a case for homosexuality being a violation of Natural Law. How is a romantic relationship between people of the same sex such a violation? Do you think that such a relationship is an abusive act?
Wow! what an excellent discussion in the above comments! and it seems that "Anonymous" (above) must have finally been convinced (although it would have been polite to have posted back a "fair enough - you're right" post...).
I know I'm a bit late on the thread but:
Is it just me, or is all this hoo-ha about hetero/homo marriages all about the wrong question?
I am always puzzled about the results of surveys which ask "Are you in favour of legal recognition of same-gender marriages?" the question, it seems to me, is framed in a way which presupposes the acceptance of an unstated supposition.
I think it has probably been a useful vehicle for forcing people to confront their prejudices. But is it really any business of government or the law to "recognise" any kind marriage or confer special rights upon people because they are married?
Marriage is simply an agreement between two people to behave in a certain (not always clearly defined) way with the addition of some kind of public ritual. The law already has a role to play in agreements of all kinds. So it seems to me, that the existence of special rules for married people is an indication of inadequate separation between church and state.
So for me the answer to "Are you in favour of legal recognition of same-gender marriages?" is "I'm not in favour of legal recognition of marriages but gender should not be an impediment to people entering into an agreement." and if I ever saw a survey with a check-box with this option I would probably participate. So far I have been unable respond to any such survey without assenting to something I disagree with, or denying something which seems a fundamental right.
Lets have a survey that asks "Do you think that there should be laws which disadvantage people who are not married?" (this being the corollary of conferring special rights upon married people) and then ask the gender related questions. Public opinion would probably change quite quickly if people began to ponder this previously unasked question.
Regards
Ian
Post a Comment
I will never delete a comment because I disagree with you, but if you're posting anonymously, at least give us a name so that if you make multiple comments we can tell you apart from the other anonymous people.
<< Home