Deductive Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

[Domnall]

Hey everyone. I, like many of you, support the Church’s stance regarding same sex marriage. However, being a philosophy student, I generally prefer the concrete arguments rather than the broader, more inductive ones.

I want to present a few arguments that I encounter a lot at my college dealing with gay marriage. I think it would help me personally (to understand) and others (to explain) that this is why the Church believe what it believes.

So, I’m looking for Deductive arguments, hopefully in standard form to the following statements. I know I’m asking a lot, but I trust that CAF must have some philosophers who can help me out!

1. Marriage is a right, and all consenting adults therefore can enter into the legal contract of marriage, regardless of their sex.
2. Marriage, legally, is not about the procreation of children but of love between two individuals who happen to also want to receive the benefits of marriage regardless of their sex.
3. Since the sterile and the elderly are not capable of producing children, then they should not be able to be legally married.
   (This one is generally focused on the seeming contradiction claimed against Catholics)
4. The benefits of marriage are not given to couples as incentive to marry and have children. (relates to the 2nd)

Thanks so much everyone!

 

[123Strontium]

I don’t know about deductive arguments that align with your logic but this is how I think the church vantage point is:

1. Homosexuality is a grave sin and a degrading passion in the holy scriptures.
2. If it is sin, then it needs to be defined as sin, or else once it becomes normalized, it ceases to be recognized as sin, so therefore how can a person repent without knowing it is sin. Then you end your life without recognizing your own sin, because societal values have normalized this sin. Sin should always be recognized as undesirable, and to be avoided even if we know it can be forgiven, we still have to hate sin, because the righteous God hates sin.
3. To recognize the marriage status of SSM is to normalize homosexuality, which is dodgy ground as it relates to the statement above.
4. Outside of Scripture, SSM might be natural perhaps, but in Christianity, it is in the scriptures as an abomination to God.
5. The holy scriptures and catholic church are a permanent fixture, it cannot change. God’s truth is eternal. Our society’s cultures around the world have variable values and morals, God’s truth stays the same, unless revelation from God says otherwise. And at this moment in time, our revelation is the same as what the texts say. That said, the old covenant said Samesex was sin and the NT follows the same line, so it’s been consistent in this area.

 

[Southern]

God created Man! He brought the animals to him and what he called them was their name. But God also saw the man was lonley so he placed him in a deep sleep. He took out one of his ribs and made Woman. He said this is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bones. He named her Woman. The two become one flesh. God made Adam and Eve! Man and Woman. One for the other. Not Adam and Steve or Eve and Susie or whatever! God does not Change!!! God does not Bless Gay marriages even though he still loves them. This is not how God intended PERIOD!!! Any one who tells you otherwise is a fool because they do not listen to the truth which is the WORD of GOD! God Bless!

 

[Christianus_Dei]

Please note that religious arguments should not be used when dealing with this. Just an aside to commentators.

 

[Piwowar]

Hmmm…

I wonder how the Supreme Court will rule?

I think there are 6 Roman Catholics and 3 Jewish justices.

Will really pray hard on this one!

 

[ProdglArchitect]

1. Marriage is a right, and all consenting adults therefore can enter into the legal contract of marriage, regardless of their sex.

Marriage, since the law codes of Hammurabi, has been upheld as a binding agreement between a man and a woman, geared towards the procreation of life and upbringing of Children. As two adults of the same gender are rendered incapable of producing the life for which the establishment of marriage was formed, they cannot be said to be capable of marrying.

1. Marriage, legally, is not about the procreation of children but of love between two individuals who happen to also want to receive the benefits of marriage regardless of their sex.

This is blatantly incorrect. Marriage has always been about children, their birthing and upbringing in a stable micro-society so that they may eventually become functional members of society. The concept that marriage is only about love is a new one, arriving as a result of the ridiculous “sexual liberation” mentality of the sixties. Love has always been a factor, but the children held primacy, and the proper upbringing of those children was placed before the comfort of the parents.

1. Since the sterile and the elderly are not capable of producing children, then they should not be able to be legally married.
   (This one is generally focused on the seeming contradiction claimed against Catholics)

You can’t contradict this one without reaching into religions arguments; however:

The sterile couple’s sexual compatibility would allow them to become pregnant should a medical miracle occur which restore virility to the sterile party. (Note, you must say medical miracle (or advancement) to avoid straying into religious grounds) Further, were this to happen, both parties would still be fulfilling the role designated by their gender (the man to provide semen, and the woman to provide an egg and housing for gestation.). Should a medical bastardization occur which would allow a man to give birth, it would be a blatant rejection of the natural order as defined by genetics and Darwinian evolution.

On a more religious level; the sterile couple is still open to the possibility of life should God see fit to intereceed, as he did with Elizabeth. A homosexual couple cannot, through nature, procreate, and therefore is in violation of nature.

1. The benefits of marriage are not given to couples as incentive to marry and have children. (relates to the 2nd)

Also incorrect; anyone who says this is not familiar with history. The concepts of inheritance and benefits were developed as early as Hammurabi specifically to ensure that the surviving partner would be capable of providing for the likely offspring of the marriage (since people didn’t use contraception, and children were prized, it is likely that any marriage, however brief, would have resulted in at least one life). Since, in order for a person to be a contributing member of society, a stable upbringing was required, it has always been in the best interest of society to ensure that a surviving spouse is able to care for their children without worrying or being forced to look to illicit methods of employment. While it’s true that this hasn’t always been successful, it has done a good deal to prevent such occurrences.

In addition to laws providing for inheritance, civilization was far more social before, relying on friends and family for help rearing a child far more than is done so in most cultures today. This backdrop of family and friends was considered invaluable to the proper upbringing of a child, and provided an additional fallback in the even of the death of a spouse.

Hope this helps.

 

[Mumbles140]

Please note that religious arguments should not be used when dealing with this. Just an aside to commentators.

How do you know marriage is a right? Is it not rather a privilege, with restrictions (like a driver’s license), than an inalienable right (the right to life)? And if a privilege, then restrictions are okay, such as bans on family members marrying, or humans marrying non-humans. Therefore, you have to examine the root of the causes on those bans, and determine if the same holds false for same-sex marriage, or is it just social gerrymandering with laws to allow gay marriage but ban any other types not deemed ‘acceptable’? I won’t get into details here (at least at this time), but if others can elaborate or build off of this, I would greatly appreciate it if the need arises.

If, however, you believe marriage to be a right, where does the Constitution establish that? Clearly it doesn’t, nor do any constitutional amendments, so it has to be taken off of precedent. But still, going further back than that, marriage existed before laws and courts, so they did not create it as a right. They made the decision to recognize it, give it legal status, tax benefits, etc, but they did not create it. So if not the government, than it must be from religion.

Now, you don’t want religious arguments against gay marriage, but whether one believes in God or not does not stop one from admitting the right (or rite!) of marriage originated with the religion. So, look back to the founding of the religions and see what was taught about marriage? See how procreation and the education of children was vital to marriage - love was a part of marriage, but marriage is greater than love, so it cannot be only about love. And if you look at marriage for why it was really created, rather than what social media, pop culture, and ‘sexual rights’ activists are pushing for (love and friendship and tax breaks and adoption), you see that marriage and homosexuality cannot co-exist.

If the state chooses to confer legal status to loving couples hoping to receive tax breaks, inheritance rights, adoption status, etc, that is the choice of the state, but it is not marriage. And even then, why does the government recognize marriage and provide benefit to it, but unmarried people co-habitating don’t receive those benefits? Because even the government knows marriage means children, and a country needs a strong birth rate to survive in this world…

 

[jhigh]

1. Marriage is a right, and all consenting adults therefore can enter into the legal contract of marriage, regardless of their sex.

There is not one law in America denying gay people the right to marry. There are laws that state that the definition of marriage is one man and one woman. However, this definition still allows gay people to marry, just not in the manner that they want to. I cannot marry another man, just as a gay man cannot marry another man. There is no discrimination here.

1. Marriage, legally, is not about the procreation of children but of love between two individuals who happen to also want to receive the benefits of marriage regardless of their sex.

As others have pointed out, this is just incorrect. Not to mention the fact that this raises the question of should two college roommates be allowed to get married to share benefits? What about two elderly women?

1. Since the sterile and the elderly are not capable of producing children, then they should not be able to be legally married.
   (This one is generally focused on the seeming contradiction claimed against Catholics)

We used to have blood tests and other requirements prior to allowing a couple to marry, but they have rightly been deemed too invasive. We have a definition of marriage with reasonable restrictions to ensure the perpetuation of society.

1. The benefits of marriage are not given to couples as incentive to marry and have children. (relates to the 2nd)

Again, this is just incorrect.

On a separate but related point, unfortunately I believe that the cultural war for marriage was lost when we lost the war against contraception. Once the procreative function of sex was removed from the act, the argument for government sanctioning of traditional marriage flew out the window.

 

[Domnall]

Hey everyone, thank you for your thoughtful responses so far. I totally agree with the points of view expressed, but I was looking for deductive logical arguments (if they exist) for they refute all other alternative.

Just a side note, “Appeal to history” or “Appeal to tradition” are logical fallacies. For what I’m operating with, I need something deeper.

Again, thank you so much, but it’s not exactly what I was looking for considering the circumstances.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Hey everyone, thank you for your thoughtful responses so far. I totally agree with the points of view expressed, but I was looking for deductive logical arguments (if they exist) for they refute all other alternative.

Just a side note, “Appeal to history” or “Appeal to tradition” are logical fallacies. For what I’m operating with, I need something deeper.

Again, thank you so much, but it’s not exactly what I was looking for considering the circumstances.

An appeal to history is not a logical fallacy when it’s used to outline a commonly understood truth. It is only a fallacy when you say “it was like that before, so we keep doing it.” I, on the other hand, was using it to demonstrate that it is has been common knowledge that a marriage between a man and a woman is the only valid combination. I am not saying that we do it because they did it, I am saying that we do it because it’s the only option, and even these primitive people, devoid of the Laws of God, were able to figure that out through an exercise of basic reasoning and observation.

Similarly, with my point about inheritance law, I was pointing out that your statement was in error. I am again not saying that we do it because they did it, but instead am saying that even they recognized the need for them, and so should we; and so we did, which is where the laws developed.

 

[Tomdstone]

Hey everyone, thank you for your thoughtful responses so far. I totally agree with the points of view expressed, but I was looking for deductive logical arguments (if they exist) for they refute all other alternative.

Just a side note, “Appeal to history” or “Appeal to tradition” are logical fallacies. For what I’m operating with, I need something deeper.

Again, thank you so much, but it’s not exactly what I was looking for considering the circumstances.

There is proof by contradiction:
Suppose for the sake of argument, that a state such as California cannot ban same sex marriage because of Constitutional issues. As you know proposition 8 was passed by California, and there is an effort to declare it unconstitutional.
Well, if a state cannot ban same sex marriage then what about:

1. Marriage between a man and 5 women (polygamy) Why should a state have the right to take away the constitutional right for 5 women to marry the same man?
2. Marriage between a 50 year old man and a 10 year old girl. Why should the state have the right to take away the right of this girl to marry whomever she wants at whatever age she wants?
3. Marriage between 2 men and 3 women. Why should the state have the right to deprive them of their constitutional right to marry as they choose?
   So the logical argument by contradiction would be that the state has the right to ban 1, 2, and 3. Therefore, the state has the right to ban same sex marriage.

 

[catholicmom2010]

I would recommend that you get William May’s book “Getting the Marriage Conversation Right”. It is a quick read and goes through the very types of reasoning you are looking for. Basically you need to come about the issue from a different way- instead of arguing against same sex marriage, you need to ask What is Marriage?

*Is marriage an institution that unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union
or
*Is marriage a public recognition including tax benefits and legal status of an emotional relationship between two people

 

[Erich]

This video presents a reasoned defense of traditional marriage that might be close to what you are looking for.

 

[PeterJohn]

I’m no philosopher but, don’t the cons simply outweigh the pros here?

What does anyone want out of a marriage?
Commitment, recognition, monagamy, fidelity, love, rights to visitation in hospitals, automatic wills, insurance benefits, the right to compensation upon divorce?

What are the absolute best outcomes of a oldschool marriage?

What are the absolute worst outcomes that could result from homosexual marriages?

What detriment comes from restraining human beings with homosexual tendencies to the right to be married?

 

[Publisher]

I don’t know about deductive arguments that align with your logic but this is how I think the church vantage point is:

1. Homosexuality is a grave sin and a degrading passion in the holy scriptures.
2. If it is sin, then it needs to be defined as sin, or else once it becomes normalized, it ceases to be recognized as sin, so therefore how can a person repent without knowing it is sin. Then you end your life without recognizing your own sin, because societal values have normalized this sin. Sin should always be recognized as undesirable, and to be avoided even if we know it can be forgiven, we still have to hate sin, because the righteous God hates sin.
3. To recognize the marriage status of SSM is to normalize homosexuality, which is dodgy ground as it relates to the statement above.
4. Outside of Scripture, SSM might be natural perhaps, but in Christianity, it is in the scriptures as an abomination to God.
5. The holy scriptures and catholic church are a permanent fixture, it cannot change. God’s truth is eternal. Our society’s cultures around the world have variable values and morals, God’s truth stays the same, unless revelation from God says otherwise. And at this moment in time, our revelation is the same as what the texts say. That said, the old covenant said Samesex was sin and the NT follows the same line, so it’s been consistent in this area.

Since the arguements by the supporters of same sex marriage before the Supreme Court have nothing to do with religious beliefs, but Constitutional rights guaranteed…defining someting as a “sin” has no legal standing. Scripture has no legal standing to determine civil rights. The Catholic church among others have no legal standing to determine civil rights…etc…etc…etc.

 

[Domnall]

Since the arguements by the supporters of same sex marriage before the Supreme Court have nothing to do with religious beliefs, but Constitutional rights guaranteed…defining someting as a “sin” has no legal standing. Scripture has no legal standing to determine civil rights. The Catholic church among others have no legal standing to determine civil rights…etc…etc…etc.

Right! Sorry if I didn’t make this clear, but I guess by nature of being a deductive argument, there is no room for things such as sin.

Maybe I’ll call into Catholic Answers live about this. I know it was really hard what I was asking for, and thank you all! The discipline of logic is way tougher than it seems.

 

[fix]

1. Marriage is a right, and all consenting adults therefore can enter into the legal contract of marriage, regardless of their sex.

Consent is not the sole criteria for marriage. Other criteria are used and must be used.

1. Marriage, legally, is not about the procreation of children but of love between two individuals who happen to also want to receive the benefits of marriage regardless of their sex.

How does the State define love? Is love mentioned in the States legal definition?

1. Since the sterile and the elderly are not capable of producing children, then they should not be able to be legally married.
   (This one is generally focused on the seeming contradiction claimed against Catholics)

Heterosexuals that are subjectively sterile have nothing in common with homosexuals couples. They are unequal examples and ought not be compared. Heterosexuals belong to a class that can procreate. Homosexuals belong to a class that can never procreate.

1. The benefits of marriage are not given to couples as incentive to marry and have children. (relates to the 2nd)

Why are they given?

 

[Faithdancer]

Hmmm…

I wonder how the Supreme Court will rule?

I think there are 6 Roman Catholics and 3 Jewish justices.

Will really pray hard on this one!

Unfortunately, many Roman Catholic judges are heterodox, and their reasoning and the legal decisions they make based on that reasoning is further flawed by their erroneous belief that the US Constitution trumps Divine and natural law.

 

[marymary1975]

Hmmm…

I wonder how the Supreme Court will rule?

I think there are 6 Roman Catholics and 3 Jewish justices.

Will really pray hard on this one!

Well I can tell you right now four of them (the thee Jews and.one catholic …sotomayor) are upholding gay marriage, you can bet whatever you want on that. Four more it is also known that they are voting against it. All is in the hands of Anthony Kennedy who is a cafeteria catholic, and a swinger who votes depending on the mood that he woke up. He is pretty much unpredictable as he has given completely contradictory opinions on very similar issues in the past (that is why I said that his decision depends on his mood) so nothing but praying that Kennedy wakes up on the church side that morning. However I have to say that I have the feeling that he is going to say that congress didn’t have power to pass doma but with him, especially of you look at his behavior during the past year is impossible to say.

 

[marymary1975]

Hey everyone. I, like many of you, support the Church’s stance regarding same sex marriage. However, being a philosophy student, I generally prefer the concrete arguments rather than the broader, more inductive ones.

I want to present a few arguments that I encounter a lot at my college dealing with gay marriage. I think it would help me personally (to understand) and others (to explain) that this is why the Church believe what it believes.

So, I’m looking for Deductive arguments, hopefully in standard form to the following statements. I know I’m asking a lot, but I trust that CAF must have some philosophers who can help me out!

1. Marriage is a right, and all consenting adults therefore can enter into the legal contract of marriage, regardless of their sex.
2. Marriage, legally, is not about the procreation of children but of love between two individuals who happen to also want to receive the benefits of marriage regardless of their sex.
3. Since the sterile and the elderly are not capable of producing children, then they should not be able to be legally married.
   (This one is generally focused on the seeming contradiction claimed against Catholics)
4. The benefits of marriage are not given to couples as incentive to marry and have children. (relates to the 2nd)

Thanks so much everyone!

1. If marriage is a right where are the rights to marry more than one person (if so polygamy and polyandry should be legal, after all they are all.consenting adults), the right to marry your blood relatives or the right to marry a minor. Rights are supposed to be for all correct? So how come here we are only talking about the right of one specific group and the rest are being left out of the picture.
2. Actually legally speaking has never been about love but a government tool to reach an objective. If we get religion out of the picture, legally speaking marriage started because of property issues. Read from Frederic engel the beginning of family, society and property. Early on marriage was established as a way for men to be able to traspass property to their children. Women were treated as property and they were given in marriage as part of economical transaction…the beautiful tradition of the father handling the daughter where do you think it comes from? Why do you think feminism tends to be against marriage? Because it has never been about love but about power and property. And finally, more modernly it has been about procreation. The government way of encouraging certain behaviors is through taxes and benefits: how do they try to discourage smoking? By placing high taxes on it. Same goes with marriage. Society is interested in encouraging reproduction so a young generation of workers can out money into the system. If there is not enough young people, who are going to put the money in? So the way they encourage reproduction is by giving tax benefits to people who marry and raise children. Marriage for love? Sorry but legally speaking governments can care less if people love each other or no.
3. Remember the other legal objective of marriage is traspass of property. Old couples can’t have children but they can have property. If the man dies childless then the property goes to the wife immediately instead of having to go through probate. Things are easier. And remember the marriage thing in its legal origin comes heavily as protecting the man’s property. Given that women give birth and is quite obvious who is the mother marriage wasn’t legally created to protect women’s property. Without marriage men don’t know who are their kids therefore making things economically difficult for men. Again, marriage legally wasn’t created because people love each other, it was created to protect men and property and their belongings.
4. Yes they are. Childless couples don’t have same benefits as couples with children.