How do I defend traditional marriage against this straw man fallacy?

[buffalo]

Do we have any examples of this idea (marriage between a man/woman with a child) seen in other countries with same sex marriage rights?

I guess I would ask; which country has had the longest history of legalized gay marriage and do we see tolerance growing among them with the idea of marriage between an adult and child?

Or better yet, are there laws permitting adult/child marriage in other countries?

Ps. Apologies for not researching these questions myself as I am stressed for time and only checking back here periodically. Thanks!

The reality and history is coming in focus now…

Few homosexual relationships last beyond two years. Those that last longer are able to do so only by accepting there will be infidelity. Those who claim they are committed have a fundamental inability to remain faithful. The stats are showing they themselves reporting hundreds of lifetime partners. This is a radical difference from real marriage.

And this is supposed to be stable and nurturing for children?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

The reality and history is coming in focus now…

Few homosexual relationships last beyond two years. Those that last longer are able to do so only by accepting there will be infidelity. Those who claim they are committed have a fundamental inability to remain faithful. The stats are showing they themselves reporting hundreds of lifetime partners. This is a radical difference from real marriage.

And this is supposed to be stable and nurturing for children?

I agree with the sentiment behind this, but could you cite statistics please?

 

[jwinch2]

osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/10339/Rebuttals-to-arguments-for-samesex-marriage.aspx

 

[buffalo]

I agree with the sentiment behind this, but could you cite statistics please?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10543709&postcount=73

 

[jwinch2]

big·ot·ry [big-uh-tree]
noun, plural big·ot·ries.

1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.

Those accusing others of being bigots, particularly on this issue, are often the most bigoted themselves.

 

[R_C]

I seen an interesting meme on Facebook yesterday. It’s a picture of the people in Washington, D.C. who are supporting traditional marriage with a quote on top saying “Imagine how stupid you are going to look in 40 years”.

Well, imagine then whenever the day of judgment comes. A lot of people who by invincible ignorance supported “equality” and “non-traditional marriage” will be forgiven.

Then the Lord turns towards us Catholics, and points us to Mt 19:4-5:

Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?

Imagine how stupid would Catholics who ignored His words are going to look

 

[Armor_of_Light]

Well, imagine then whenever the day of judgment comes. A lot of people who by invincible ignorance supported “equality” and “non-traditional marriage” will be forgiven.

Then the Lord turns towards us Catholics, and points us to Mt 19:4-5:

Imagine how stupid would Catholics who ignored His words are going to look

I think people will look filled with joy and awe or very very sad on that day.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I seen an interesting meme on Facebook yesterday. It’s a picture of the people in Washington, D.C. who are supporting traditional marriage with a quote on top saying “Imagine how stupid you are going to look in 40 years”. And on the bottom, a picture of protesters from years ago protesting interracial marriage. The conclusion; traditional marriage supporters are nothing more than bigots and in 40 years they will look “stupid” just as these racist people from the past.

I know this is a straw man fallacy, but to someone who doesn’t know anything about the issues or apologetics all together…it can draw up a pretty good illusion.

So my question is; when faced with this fallacy, what or how are some ways I can defend my position on traditional marriage?

Stanford Law School Debates Whether The Constitution’s Protection for Interracial Marriages Compels Legalizing Same Sex Marriage

---

Last week I participated in a discussion sponsored by the Federalist Society at Stanford Law School in California on redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, and its collision with the First Amendment rights of those who define marriage as one man and one woman only. We had a great discussion … but] what I did not expect at Stanford was a debate on the relevancy of the 1967 Supreme Court decision striking down Virginia’s law banning interracial marriage, Loving v. Virginia.

Many who support redefining marriage to include same-sex couples are convinced that this case greatly supports their position. It does not. I have found that many people have not read the decision, or do not understand what the Supreme Court ruled in that case. The decision doesn’t help them. So it is a dreadfully flawed argument and a non sequitur to argue as many do that ”just as a ban on interracial marriage was unconstitutional, so a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.”

I have earlier discussed the deficiencies in analogizing a law defining marriage as one man and one woman as the law struck down in Loving v. Virginia. Because so many find the argument persuasive, let me state here what I said to the law students at Stanford:

The Virginia law only banned white people from having an interracial marriage. An African American man could marry a woman of Asian descent under the Virginia law struck down by the Supreme Court. That interracial marriage was OK because it did not include any white people. The obviously uneven application of the law based on race is why the Supreme Court struck it down. These despicable laws did not say, “whites can only marry whites, blacks can only marry blacks, Asians can only marry Asians,” etc., but many wrongly assume that is what those laws said.

Race is different than sex. It would have been unconstitutional too if the miscegenation law said, “whites can only marry whites, and blacks can only marry blacks, ” etc. But that’s not what the Virginia law struck down by the Supreme Court said. That hypothetical does not provide any precedent for striking down a regular marriage law. Even if the law did say that, it’s not important, because race is different from sex. Only one man and one woman can produce a child, and the parents can be of any race. Two men together or two women together will never produce a child. So having an opposite sex couple is essential for producing children. What is critical is having one man and one woman. The parents’ race is irrelevant in their ability to reproduce. It is rational, in fact, it is wise for a society to urge men and women to get married in order to produce and raise their children, because they represent the next generation of their society.

Race has never been a universally-accepted element in the states’ definition of marriage. States generally have agreed that people seeking marriage must meet several criteria. For example, the two people seeking marriage must be a man and a woman, they cannot be married to anyone else, they both must possess the mental capacity to consent to marriage, they cannot be near relatives (like brother and sister) and they both must be above a certain age. Race has not been a universally-accepted part of the definition of marriage. For example, not all states banned white people from having an interracial marriage. Some states, like Virginia, allowed whites to marry nonwhites for many decades before imposing a ban on whites marrying nonwhites. The existence of miscegenation laws is a sordid historical fact. The court decisions striking down those laws offer no principle of law that compels legalizing same-sex marriage.

Some states did not ban interracial marriages consistently. Virginia was faced with the dilemma that one of its founders, John Rolfe, married a nonwhite woman, the famed Pocahantas. Virginia resolved this dilemma by making Pocahantas an honorary white person, and exempted marriages (in some circumstances) where a white person married a Native American.

I hope I convinced at least some of the law students at Stanford to stop embracing the false parallel between Loving v. Virginia and the efforts to legalize same-sex marriage.

My emphases

 

[_Abyssinia]

Rebuttals to arguments for same-sex marriage

1. The struggle for same-sex marriage is just like the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

The suggestion here is that sex is similar to race, and therefore denying marriage for either reason is wrong. The problem, however, is that interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are significantly different.

For instance, nothing prevents interracial couples from fulfilling the basic essence of marriage — a public, lifelong relationship ordered toward procreation. Because of this, the anti-miscegenation laws of the 1960s were wrong to discriminate against interracial couples. Yet same-sex couples are not biologically ordered toward procreation and, therefore, cannot fulfill the basic requirements of marriage.

It’s important to note that African-Americans, who have the most poignant memories of marital discrimination, generally disagree that preventing interracial marriage is like banning same-sex marriage. For example, when Californians voted on Proposition 8, a state amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, some 70 percent of African-Americans voted in favor.

According to Peters, “Likening same-sex marriage to interracial marriage is puzzling and offensive to most African-Americans, who are shocked at such a comparison.”

 

[Texsain]

Race has not been a universally-accepted part of the definition of marriage.

Exactly, which is why we need to remind people that advocates for SSM are advocating a re-definition of marriage itself, not merely greater inclusion.

 

[Texsain]

And further…I dislike referring to “traditional” marriage. The term itself implies that marriage can change into something non-traditional…like the “traditional [latin] mass” and the “new mass.” I prefer “natural marriage”, or better yet, simply “marriage.”

 

[buffalo]

And further…I dislike referring to “traditional” marriage. The term itself implies that marriage can change into something non-traditional…like the “traditional [latin] mass” and the “new mass.” I prefer “natural marriage”, or better yet, simply “marriage.”

I like “real” or “authentic” marriage.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Thank you to those who provided me with statistics links.

 

[Brendan]

The fallacy given actually reenforces the Catholic understanding of marriage.

The restrictions placed on marriage by civil authorities ( interracial marriage) was a DEPARTURE from the traditional understanding of marriage.

It was an attempt by the civil authorities to redefine marriage to suit their political leanings and is based on a false understanding of what Natural marriage is as a human institution…

Which is precisely what the current attempt as the redefinition of marriage are trying to accomplish.

 

[Texsain]

The restrictions placed on marriage by civil authorities ( interracial marriage) was a DEPARTURE from the traditional understanding of marriage.

 

[livingwordunity]

You’re right. It’s a straw man because the Catholic Church was never against inter-racial marriage because it wasn’t an attempt to redefine marriage. The second part of the fallacy is the false assumption that Christians are against so-called “gay marriage” because we are hateful bigots. The truth is that the main reason Christians are against it is because homosexual acts are condemned throughout Sacred Scripture (OT and NT), Christ defined marriage as being between one man and one woman, and we aren’t so arrogant as to claim to be superior to Christ. If Christ would have said that marriage could be defined to include homosexual relationships, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But Christ didn’t count homosexual behavior as marriage, most likely because he’s the same God who condemned homosexual behavior in the OT. By the way, I’m a product of an inter-racial marriage, and I’m for traditional marriage. It’s interesting how today we can see white liberals calling black conservatives bigots.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I seen an interesting meme on Facebook yesterday. It’s a picture of the people in Washington, D.C. who are supporting traditional marriage with a quote on top saying “Imagine how stupid you are going to look in 40 years”. And on the bottom, a picture of protesters from years ago protesting interracial marriage. The conclusion; traditional marriage supporters are nothing more than bigots and in 40 years they will look “stupid” just as these racist people from the past.

I know this is a straw man fallacy, but to someone who doesn’t know anything about the issues or apologetics all together…it can draw up a pretty good illusion.

So my question is; when faced with this fallacy, what or how are some ways I can defend my position on traditional marriage?

This is quite a simple softball people throw.

If we are to take a view based in Natural Law (specifically, Economics, Biology, Psychology, etc.) that the reason we have marriage between one man and one woman is because one of the primary purposes is the raising of a family and the raising of the next generation of citizens. As such, that is why this relationship is given special status in such things as tax law (or at least that is the underlying intent).

Race has nothing to do with contracting a valid marriage for these purposes. People of the same sex cannot pro-create without third party help, which raises a whole bunch of additional issues.