On Same Sex Marriage: A Response to an argument comparing disapproval to racial discrimination

CrossExamined.org ^ | Jonathan McLatchie

[SeekAndFind]

Commenter Stephen B has offered a response to my previously published article concerning same sex marriage. Stephen writes,

“Sorry Jonathan, but this is not a category error, and your objection doesn’t work.

Here’s the comparison:
White man marrying black woman / man marrying man.

If you want to describe it in terms of ‘actions’ then the former is marrying someone of the opposite race; in the latter it is marrying someone of the same gender.
If you want to describe it in terms of ‘behaviour’ then the former could be described as ‘being attracted to the opposite race’; in the latter it’s same-sex attraction.

Your objection does not make a ‘like-for-like’ comparison. You compare the action in the one to the behavior in the other.

It would be equally fallacious to say “There are lots of people who stop finding other races attractive, whereas there are no former men’.

A like-for-like comparison would either be to point out that:
a) Race doesn’t change and gender doesn’t change; or
b) Race attraction can change and gender attraction can change.

Either way, there is no category error being made and a comparison to anti-miscegenation laws are quite valid. Objections such as ‘Not many inter-racial couples are choosing to get married’ would be equally irrelevant, whether true or not.”

Stephen, race is not foundational to the concept of marriage. Gender, however is. Permitting interracial marriage does not necessitate a fundamental redefinition of the very heart of what marriage is. There is zero evidence to suggest that, say, having an Asian mother and a Caucasian father is detrimental to a child’s upbringing and development. There is plenty of evidence, however, to suggest that a child’s upbringing is impaired by the absence of either a mother or a father. I may write a follow-up post reviewing some of the pertinent literature in this regard.

I stand by my assertion that interracial marriage is quite different from homosexual marriage. Indeed, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruling of the Baker v. Nelson 1971 case (which over-turned restrictions on interracial marriage) stated:

“[I]n commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely on race and one based on the fundamental difference in sex.”

The court ruling was subsequently appealed to the US Supreme Court, though it did not receive a hearing. The court stated “appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.”

Polls also show that African Americans are largely opposed to the proposed redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples (see, for example, here). In fact, a 2004 article in The Charlotte Observer noted that “Blacks Resent Comparison of Gay Rights to Civil Rights” and that “The gay rights movement is not the same in this regard because it is focused on securing rights for one group of Americans. It is not a civil rights movement but rather a special rights movement to secure rights for those who have chosen to be defined by their sexual preference.”

Stephen B. continued his response by quoting my statement that “Likewise, they have equal rights to marry anyone of the opposite gender,” noting,

“Which brings us straight back to the anti-miscegenation argument that all white people have an equal right to marry other white people, and all black people have an equal right to marry other black people. And yes, that argument was made at the time. It’s a disingenuous claim to equal rights. You might as well ban Catholicism and say they have an equal right to practice Protestantism.”

One needs to consider at this point what the purpose of marriage actually is. The purpose of marriage, at least so far as the state is concerned, is primarily to produce a suitable nurturing environment for establishing families and for raising children — and ultimately for bringing forth the next generation. In her Varieties of Sexual Experience: An Anthropological Perspective on Human Sexuality (p. 248), Suzanne G. Frayser states that “Marriage is a relationship within which a group socially approves and encourages sexual intercourse and the birth of children.” The only kind of relationship which can bring forth the next generation is between a man and a woman. As the gay American writer Michelangelo Signorile tellingly wrote in OUT magazine in May of 1996,

“The trick is, gay leaders and pundits must stop watering the issue down — “this is simply about equality for gay couples” — and offer same-sex marriage for what it is: an opportunity to reconstruct a traditionally homophobic institution by bringing it to our more equitable queer value system, … a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture… Our gay leaders must acknowledge that gay marriage is just as radical and transformative as the religious Right contends it is.”

In conclusion, there is more to the debate over same-sex marriage than often meets the eye. While certain people doubtless have propensities towards, or desires for, particular types of behaviour (such as homosexuality), to claim that we ought to have the right to act upon every desire or impulse that we have is irrational. Self-restraint with respect to some behaviours is a necessary ingredient for a civilised society. As Frank Turek explains, “[t]he legalization of homosexual marriage threatens traditional marriage — the national immune system that protects our civilization from destruction.” For a more detailed discussion of this topic, I refer readers to Frank Turek’s Correct Not Politically Correct: How Same Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone and Glen Stanton and Bill Maier’s Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same Sex Marriage and Parenting.

[relictele]

If a same-sex marriage supporter’s primary means of debating is to change the subject immediately then his argument must be weak indeed.

[Exton1]

Yes they use An ad hominem argument which is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument,
The idiom “red herring” is used to refer to something that misleads or distracts from the relevant or important issue.
As an informal fallacy, the red herring falls into a broad class of relevance fallacies. Unlike the strawman, which is premised on a distortion of the other party’s position,the red herring is a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant, diversionary tactic.
A straw man argument is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of the original topic of argument. The so-called typical “attacking a straw man” implies an adversarial, polemic, or combative debate, and creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., “stand up a straw man”) and then to refute or defeat that false argument (”knock down a straw man”) instead of the original proposition.
Straw man arguments often arise in public debates such as a (hypothetical) prohibition debate:

A: We should relax the laws on beer.
B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.

The proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend, i.e., “unrestricted access to intoxicants”. It is a logical fallacy because Person A never made that claim.

A: Sunny days are good.
B: If all days were sunny, we’d never have rain, and without rain, we’d have famine and death.
Common Example of Red Herring

Some examples of red herring fallacy in casual conversations are given below:

Mother: It’s bedtime Jane
Jane: Mom, how do ants feed their babies?
Mother: Don’t know dear. Close your eyes now.
Jane: But mama, do ant babies cry when hungry?

This conversation shows how a child tries to distract her mother so that she [Jane] could stay awake a little longer.

There is a lot of commotion regarding saving the environment. We cannot make this world an Eden. What will happen if it does become Eden? Adam and Eve got bored there!

The idea of Adam and Eve getting bored in Eden throws the listeners off the real issue of environment.

[the anti-mahdi]

Queers need to go back to the subway restrooms and bridge underpasses where they belong.

I cannot change a queer, and I cannot abide them either.

I am so sorry if that offends a queer.

Queers are draining away what is left of our freedom. Their perversion now has to be endorsed, approved and celebrated or else.

Well, STFU, I will never fall into line for you and I will never endorse the things you do.

[MrB]

Usually the “argument” goes like this:

“you’re a bigot so shut up”.

[SeekAndFind]

Comparing race to homosexuality is really a category mistake.

A category mistake is attributing the property of one thing to something else that does not have that property.

For example, to say “Blue sleeps faster than Wednesday” is to confuse an attribute of color with speed and compare it to a name. This error is very common among proponents of homosexuality.

Another example would be to say that “Gay sex is just love.” This confuses a sexual behavior with an emotional condition.

They’re not the same thing.

Here is a result of an exhaustive study made by Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, “Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women”, (New York, Simon and Shuster, 1978) p.314 (Can still be found in Amazon.com ):

“Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308.”

HomoSEXuality (Note the emphasis) is a behavior-—an action. It is not the same thing as a genetic condition such as skin color, height, or gender.

Homosexuals have never been–or will be considered–non-citizens by laws of the United States that rob them of inalienable rights.

Historical, anthropological, and philosophical honesty should lead us to see that gays CANNOT be the new black and there’s a stark difference”.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: I cannot change a queer

Actually there are MANY homosexuals who testify that they have CHANGED. If this is so, then comparing their sexual proclivities to blacks is unwarranted.

SEE HERE:

http://pfox.org/default.html

and here:

http://www.drpipim.org/homosexuality-contemporaryissues-47/68-testimony-from-an-ex-gay.html

and here:

http://www.gcmwatch.com/10615/80-exhomosexual-video-testimonies

If homosexuality is, as many pro-gay advocates state, as inescapable as eye color, or skin color, then how do they explain former homosexuals? Eye color is genetic, something that one is born with and can’t change. But sexual orientation is fluid, as evidenced by the changed lives of thousands of men and women.

There are women who spend years in long-term, sexually committed relationships with other women and then change and become attracted to males. There are also men who have been sexually attracted to other men since puberty, spend a decade in gay relationships, and then develop attractions to the opposite sex. Many of these people have gone through some form of therapy or counseling, but some spontaneously change without any professional intervention.

[the anti-mahdi]

Many people have a come to Jesus experience and change their ways.

People were made in God’s image. Whether they can suborn their own conscience or not, they retain the capacity to do so and as you have pointed out, many do.

It’s like muslims. Some of them do their rituals, the two Eids, Ramadan, run around the Kaaba, stone their daughters and wives etc.

A lot of them just want to be left alone and fear the village mullah who will come to visit and require money, coming to the mosque etc.

You really cannot be a muslim, a believing muslim, a stalwart muslim, a jihadist murdering muslim and have much of a capacity for thinking, researching for your self what you believe.

Those who do not have the capacity I believe suffer from mental defect or disorder. In a word, they are nuts or they would not buy into the deal.

But, they have been programmed from birth and even the poorerst male muslim has it made in comparison to his female kin.

The male is doted on, given the best of everything, and the females from mother to female siblings must honor and obey the male child.

Islam creates monsters. There is no get out of jail free card for them while they remain in the faith. They are surely damned and there is no escape. A few are leaving Islam and making their case to their former co-religionists.

They are helping a few to escape a Satanic death cult.

The ones who do escape face death daily.

That is faith. You can kill me now, but I will not return to your bloody Satanic religion.

I thank God for the few who run for their lives.