The Sanctity Of Marriage

[Neon Genesis]

George,

 

You certainly won't get one from me but i do think the arguments in the long article are rational. Rational doesn't mean we agree. I believe the writer has used his full possession of reasoning to come to the conclusions he has and those reasons, in my view, are not without some merit or sense of soundness. Disagreement with his meticulous reasoning doesn't make it irrational. Because your view differs does not make you rational and him (Girgis, Sherif , Princeton University Department of Philosophy) irrational. That was my only point. You sound to me pretty closed (even perhaps pretty emotional on the issue) without reading his entire essay. But i could be mistaken as i sometimes am, so i will just drop it.

Joseph

I read the article by Leroy Huiizenga that JosephM posted and as far as I could tell, it was just the same 'ol "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" slogan homophobes had been using since the 1970s, just dressed up in big fancy sounding pseudophilosophical language to make him sound more thought provoking than he actually is. In Philosophy, such people are called Sophists. Edited October 27, 2012 by Neon Genesis

[JosephM]

NEON

You are quoting a post that refers to different article. Read it and see if you come to a different conclusion.

Joseph

[Neon Genesis]

I read some of the other article by Robert George and was still not impressed. Like Leroy Huizenga, his argument rests on the whole "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" line of "reasoning", that marriage exists only for the purpose of procreation. This definition of marriage existing only for procreation does not appear anywhere in the U.S. constitution nor does it even appear in the bible. If we look at the New Testament definition of marriage, the bible is actually anti-procreation. Both Jesus and Saint Paul urge their followers to avoid having sexual relationships because they both believed the end of the world would happen within their lifetimes. For Jesus and Saint Paul, marriage was only a last minute resort if they couldn't control their sexual urges but there is nothing said anywhere in the New Testament about the purpose of marriage being for procreation.

 

Throughout history, marriage was only a legal contract for men to keep track of their heritage. In the Old Testament laws, if a woman is raped by a man, the man only had to pay a fee to the father and then the woman could be forced to marry her rapist. This is because the woman wasn't considered a compatible partner for the sole purpose of making babies but she was nothing more than the property of a man. If we take Robert George's arguments towards their "logical" conclusion, then all infertile heterosexual couples should be banned from getting married because they can't procreate and married heterosexual couples who choose to adopt or use artificial means of reproduction aren't "real" families either. But those are all A-ok for Robert George as long as they're "straight" and not icky gays. The argument from procreation wasn't convincing to the judges in the Proposition 8 trial and it won't be convincing to anyone else other than people who already agree with Robert George's homophobic biases.

 

You should read this detailed response to the fallacies and flaws of Robert George's arguments: http://www.boxturtle...reply-to-george

Edited October 27, 2012 by Neon Genesis

[GeorgeW]

Most all of his points while i may or may not agree with him use his best capacity for sound reasoniong and rational thought. Me providing a particular statement is irrelevant to my point. I am not advocating an against position. Only indicating there is understanding to be gained by not assuming there are no rational arguments against.

 

Joseph,

 

Please state at least one point that you think is sound. I am not asking to you agree with it. If you would prefer not to say, please refer to a specific page in the article that has the sound point. My problem is I have never heard a sound, logical argument against gay marriage.

 

George

[Neon Genesis]

It should also be noted that Robert George is the Chairman of the Board of the National Organization for Marriage, which the Southern Poverty Law Center categorized as an extremist hate group. When Robert George co-authored the homophobic Manhattan Declaration, Robert George said the reason for writing it was because of his claims that the Obama administration was going to destroy Christian freedoms and he also claimed Christians who opposed gay marriage were martyrs that were going to be killed by the Obama administration for their beliefs. What part of Robert George reasonable or rational in any way?

[JosephM]

George,

 

Try page 260-263 "How Would Gay Civil Marriage Affect You or Your Marriage?

 

You may have to read the page 246 to understand the view they are referring to when they refer to the revisionist view.

 

Joseph

 

Neon,

 

You say his argument rests on the argument "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" line of "reasoning. I don't think so because religion is only one small facet of the writing. ( a couple paragraphs out of 43 pages.) The argument presented is not about the Bible or what Jesus and Paul said that you need to continue making it only a religious issue. in fact religion only appears as a small final mention point before the conclusion and purposely so. I quote Doesn’t Traditional Marriage Law Impose Controversial Moral

 

and Religious Views on Everyone?.... "This objection comes at the end for a reason. By now, as promised in the introduction, this Article has made a case for enshrining the conjugal view of marriage and addressed many theoretical and practical objections to it, without appeals to revelation or religious authority of any type."

 

At least that is the way i see it,

Joseph

 

PS George, I think you will find all 43 pages are worth reading to get a better view of their logic and reasoning even if one disagrees with their logic/reasoning .

[Neon Genesis]

If Robert George's arguments are purely rational and not based in his own religious-fueled bigotry, please point to me to a single mainstream psychiatric or psychological organization that have accepted the claims Robert George makes about how marriage is solely for procreation and that legalizing gay marriage will somehow hurt this definition. Point to me at least one, any one.

[JosephM]

Sorry Neon,

 

I don't know Robert George well enough to say his rationality is "based in his own religious-fueled bigotry" as you imply. I am aware of the stance or official position of the APA and also of many of their members who do not agree with their position. Its a complex matter with much strong disagreement that won't be solved by me taking either side or presenting arguments of others with credentials. Anyway, it seems to me from your words in your last post that you have set up a dividing line which will be attacked on the grounds of not being "rational" and "bigotry" should i present anymore in disagreement . Thanks for the conversation but i will pass.

Joseph

[Neon Genesis]

JosephM, you presented this man and his study as proof of a rational argument against gay marriage that wasn't based on a religious argument which you say you disagree with at the same time. When we point out examples where Robert George's argument fails in rational thinking and even point out examples of religious bias in his study, you act as if we're just misunderstanding his study and accuse me of setting up a "dividing line," whatever that means. Yet when we ask you to provide examples of what part of Robert George's study you consider to be a rational argument even though you supposedly disagree with it, you refuse to comply with the request and you concede you are unable to name a single mainstream non-religious psychiatric organization that has officially endorsed Robert George's views and claims. As a gay man, I am curious why you as a progressive Christian continue to go to such lengths to defend this man who was a co-founder of one of the most immoral and disgusting extremist religious hate groups in the U.S. yet you won't give an example of a single argument of his that you consider to be rational.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Neon Genesis

[dblad]

Please forgive me for butting in, but this conversation presents an interesting question of definition; it seems to me that in this conversation, there are different definitions of "rational" being used. Any syllogism requires premises, arguments and a conclusion. In order to say an argument is irrational, you could disprove a premise or you could find where an argument is flawed. With religious premises, there's a problem with disproving a premise; all the evidence for religious truth-claims is locked inside people's heads. There is no proving or disproving them. To show them as irrational, you'll have to begin with their premises and demonstrate a mistake in their logic. Otherwise, they're not really irrational, merely mistaken, and only that because they've made a commitment to a religious premise that you disagree with.

 

I don't mean to put words in Joseph's mouth, but if I understand his point (and I may not) it is that arguments against same-sex marriage may, in fact, follow logically from the religious premises their proponents have committed to, and if they do, they are rational. If you say they are irrational because your own religious premises are different, then you have to show why your faith commitments are more "rational" than theirs, which sounds to me as though it would lead to the very kind of religious intolerance we find so distasteful in conservative Christianity. If I understand Joseph (and, again, I may not) this is the limb he was speaking of.

 

If you do not accept the premise, then you can't accept a conclusion based on the premise, no matter how rational the process of arriving at it may be. If religious premises are by definition irrational, then why would any of us call ourselves progressive Christians? Our behavior and our positions are based on our own religious premises, else we're merely progressives and not Christians.

[JosephM]

Thanks dblad for your eloquent grasp of the situation. I believe you understand my point exactly.

 

Neon,

Never siad i agreeded OR disagreed with any of his statements. Only said "I believe the writer has used his full possession of reasoning to come to the conclusions he has and those reasons, in my view, are not without some merit or sense of soundness.." Also said his arguments wasn't a religious argument. My point remains as originally stated. that rational is subjective and whether one agrees or not , there are rational arguments against . DCJ referenced the article which contained more than a few of them . I read it and agree it uses reason and logical arguments, howbeit not in the opinion of all readers. I submitted specific pages at the insistence of GeorgeW. You are the one who specifically implied because you disagreed with his arguments that the author is not rational and that his argument is fueled by.... ....." his own religious-fueled bigotry" to describe him.

 

 

i have nothing more to say to you or in defense of my point. It is difficult to discuss such issues with one who resorts to such name calling of one that presents an opposing argument. My posts speak for themselves and it seems to me, imo, you are not reading them thoroughly.

 

Joseph

[Neon Genesis]

Please forgive me for butting in, but this conversation presents an interesting question of definition; it seems to me that in this conversation, there are different definitions of "rational" being used. Any syllogism requires premises, arguments and a conclusion. In order to say an argument is irrational, you could disprove a premise or you could find where an argument is flawed. With religious premises, there's a problem with disproving a premise; all the evidence for religious truth-claims is locked inside people's heads. There is no proving or disproving them. To show them as irrational, you'll have to begin with their premises and demonstrate a mistake in their logic. Otherwise, they're not really irrational, merely mistaken, and only that because they've made a commitment to a religious premise that you disagree with.

 

I don't mean to put words in Joseph's mouth, but if I understand his point (and I may not) it is that arguments against same-sex marriage may, in fact, follow logically from the religious premises their proponents have committed to, and if they do, they are rational. If you say they are irrational because your own religious premises are different, then you have to show why your faith commitments are more "rational" than theirs, which sounds to me as though it would lead to the very kind of religious intolerance we find so distasteful in conservative Christianity. If I understand Joseph (and, again, I may not) this is the limb he was speaking of.

 

If you do not accept the premise, then you can't accept a conclusion based on the premise, no matter how rational the process of arriving at it may be. If religious premises are by definition irrational, then why would any of us call ourselves progressive Christians? Our behavior and our positions are based on our own religious premises, else we're merely progressives and not Christians.

No one is saying Robert George's positions are irrational because they are different. Robert George claims to be basing his antigay positions on reason and not religion but if you look at Robert George's claims they are widely inconsistent with his premise that his arguments are purely rational based and not religious based. Robert George is the co-founder of a religious extremist hate group, he co-wrote a homophobic manifesto because he claimed gays were going to martyr Christians who believed in "traditional" marriage, and he falsely accused President Obama of suppressing freedom of religion. Furthermore, none of Robert George's claims about the supposed harm legalizing gay marriage would bring upon society have been embraced by any mainstream non-religious psychiatric organization. The only people who embrace Robert George's views are homophobic religious people who are using his arguments to promote a theocratic agenda. What part of his argument is not based on religion?

[GeorgeW]

Please forgive me for butting in, but this conversation presents an interesting question of definition; it seems to me that in this conversation, there are different definitions of "rational" being used. Any syllogism requires premises, arguments and a conclusion. In order to say an argument is irrational, you could disprove a premise or you could find where an argument is flawed. With religious premises, there's a problem with disproving a premise; all the evidence for religious truth-claims is locked inside people's heads. There is no proving or disproving them. To show them as irrational, you'll have to begin with their premises and demonstrate a mistake in their logic. Otherwise, they're not really irrational, merely mistaken, and only that because they've made a commitment to a religious premise that you disagree with.

 

I have been using the word 'rational' in the sense that the conclusion is arrived at based on logic or empirical evidence rather than emotion, prejudice or religious grounds. Certainly one could use religious premises such as the inerrancy of the Pope or the literal truth of the Bible, to arrive at conclusions. But, these would not necessarily lead to conclusions consistent with logic or empirical evidence.

 

George

Edited October 28, 2012 by GeorgeW

[GeorgeW]

This definition of marriage existing only for procreation does not appear anywhere in the U.S. constitution nor does it even appear in the bible.

 

Furthermore, those who argue against gay marriage on this basis, do not at the same time advocate banning the marriage of sterile people or post-menopausal women. By picking only gay marriage to ban for this reason would not be logically consistent and therefore, IMO, would be based on emotion or prejudice, not reason.

 

George

[GeorgeW]

George,

Try page 260-263 "How Would Gay Civil Marriage Affect You or Your Marriage?

 

Okay, and I found the argument serious deficient. It is simply an assertion that gay marriage would weaken "the social expectations supporting marriage." Where is the evidence? What is the logic?

 

George

[JosephM]

Furthermore, those who argue against gay marriage on this basis, do not at the same time advocate banning the marriage of sterile people or post-menopausal women. By picking only gay marriage to ban for this reason would not be logically consistent and therefore, IMO, would be based on emotion or prejudice, not reason.

 

George

 

George ,

 

i believe that counterpoint is addressed starting at page 265 and developed and continued on the next few pages.

[GeorgeW]

i believe that counterpoint is addressed starting at page 265 and developed and continued on the next few pages.

 

What is the counterpoint?

 

George

[JosephM]

George,

Read it if you are interested. The author is the one that is attempting to answer the supposed logic of your statement, not me.

joseph

 

PS. I am no logic major but it sounds to me like your statement "Furthermore, those who argue against gay marriage on this basis, do not at the same time advocate banning the marriage of sterile people or post-menopausal women. By picking only gay marriage to ban for this reason would not be logically consistent and therefore, IMO, would be based on emotion or prejudice, not reason." may be a propositional fallacy in logic. If you disagree, i have no objection as i am no expert in logic analysis.

Edited October 28, 2012 by JosephM

[GeorgeW]

PS. I am no logic major but it sounds to me like your statement "Furthermore, those who argue against gay marriage on this basis, do not at the same time advocate banning the marriage of sterile people or post-menopausal women. By picking only gay marriage to ban for this reason would not be logically consistent and therefore, IMO, would be based on emotion or prejudice, not reason." may be a propositional fallacy in logic. If you disagree, i have no objection as i am no expert in logic analysis.

 

If one claims to oppose gay marriage on the principle that marriage is for the purpose of procreation, then they should also oppose marriage of sterile people on the same principle. They don't. Therefore, they are not logically taking this position based on this principle.

 

George

[dblad]

I have been using the word 'rational' in the sense that the conclusion is arrived at based on logic or empirical evidence rather than emotion, prejudice or religious grounds. Certainly one could use religious premises such as the inerrancy of the Pope or the literal truth of the Bible, to arrive at conclusions. But, these would not necessarily lead to conclusions consistent with logic or empirical evidence.

 

George

 

That's true, but do all religious premises lead to conclusions that are inconsistent with logic or empirical evidence? I s'pose what I'm suggesting is that if a person has accepted a religious premise, and their logic, though dependent on that premise, is otherwise sound, then their argument is rational, even if wrong. I'd also suggest that neither rationalism nor empiricism get at religious experience, which is highly subjective and personal, which implies that matters of personal belief will always fail the test of rationality if the test is limited to empirically verifiable data.

 

I note the example of the "argument from nature." Among the arguments for denying marriage equality, this one is based on empirical premises that are easily disproven; homosexuality DOES occur in nature, and among the 'lower' animals, relationship does not always equate to sex. In addition, other things DO occur in nature that we would not want emulated in human society. I find the "argument from nature" entirely unconvincing and inconsistent, and since it is based on a mistaken premise, I can dismiss it as irrational.

 

On the other hand, the larger and more general argument is based on premises that are neither provable nor disprovable; to say "society has seldom made laws against same-sex marriage because for most of history, the concept was not considered possible" is apparently true. In the ancient world, there was a recognition of the existence of homosexual behavior, sometimes disapproved of, but other times approved of; there was, however, not a recognition of the possibility of same-sex marriage. The premise, in this case, is that there is a lengthy history of recognition of heterosexual marriage, and that to change the conditions of marriage is to change its definition. This is a rational argument against same-sex marriage; I disagree with the part of the premise that requires me to give credence to a long-held proposition by virtue of its persistence and its ubiquity, but I cannot prove that this value is wrong. I see no flaw in the logic leading to the conclusion: if long held precedent creates a value, and heterosexual marriage is a long-held precedent, then heterosexual marriage is the definition that meets the value. I disagree with the premise, but I can't disprove it, as such; I can only make a strong case for a different value. I can't dismiss the argument as irrational, but I can say that I think it's wrong and based on error.

 

People can disagree and still be rational; to claim that all arguments against marriage equality are automatically irrational is unnecessarily pejorative, and likely to set the conversation back rather than move it forward.

 

Blessings,

 

Dennis

[JosephM]

If one claims to oppose gay marriage on the principle that marriage is for the purpose of procreation, then they should also oppose marriage of sterile people on the same principle. They don't. Therefore, they are not logically taking this position based on this principle.

 

George

 

George, that is not the authors premise in this article. But anyway my point is well summarized by Dennis above this post. My only point or premise was that rational arguments exist against same sex marriages and to classify all them as irrational is as Dennis says "is unnecessarily pejorative , and likely to set the conversation back rather than move it forward." And of course i also believe that within the 43 pages wrtiten in the article referenced, rational arguments exist. Your initial statement "none of the arguments against same-sex marriage are rational. They are emotional reactions and should be understood as such." is what triggered and has been the point of my contention and never whether same sex marriages should be banned or not.

 

Joseph

[GeorgeW]

That's true, but do all religious premises lead to conclusions that are inconsistent with logic or empirical evidence? I s'pose what I'm suggesting is that if a person has accepted a religious premise, and their logic, though dependent on that premise, is otherwise sound, then their argument is rational, even if wrong.

 

Dennis,

 

I would suggest that if the premise is unsound, then the conclusions that follow from it would also be unsound.

 

If someone wants to say I don't agree with gay marriage because it violates my personal religious convictions, that is fine with me. My response would be, 'Then don't marry someone of the same sex.' But, I would also say, "Don't tell other people what they cannot do based on your religious convictions.' (unless there is harm involved).

 

I am still waiting for this rational argument against gay marriage - seriously. I am not trying to argumentative. If there is a sound argument, someone should bring it forth.

 

George

[JosephM]

If someone wants to say I don't agree with gay marriage because it violates my personal religious convictions, that is fine with me. My response would be, 'Then don't marry someone of the same sex.' But, I would also say, "Don't tell other people what they cannot do based on your religious convictions.' (unless there is harm involved).

 

George

 

George,

 

It seems to me that people make up society and have views, opinions and convictions. It is the consensus (mostly but not always) of those views, opinions and convictions, whether one agrees with them or not, that move the rules of society. Each member of a free society has a right to influence society which does indeed tell members of that society what they can and cannot do based on that consensus of convictions, religious or otherwise.

 

So George while you can say "Don't tell other people what they cannot do based on your religious convictions.", in reality society and its members, in my view, has been given that very right to do just that very thing and it is based on individual convictions, religious or otherwise. And i might add, this is whether they appear rational or irrational, in truth or in error to some, and also even if they cause harm to some. I think history speaks to this.

Joseph

[GeorgeW]

Joseph,

 

Yes, we are a democracy and the majority rules however unreasonable it may be at times. But, we are also protected by the Constitution against infringements or our rights which includes issues of equality. Further, the Constitution insures religious freedom. We cannot impose our religious views on others.

 

A church can grant or deny marriage to whomever they wish. However, they cannot impose their religious doctrines on others.

 

George

[Hornet]

Dennis,

 

I would suggest that if the premise is unsound, then the conclusions that follow from it would also be unsound.

 

If someone wants to say I don't agree with gay marriage because it violates my personal religious convictions, that is fine with me. My response would be, 'Then don't marry someone of the same sex.' But, I would also say, "Don't tell other people what they cannot do based on your religious convictions.' (unless there is harm involved).

 

I am still waiting for this rational argument against gay marriage - seriously. I am not trying to argumentative. If there is a sound argument, someone should bring it forth.

 

George

 

God defines what marriage ought to be. God says that same-sex marriage is wrong. I think that this is better than saying, "Same-sex marriage is wrong because two people of the same sex cannot procreate" or "Same-sex marriage is wrong because it is unnatural."