Quote from Facebook friend: Although marriage has now become something based on romantic love and friendship, compatibility, etc., a legal criterion for valid marriage is still penis-vagina sex (e.g. you can annul a marriage if it's not consummated). If we really followed what we think marriage is now (friend, lover, companion, possible parenting partner) then it wouldn't matter at all what the sex/gender of the couple is. Duh.
Duh? There's two movements of logical sleight-of-hand going on for this kind of statement to appear coherent as an argument.
1. We = state. Talk of legal criterion has to do with the state, but the "we" here is in reference to society at large. The two are not really equal. Society has a different stake in marriages and the relationship they solemnify than does the state. The state's interest is to define its tax-paying and benefits-receiving units, and to identify its citizens, who all derive from familial roots. Society's interest is overlapping in defining units, but is much more open to interpretation and evolution, and therefore relationships that seem analogous to society ("families" with two dads, or two moms, etc.) may achieve a certain normalcy in a given community. However, there is always at least tacit admission, even within accepting communities, that other relationships are a departure from or a derivative of the norm. So, saying that because there is a legal component to annulment of marriage does not equate to judicial ratification of all societal variations. This would be akin to saying there is a legal criterion for prosecuting child pornography, but teens still sext each other therefore we should change the legal definition of child porn--which is a patently ridiculous argument.
2. Love = marriage. Of course, everyone knows that the heart of all marriage is love, that the motivating factor for beginning a marriage is love, and that the failure of marriage derives directly from lack of love. Love is the sine qua non of marriage, but that does NOT mean that the two are identical, synonymous, or even equal. Love, obviously, has no gender, since one can feel it for brothers and sisters alike. There is an element of difference introduced with gender differences, such that some even treat it as if it were a different concept. But even those that do differentiate between them know that when the non-romantic kind of love drains, the romantic kind also dissipates. And while love is a necessary motivating condition for marriage, the institution cannot survive without many other necessary qualities and factors. Forgiveness, hard work, mutual respect, time, appreciation of difference--all of these can exist without a fully-developed love, and all of them are elements of a successful marriage and a happy family life. True, they may all be motivated by a sense of love, they are nonetheless separately identifiable qualities. In fact, the entire genre of the sit-com could scarcely exist as a popular culture phenomenon were it not universally recognized that there are qualities and aspects of another person in a marital relationship that only time can reveal to either party, and that it's the working through these that determines success or failure of the marriage. The institution, therefore, is not MERELY a ratification of feelings of love, but defines a commitment to work as a new unit, which, even though failures occur, represents the ideal to which each new marital unit aspires.
As "logical" as proponents of homosexual marriage think they are, careful thought still exposes the dishonesty and trickery behind their rhetoric, or at least the logical fallacy of the arguments they must make to themselves so as to remain convinced of the moral equivalence between true marriage and the destructive counterfeit institution they propose.
Duh? There's two movements of logical sleight-of-hand going on for this kind of statement to appear coherent as an argument.
1. We = state. Talk of legal criterion has to do with the state, but the "we" here is in reference to society at large. The two are not really equal. Society has a different stake in marriages and the relationship they solemnify than does the state. The state's interest is to define its tax-paying and benefits-receiving units, and to identify its citizens, who all derive from familial roots. Society's interest is overlapping in defining units, but is much more open to interpretation and evolution, and therefore relationships that seem analogous to society ("families" with two dads, or two moms, etc.) may achieve a certain normalcy in a given community. However, there is always at least tacit admission, even within accepting communities, that other relationships are a departure from or a derivative of the norm. So, saying that because there is a legal component to annulment of marriage does not equate to judicial ratification of all societal variations. This would be akin to saying there is a legal criterion for prosecuting child pornography, but teens still sext each other therefore we should change the legal definition of child porn--which is a patently ridiculous argument.
2. Love = marriage. Of course, everyone knows that the heart of all marriage is love, that the motivating factor for beginning a marriage is love, and that the failure of marriage derives directly from lack of love. Love is the sine qua non of marriage, but that does NOT mean that the two are identical, synonymous, or even equal. Love, obviously, has no gender, since one can feel it for brothers and sisters alike. There is an element of difference introduced with gender differences, such that some even treat it as if it were a different concept. But even those that do differentiate between them know that when the non-romantic kind of love drains, the romantic kind also dissipates. And while love is a necessary motivating condition for marriage, the institution cannot survive without many other necessary qualities and factors. Forgiveness, hard work, mutual respect, time, appreciation of difference--all of these can exist without a fully-developed love, and all of them are elements of a successful marriage and a happy family life. True, they may all be motivated by a sense of love, they are nonetheless separately identifiable qualities. In fact, the entire genre of the sit-com could scarcely exist as a popular culture phenomenon were it not universally recognized that there are qualities and aspects of another person in a marital relationship that only time can reveal to either party, and that it's the working through these that determines success or failure of the marriage. The institution, therefore, is not MERELY a ratification of feelings of love, but defines a commitment to work as a new unit, which, even though failures occur, represents the ideal to which each new marital unit aspires.
As "logical" as proponents of homosexual marriage think they are, careful thought still exposes the dishonesty and trickery behind their rhetoric, or at least the logical fallacy of the arguments they must make to themselves so as to remain convinced of the moral equivalence between true marriage and the destructive counterfeit institution they propose.
Comments
I first ask that you please recall that I'm writing in reaction to a post made by someone who made assumptions which I addressed logically and respectfully, but then followed up with an insult to the intelligence of anyone who didn't agree (me, etc.) by saying: "Duh."
I may have fallen into the trap in some degree of responding in kind, but I hope all can agree that I've attempted to address the assumptions and debated on the substantive merits. And yet, the last paragraph I wrote also contains some blanket statements that don't apply to everyone.
I do believe that some proponents of same-sex marriage have a good understanding of how the idea of making same-sex marriage morally equal to true marriage would destroy the meaning of the latter, as I have outlined. But I also think there are many who honestly believe it would make no difference at all. If what I've written doesn't convince them that same-sex marriage would be counterfeit and would destroy the institution of marriage, then sobeit. I have more evidence and argumentation to bring, but in the end, I understand that smart people can disagree on things, and the freedom to disagree and express the disagreement is even more important than the issue itself.
You are not automatically dishonest or an evildoer because you think same-sex marriage would be good for society. I hope my logic has shown you that you may have been erroneously holding to fallacies of logic, but your sincerity of belief is not under attack here. Intellectual honesty requires that sometimes we re-evaluate our beliefs to see if they are fully rigorous and complete in including all the salient variables and reasoning. I hope you will choose to read the "dishonesty and trickery" I spoke of as belonging to the rhetoric itself and not to individual persons, and that if you are a proponent of same-sex marriage, you will re-evaluate based on my merits, and if you still disagree, by all means challenge me and ask me to re-evaluate my beliefs as I've asked you to do.