Fantastic Article Opposing Same Sex "marriage'

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1343659223' post='2460208']
Yes. His point is true and is why married couples have been given benefits/allowances historically. But I do not believe it is an argument against gay marriage. X gives society more benefits than Y. Therefore, Y [b]should not be allowed[/b]. Bad logic...and unjust.
[/quote]

I guess I see a fundamental difference between disallowing something, and not offering incentives for something. I would reframe it as X gives society benefits. So we will pay for X. Y doesn't give society much benefit. Therefore we will not pay for Y. However, if people want to do Y of their own volition, we will not stop them, but we will not encourage Y via monetary incentives.


[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1343664788' post='2460247']
Dumb article. By that logic, it should be illegal for post-menopausal women and any one else with any sort of physical deficiency (traumatic, genetic, surgical, or otherwise) which compromises their ability to reproduce to be married[/quote]

I believe the author would agree with you, if there were a cost-effective way of doing so. Do I agree with such government intrusion? No, but the author thought of these scenarios and explained that in the cost-benefit analysis it wouldn't make much sense to screen every couple who wanted to get married for fertility. Did you read the whole article? Because whether or not you disagree, he DID address it.

And it wouldn't be "illegal," said couples just wouldn't receive tax-incentives. Again I'm trying to understand why "not given so-and-so tax-deductions for X" is automatically interpreted as "the law forbids X." As the author points out, all other benefits of marriage can be obtained by anybody via legal contract.

[quote]and polygamy/adultery should be encouraged so that as many children as possible can be created.[/quote]

I believe the author would respond that no such thing should be encouraged because it would create an unstable environment for children. It's not merely about the quantity of offspring produced, but the quality of their upbringing.

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1343701020' post='2460497']
Formal fallacies?
Informal Fallacies?
[/quote]

I was kinda looking for specific examples. But it's just a little article, I don't think it's worth the time to go through and parse it out. Unless you really want to. I was just curious. Idrc because I disagree with much of the article as well, but at the center, I think, is a valid point.

[quote]
I haven't even gotten to the problems with his utilitarian mindset or his erroneous implied definition of the purpose of marriage. Not to mention the typos and the fact that this is a doctoral student in economics, which hurts his stance as a credible authority on an issue of morality or social policy.[/quote]

But a lot of secular thought is essentially utilitarian, so it makes senes that he's coming from that angle. Isn't it useful to demonstrate that, "yes even with your own screwed up utilitarian worldview, you can still be proven wrong."? I don't think the author thinks his pov is screwy, but when you're talking to people who hold this worldview (which many secularists do, I think), it's somewhat useful to be able to debate a hot-button issue without having to deconstruct their entire worldview and show it to be erroneous (which would be ideal, but would require lots of time).

And though he is pontificating a bit on morality, let's just ignore that. His central reason is it's not cost-beneficial for the state to offer incentives for homosexual unions. Does he provide an airtight argument as to why? Not really. But now if someone is clambering for tax-deductions shouldn't the onus be on them?

I would like a l (much) less intrusive state, and I don't see the government as an arbiter of morality and/or fundamental human relationships, but many people DO. This article is playing by their rules (which I agree are kinda way jacked up) and beats them at their own game.

[Papist]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1343746027' post='2460602']
I guess I see a fundamental difference between disallowing something, and not offering incentives for something. I would reframe it as X gives society benefits. So we will pay for X. Y doesn't give society much benefit. Therefore we will not pay for Y. However, if people want to do Y of their own volition, we will not stop them, but we will not encourage Y via monetary incentives.
[/quote]

The OP argument is not a case against giving married gays monetary incentives. The argument is that, since traditional marriage benefits society more than gay marriage, gay marriage should not be allowed. The premise is true, but the conclusion is not.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1343750184' post='2460634']
The OP argument is not a case against giving married gays monetary incentives. The argument is that, since traditional marriage benefits society more than gay marriage, gay marriage should not be allowed. The premise is true, but the conclusion is not.
[/quote]

well what is meant by "gay-marriage"? Is it simply the nomenclature? Just calling a union marriage? Or is it about the benefits that legal marraige entails? Because can't gay couples get the same benefits thru a legal contract? I know that they can't get tax-exemptions but is there anything else?

[Papist]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1343755810' post='2460684']
well what is meant by "gay-marriage"? Is it simply the nomenclature? Just calling a union marriage? Or is it about the benefits that legal marraige entails? Because can't gay couples get the same benefits thru a legal contract? I know that they can't get tax-exemptions but is there anything else?
[/quote]

Really should be gay "marriage".

[fides' Jack]

I didn't see all the problems with the article that you guys did.

From what I can see, he's trying to get the state to view marriage as a possible benefit to the state. If this were the case, we would have little to worry about, since it would fall into place with our own morals. Currently, the state views marriage as something that can help Gov. X get re-elected. And that's how it uses marriage.

The state [i]must[/i] define marriage if marriages are to be legal in any sense. That's been done for far longer than anyone here has been alive. The difference is that now it's being attacked to the point that everyone wants to redefine it to their own liking - which has personal consequences, rather than to the relevancy to the state - which is where it belongs.

I liked the article. Some logical flaws, sure, but the idea is intriguing.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1343598661' post='2460037']
Well if you insist...

1. This is the kind of article that only serves to reinforce the opinions of those who already agree with the author's original statement.
2. It's full of logical fallacies.

But if the article gets a discussion going, then by all means, it can be useful.
[/quote]
[quote name='beatitude' timestamp='1343604326' post='2460077']
I agree with Basilia Marie. In addition to being full of logical holes, it also has a very chilling tone, stemming from its basic premise that something has to be in the interests of the state in order for the state to permit it. There are many beautiful things in life that don't have a clear utilitarian purpose - cloistered religious life is the first thing that springs to mind - and we start going down a dangerous road if we decide that legal recognition should be conferred on something only if it's 'useful' to the state as a whole. That almost sets the state up as a god. Marriage in the Catholic view is first and foremost a sacrament between a man and a woman that mirrors the creative love of the Trinity. It doesn't matter whether the state is 'interested' in the marriage or not, as marriage existed long before there were any states - it's not the state that confers legitimacy in the eyes of God.
[/quote]
Actually, the arguments in this article are similar to some of those given against homosexual "marriage" and "civil unions" by our current Holy Father in this CDF document: "[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"]Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons[/url]" (which is not popular with the phatmass crowd either, though I'd strongly suggest every Catholic read it).


The main logical fallacy here is that of you and others who falsely equate the government [i]permitting[/i] a type of activity with the government granting it special legal benefits and recognition.

As I've pointed out before, in states where so-called "gay-marriage" continues to not be legally recognized, homosexuals are free to live together, sodomize one another, and even have church "marriage" ceremonies with rings and such if they wish. The state simply does not give any legal recognition to their sodomitic housekeeping as a "marriage."

The state legally recognizes marriage between a man and a woman, because that is the most fundamental building unit of human society, and is absolutely essential to having a functional human society, as it provides the best framework for the procreation and raising of children. Thus it is in everyone's best interest to recognize and support it. That's what both the author of this article and the Church recognize.

Two (or more) persons of the same sex simply does not serve this indispensable role in human society, and is not and cannot be an actual marriage. Thus, there is absolutely no need for the state to treat it as such.

Our country managed to last well over two centuries without state recognition of "gay marriage." Catholics acting as though continuing to legally recognize only marriages between a man and a woman, as it always has, presents some kind of new threat to Catholic marriage is just silly and illogical.

[Winchester]

Sodomy laws also apply to oral sex. Gay or not.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1343774151' post='2460872']
Sodomy laws also apply to oral sex. Gay or not.
[/quote]
That is a different issue than "gay marriage."

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1343774151' post='2460872']
Sodomy laws also apply to oral sex. Gay or not.
[/quote]

Also, this is hardly a good comparison since oral sex is allowed by the Church, there are simply restrictions and some obvious possible dangers to it.

Edited July 31, 2012 by FuturePriest387

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1343776042' post='2460880']
Also, this is hardly a good comparison since oral sex is allowed by the Church, there are simply restrictions and some obvious possible dangers to it.
[/quote]
Adult content follows:
[spoiler]Oral-genital contact is permitted, but oral sex in its strictest sense is not.[/spoiler]

[Ice_nine]

well, looks like I agree with something Soc said. Lookie that.

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1343773659' post='2460865']
The main logical fallacy here is that of you and others who falsely equate the government [i]permitting[/i] a type of activity with the government granting it special legal benefits and recognition.
[/quote]

which is why I asked for what "gay-marriage" entails? I believe people simply want to use government as a vehicle for shaping (or perhaps coercing) moral law. The government says X is just like Y, so if you believe in Y, you must believe in X, lest you be a backward hillbilly, for the almighty state has spoken! Again, I personally don't look to the state to tell me what's right and wrong, but I think a sizable portion of people find this affirmation/validation/acknowledgement from the state essential to normalizing homosexuality.

I'd say they are barking up the wrong tree a bit, because for people of a religious persuasion do not (I hope to God) view the gov't as a moral arbiter. Then again, nominal religious folk on the fence WOULD most likely be converted via a government declaration on what marriage [i]is[/i]. Over time or course.

Now other than a semantic dictate handed by the government (gay marriage is a marriage just like straight marriage), and tax exemptions, what other benefits of marriage are "not permitted" by not recognizing gay marriage? Cause so far I don't think homosexual unions are being barred from anything, they're just not being given something that 95% of other social relationships aren't being given.

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1343792258' post='2460980']
Adult content follows:
[spoiler]Oral-genital contact is permitted, but oral sex in its strictest sense is not.[/spoiler]
[/quote]

I have no clue what that means and unfortunately you can't explain without being more explicit, and I wouldn't want to do that in case there is a younger reader following this thread.

[tojo]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1343759643' post='2460716']
IFrom what I can see, he's trying to get the state to view marriage as a possible benefit to the state. If this were the case, we would have little to worry about, since it would fall into place with our own morals. Currently, the state views marriage as something that can help Gov. X get re-elected. And that's how it uses marriage.
[/quote]

Very true; unfortunately, in our political culture long-term good is almost never pursued at the expense of a short term benefit - especially if the short-term benefit leads to even brief political gain.

[fides' Jack]

That is truly unfortunate.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1343793862' post='2460984']
well, looks like I agree with something Soc said. Lookie that.
[/quote]
Oh please. The whole "I'm so shocked I agree with Socrates on something!" line is getting so old on here, especially when it's from people I generally agree with.

[quote]which is why I asked for what "gay-marriage" entails? I believe people simply want to use government as a vehicle for shaping (or perhaps coercing) moral law. The government says X is just like Y, so if you believe in Y, you must believe in X, lest you be a backward hillbilly, for the almighty state has spoken! Again, I personally don't look to the state to tell me what's right and wrong, but I think a sizable portion of people find this affirmation/validation/acknowledgement from the state essential to normalizing homosexuality.

I'd say they are barking up the wrong tree a bit, because for people of a religious persuasion do not (I hope to God) view the gov't as a moral arbiter. Then again, nominal religious folk on the fence WOULD most likely be converted via a government declaration on what marriage [i]is[/i]. Over time or course.

Now other than a semantic dictate handed by the government (gay marriage is a marriage just like straight marriage), and tax exemptions, what other benefits of marriage are "not permitted" by not recognizing gay marriage? Cause so far I don't think homosexual unions are being barred from anything, they're just not being given something that 95% of other social relationships aren't being given.[/quote]
You're exactly right.

The government isn't the ultimate arbitrator of what is right and wrong, but according to Catholic social teaching, the law should reflect and be in accord with natural law morality, rather than be contrary to it.

The widespread confusion on this issue shows how desperately we need a widespread return to Thomistic based social teaching.