It’s not obvious nor implicit, except maybe to people who already oppose gay marriage even then I would hope people would see this is a pretty bad argument. You’re are correct though we don’t have to be logicians or philosophers, but we could all be better at making arguments. This is a pretty terrible argument I’m not saying there isn’t a better logical argument against gay marriage, but this isn’t the one.
As an aside thanks for pointing another fallacy that this argument as which is reductio ad absurdum.
Actually the problem may simply be that it’s more of an “argument from adverse consequences” than a “straw man argument” and that’s what is throwing people off. While both fallacious arguments are similar they aren’t really the same. As long as I’m making myself popular in this thread you swapped the “a” and the “e” in equivalent.
While this might be an example of a slippery slope and/or straw man I think it is based on a reasonable question, and that question is if we are free to simply change the definition of the institution of marriage to accommodate same-sex couples, then what other sorts of changes might be made in future “more progressive” times, and is there any reason why we would try to make things be on way or another? Consider the real position of the Libertarian Party on marriage (according to their Facebook page):
The government has no place whatsoever in marriage. George Washington didn’t need a marriage license to get married, and states today have no business legislating what happens between consenting adults. And that includes giving preference to any group (e.g. heterosexual monogamists).
And as to this idea about civil unions being separate but equal to marriage…there are a couple of drinking fountains we’d like to show you.
Now why would they specify “monogamists” unless they meant to suggest that polygamists should have the right to be married to multiple consenting partners? The FLDS would certainly agree.
So, if someone believes that 1. Marriage inherently IS something (be it the union of one man and one woman for life, or the union of a man and a woman as long as they are happy together, the union of two people for life regardless of gender identity or biological sex, or the union between one man and multiple women, etc.) then it seems to me that one has a moral obligation to use one’s democratic process to defend the legal recognition of marriage for what it actually is, because anything else is fundamentally a misrepresentation. And 2. If something in unalterable then it cannot be change, but if something is redefined (changed) then that thing can no longer be truly constant or unalterable because if it was changed in the past it can be changed again in the future. So even though same-sex marriage has nothing to do with polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc. we know that these practices cannot constitute a legal marriage because we know what marriage is, if we change what marriage is, the historical precedent will then allow marriage to be defined, possibly recognizing other kinds of relationships as legal marriages too.
So ultimately we have to ask ourselves, is marriage just a social construct/contract with roots in religion, tradition, history, common law and other aspects of culture? If so then I believe marriage should be redefined to reflect the needs of the up to 10% (maybe less there’s some controversy about this) of the population, especially when so many people now support it. And hey, why not let Fundamentalist LDS take multiple wives, they have freedom to practice their religion after all. BUT if marriage is something that transcends culture, with a basis in something outside of human invention such as nature or natural law and objective morality, and the concept of marriage is fundamentally the union of one man and one woman till death do us part, and that is simply what marriage IS, then we must defend it for the collective conscious of our nations and for the sake of truth.
Point taken it might actually be a better example of an argument from consequences/ adverse consequences. I didn’t really go down that road because ultimately all of these types of fallacies have severe overlap especially with emotional appeal, poisoning the well, and argumentum ad populum. Ultimately the point is, logically, it’s a really bad argument.
Thanks for the spell check, I can’t say that is a class I did well in grade school.
I disagree with your assessment of the argument.
The argument isn’t as you portray it.
Person 1: Is not in support of ssm but asks if person 2 is in support of incest
It is neither a straw man argument or argument from adverse consequences
The point being is the same arguments for homosexuals may be used to support incest.
Actually it is as I portray it logically. Person 1 is implicitly saying they support gay marriage. Person 2 is then asking if they support incest, with the implication it’s a bad thing and it attacks gay marriage. It doesn’t follow logical and is actually quite the non sequitur.
However, I’ll lay it out a different way following the direct form of the actual argument, which is problematic because the target actually buys into the fallacy.
Person 2 likes policy A
Person 1: Don’t you like policy X?
Person 2: No policy X can cause Y?
Person 1: Using your logic they can use L and M and if need be N? (There even more serious problems at this stage of the argument)
Person 2: Confused about policy X, L, M and N discussion. Curious about the point!
Person 1: Can you tell me using your logic what the difference between policy A and policy X and Z and what about policy AX?
There are actually even more logically problems than I originally thought as I lay out the actually structure, but what should be clear is there is no direct discussion of Policy A which the OP is suggesting is a positive attack on. In addition there is no explicit position that Policy A would or could lead to Policy X, Z, or AX. It’s not even implicit because there are serious background claims one would have to logically justify. Even more troubling is that it’s not a conclusion but rather a question and thus the last statement really starts the first premise of what might be an actual argument, but we never know because P2 just gives up.
Your line of argument falls over when the other person says there’s nothing wrong with incestuous ‘‘marriages’’ and that even if the ‘‘marriage’’ doesnt work out whats the problem?
They can simply get divorced. No harm. No foul. Whats it got to do with you?
It may be a super weak argument, but nobody is answering the question as to why it wouldn’t be considered discrimination if two relations married based on love, as this is the new criterion for marriage. I think it is because they don’t have a good answer or an answer at all.
I agree with the Libertarians strongly here. Government has ZERO place in marriage. ZERO. Marriage is a social and religious institution. Churches should be allowed to marry whomever they wish based on religious freedom. If some branch of Mormonism wants to allow polygamy, fine. I will be sticking with the Catholic Church and their definition of marriage. Anyone should be able to have partnership rights for legal purposes, including fathers and sons and sisters and brothers. Inheritance tax is illegal anyway and shouldn’t even be an issue.
All of these problems go away with less government, NOT more.
You’re right, but just to clarify, the “legal persons” you mention are not “natural persons” under the law. It just means they’re legal “entities.” A corporation, for example, can enter into contracts, can sue and be sued, and can own property, but it can’t get married. It’s all but impossible that a court could twist the definition of “person” to allow a person to marry a corporation.
It is a strange logic that claims two men or women can engage in unnatural acts, call it love and demand marriage and that is seen as in some way reasonable. Yet, if you point out that endorsing such silliness will lead to more silliness that is a fallacy? Only in Alice in Wonderland is it a fallacy.
Once you mis-define marriage anything goes and will go.
The problem is not the logic of the arguments, the logic is quite sound. The problem is found within the consciences of those listening, or more aptly, refusing to listen.
And as a Protestant who hasn’t converted to the Catholic Church (at least not yet) I tend to agree with you. Your problem is that the RCC teaches:
1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse.
1907 First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as “the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion.”
1908 Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.
1909 Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense.
1910 Each human community possesses a common good which permits it to be recognized as such; it is in the political community that its most complete realization is found. It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies.
1911 Human interdependence is increasing and gradually spreading throughout the world. The unity of the human family, embracing people who enjoy equal natural dignity, implies a universal common good. This good calls for an organization of the community of nations able to “provide for the different needs of men; this will involve the sphere of social life to which belong questions of food, hygiene, education, . . . and certain situations arising here and there, as for example . . . alleviating the miseries of refugees dispersed throughout the world, and assisting migrants and their families.”
1912 The common good is always oriented towards the progress of persons: "The order of things must be subordinate to the order of persons, and not the other way around."30 This order is founded on truth, built up in justice, and animated by love.
So you see, the Catholic Church teaches that government has an obligation to make laws in line with the moral order and common good, so if you’re a Catholic who follows the teachings of the Church, no government should ever legalize marriage between two people of the same gender because the Church sees it as immoral and an abridgment of human dignity.
Children are already suffering now as a result of recent divorce laws. I’m a high school teacher, and the number of students I have who do poorly in their studies or who feel emotionally devastated because of their parents’ divorce, well, it’s heart-wrenching.
This is going to harm children even more, but to be honest, we live in a self society where adults only seem to care about themselves.