Bloomfield wrote:jim stone wrote:
The objections to gay marriage go like this, FWIW.
'Gay marriage is destructive of the institution of marriage, and
it's unfair to children. Research in countries where
gay marriage is legal (e.g. the Netherlands) bears this out.
In addition, public health statistics show that domestic
violence in these relations is alarmingly high,
much more so than in heterosexual relationships.
So we shouldn't legalize gay marriage.'
Gay marriage advocates need a better response
than to argue that the people raising these objections
are often themselves acting in ways destructive of marriage,
and so
we shouldn't listen to them. IMO, the genetic fallacy
can be pretty costly politically in the long term.
Is that how the argument goes, or does research in the Netherlands really bear it out?
In any event, there is more to Cran's argument here than a genetic fallacy.
Cran: I think gay marriage should be legal. It's a violation of the priniciple of equality to give some couples certain state benefits, and not others.
Opponent: But marriage means "man and woman, joined by God in heaven, not to be divorced on earth."
Cran: That is a religious concept that should not control our policies in our secular state. Should it be binding for poeple who don't believe in that religion? And anyway, state marriage is not modelled on religious marriage, since we permit secular marriage (not before a cleric) and we permit divorce and remarriage.
Opponent: Fine, I'll concede the point. Still, gay marriage should not be permitted because it destroys the concept of marriage and is bad for families.
Cran: You've just agreed to leave religion out of it: what do you mean by "the concept of marriage?" And how is gay marriage bad for families?
Opponent: A child needs a father and a mother to grow up healthy, that is the concept of marriage. And families are the nuclei of society.
Cran: There are many children that grow up without a father or a mother, because they are born out of wedlock (or outside a stable relationship), or because of divorce. Divorce is legal for couples with children. Children of parents that remarry sometimes have two "fathers" or "mothers." Adoption and medical advances make it no longer true that a child is necessarily born to the union of a man and a woman. Really, you are clinging to the religious concept and not giving me facts. You concede to leave the religious modell out of it, but all you've done is call it something else "concept of marriage" or "family." If you want to argue that harm to children is the reason for forbidding gay marriage but not divorce, you have to show harm that children of gay couples suffer but not the children of divorced (or single) parents.
Opponent: Studies from the Netherlands show that all gays have horns and wear goaties, and they eat children for breakfast.
OK, ignore the bit at the end, but I think this shows that Cran's question, read charitably as the best argument it can be :roll: is not a genetic fallacy.
To answer your questions, this is how the argument goes, FWIW, at least partly. There's more. As to whether research really bears it out
I don't know--I would have to read it. Anti gay marriage advocates
are citing peer reviewd stuff in sociology journals, and ultimately
one has to read it. It's worth noting that the strongest arguments
agains gay marriage are secular, IMO. This is no accident, because
the religious forces arrayed against gay marriage understand
very well that thumping on the Bible isn't going to carry the
day. There is a long tradition of offering secular arguments
in tandem with religious ones--concerning social issues.
So a good deal of energy has gone into trying to present the
case so that people who live their lives in wholly
secular terms would have ample reason to oppose
gay marriage.
I agree that Cran's argument includes more than a genetic
fallacy. There is the motivating observation that, whatever
the threat to the institution of marriage posed by gay
marriage, realistically legal divorce has been
more destructive. The question is how this can be
deployed as an argument for gay marriage.
One can try it in terms of consistency, e.g. 'We permit
legal divorce, which is destructive of the institution, so,
as a matter of consistency, we should permit gay marriage,
which is less destructive.'
The response, again FWIW, is likely to go like this:
'Accepting that legal divorce is destructive to marriage,
the fact is we've got it, it's politically impossible to
abolish it, and marriage is now on the ropes, given
the high divorce rate and other factors undercutting it.
Given the importance of the institution of marriage
to society and families, and its grave condition already,
legalizing something else that will seriously
underccut the institution might well destroy the
institution entirely--and we can't afford that.
If there were no divorce, if marriage was
very strong, THEN we might be able to consider
taking this risk and allowing gay marriage too.'
Compare:
'Alchohol is much more destructive than pot;
but alchohol is legal, so, as a matter of consistency,
we ought to legalize pot too.'
Response:
'Accepting the premiss, the fact is that we are already
in trouble with alchohol abuse. Given the history
we aren't going to be able to prohibit alchohol.
If we legalize pot too, there simply are going to
be too many people driving around stoned, our
society will become too permeated with drugs.
We can have legal alchohol or legal pot,
but we can't afford BOTH.'
In both of these cases there is much to be said for
arguing that legalizing gay marriage (or pot)
will NOT be destructive to marriage (seriously
increase driving fatalities), be destructive to
children, and so on. But this involves really
engaging the issues, reading the research,
and so on.
