Monday, August 23, 2010

Marriage Laws and its Comparison to the Interracial Laws of Marriage in the Past

While grandpa and I were in in town on some errands that grandma had given to grandpa we ran into a couple of old friends who were arguing the pros and cons of the same sex marriage issue. And from the way they were arguing a person could see that each person were passionate about their side of the issue. Grandpa just stood there listening without taking part in the discussion for a few minutes. Once he had listened long enough to get the gist of what kind of argument was being used he whispered to me to stay there and listen while he went about doing the errands.

When grandpa had finished his errands and came back for me and we headed home. On the way he asked me this question,

“Boy, what did you learn from listening to our good friends?”

the question took me by surprise and I had to think for a few minutes before giving grandpa an answer.

“ Nothing really, grandpa. It seemed as if the both of them were so emotionally charged up in defending their side of the argument that neither of them realized just how illogical their argument was. They each was trying to win the argument by demeaning the other because of the position they took on the issue.”

Grandpa just smiled as he nodded. “Good observation, boy. Now, give me an argument on the issue based upon the basic premise used by our friends.”

I just look at grandpa and as he gave me a smile and wink I began.

“There are those that claim that one group in this nation is just seeking equal rights with another group when it comes to marriage. And in doing so use the emotional appeal of the fact that at one time interracial marriage was also banned in order to show that they are being treated in an unequal manner by the laws of marriage.

If this is true then the same reasoning must be used to show that this is a comparable basis. There were many arguments used in an attempt to justify the ban on interracial marriage and one of them was the argument for maintaining the purity of the races. The comparable argument then would be an argument for the maintaining the purity of the sexual orientation of a group of persons. Since this is an obvious fallacy then the comparison is also a fallacious comparison.

Another argument that was used was the argument that interracial marriage goes against the laws of nature. The laws of nature, in this case, deals with the laws of survival of the individual and the laws of survival of the species. These laws are interconnected. By this I mean that in the process of abiding by the one a person will abide by the other. This was an obvious fallacy of logic in relation to interracial marriage and science does not support this argument.

But in understanding the means that is to be applied to abide by these laws it can be said that same sex marriage does go against the laws of nature. Thus, it can be said that again we see an obvious fallacy of comparison. So, those that use this premise in order to show that the laws of marriage discriminates will come to an unconvincing and illogical conclusion except for those who would be convinced by the appeal to emotion.

Then there are those who will cite the fact of homosexual behavior has been found in other life forms also so as to imply that homosexual behavior is a natural act. This is a fallacious argument also because the argument I'm putting forth is whether or not it goes against the laws of nature. I am not putting forth an argument of whether or not it is a natural or learned act.

These are two different concepts as any scientist or philosopher will tell you. And while we can use one concept, the laws of nature, as evidence for the other. It is a fallacious argument to use the other as proof that persons are abiding by the laws of nature.

There are more arguments that are used to show a comparison between the two issues. Most of them being religious in content. These arguments will not be touched other than to declare that the religious establishment can be said as being united in their opposition to idea of the change in the definition of marriage. I will only say that in regards to the issue in question the charge of religious bigotry for those who rely on religious beliefs for their stance is an unjust charge.”

When I had finished my argument grandpa just had this to say,

“Well, boy, now that you have stated your case we'll see if someone who visits us can find a fallacy in your argument”


Gorges Smythe said...

I think you've presented the situation quite well.

I think that those who argue the subject on purely secular grounds can find supporting "facts" on both sides. What amazes me are the people who insist that they can be gay and good Christians at the same time when those two views are mutually exclusive.

tweetey30 said...

Ok sure you have blacks marrying whites, chinese marrying other cultures.. Ok maybe they are happy as interracial marriages ok.. But when you come down to gay marriages and such isnt it ok for that person/s to have some one take care of them when they get old and sick and cant do it for them selves. Look at the people out there that have no children and no family to look after them after they have become old and crippled?

I believe if you are happy and you want to marry a black man/woman and you are white, asian, african or what nots go ahead.. You arent bothering me one bit. If you are gay and want to get married to your partner go ahead.. They are just there to take care of you when you cant take care of yourself.

I know I have my views. But my MIL is gay and if I could see her and her partner get married after 16 years being together I would. Her partner is 20 some years younger and will be there when my MIL gets to where she cant take care of herself any more.. Its not fair that these people cant have that right as a man/woman marriage. Its just some one taking care of you.

Look at the families out there that arent gay but they live together and share everything. Thanks for the thoughts though..

The Griper said...

your comments are always welcomed.

"Its not fair that these people cant have that right as a man/woman marriage."

it may not be fair but life itself is not fair either. and remember that there are many couples out there living together without the benefits of marriage too. it isn't only the homosexual couples.

The Griper said...

"What amazes me are the people who insist that they can be gay and good Christians at the same time when those two views are mutually exclusive."

i think i would need to disagree with you on that statement. number one, it would depend upon whether or not you take the Bible literally or not. number two, it would depend upon whether or not you believe that homosexuality is a natural state or a learned state and are practicing it.

BB-Idaho said...

It is interesting that science studies and attempts to explain homosexual behavior in various species..ususally in terms of specific species society, whether polygamous or monogomous.
It seems pretty clear that
if the percentage occurance approaches 100, the species would cease to exist. So, from that standpoint the practice
would seem an aberration.
The scientific social explanation of a low percentage as somehow
benefiting an otherwise
uncontrollable sexuality
run rampant among a species would imply that in one sense it is an aberration, but one which nature requires.
We humans make laws based on what we perceive as society's needs,
some good, some bad-as we have learned through time.
Tweety makes a good case, but there are, as you point out, strong arguments
against gay marriage and it is difficult for us old traditionalists to accept major change to practices which have worked well for many centuries. As I began...tis interesting.

The Griper said...

i think you'll really be interested in the post i have in mind, BB. right now i'm just a few thoughts organized in my head on it. the conclusion might be surprising.

tweetey30 said...

I guess that what i meant in that long post.. of a comment. so many people with nothing when they are committed to eachother..

The Griper said...

ahhh but they have the most important thing of all, tweety, they have each other.

that is more than a lot of people have too.

Lista said...

What is Preventing the Couple that you Mentioned from Taking Care of Each Other? I'm Certainly Not. Gay Couples do have Rights. They can Write a Contract within their Civil Union any Way that they Want to. I Don't see what's the Big Deal.

The Word Marriage, though, is a Sacred Word within the Religious Community and I Feel there should be a Difference between a Marriage and a Civil Union. The Difference, though, Does not Need to have to do with Rights.

I Just Discovered Recently that all an Unmarried Couple has to do to be Assured of some Minimal Legal Protection after One of them Dies is to become Registrared. Unregistrared Couples can be Taken Advantage of by the Relatives of their Deceased Partners who want to Lay Claim to Everything that the Two People Owned Together. It's something to Keep in Mind if you Decide that you just want to "Live Together".

But then again, that's Off Subject. Wills and Contracts can be Written by anyone to Say Anything, so it Really isn't True that Gay Couples do not have Rights.

Yes, Griper is Right. Unfortunately, there are Christian Groups that do not Take the Bible Literally anymore.

Yes BB,
Tis Interesting Indeed.


Words of Wisdom of my visitors

Grab This Widget

Gas Buddy

Search for gas prices by US Zip Code


Design by Amanda @ Blogger Buster