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”