Analyzing arguments is something we're supposed to do in my ethics class...
I just thought I'd go through the list and examine the comparisons here. :P
1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. Those three examples are things people have created to improve things; they are not examples of psychological states/beliefs/sexual attractions/whatever. To apply those examples, homesexuality would have to be a thing created to improve society.
2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. This would only seem to apply if gay people are gay by birth/because of genes they inherited. First, one would have to show that was the case.
3) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.The examples given are presumably positive or neutral things -- inventions
( ... )
5) Straight marriage would be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed. Actually, marriage isn't nearly as serious since divorces have been allowed. If you can just get out, why shouldn't you have one for fun/profit? The example is a negative one, however...what is the implication? That gay marriages would be equally bad but wouldn't matter because of it? That gay marriages would never have any 55-hour just-for-fun marriages?
6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.No comment. I don't think I've ever heard someone suggest the only valid marriages were ones that produced children. If you consider heterosexual and homosexual couples, however, only one has ever produced children that I know of. The argument this is (presumably?) mocking might be referring
( ... )
Comments 8
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I just thought I'd go through the list and examine the comparisons here. :P
1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
Those three examples are things people have created to improve things; they are not examples of psychological states/beliefs/sexual attractions/whatever. To apply those examples, homesexuality would have to be a thing created to improve society.
2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
This would only seem to apply if gay people are gay by birth/because of genes they inherited. First, one would have to show that was the case.
3) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.The examples given are presumably positive or neutral things -- inventions ( ... )
Reply
5) Straight marriage would be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
Actually, marriage isn't nearly as serious since divorces have been allowed. If you can just get out, why shouldn't you have one for fun/profit? The example is a negative one, however...what is the implication? That gay marriages would be equally bad but wouldn't matter because of it? That gay marriages would never have any 55-hour just-for-fun marriages?
6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.No comment. I don't think I've ever heard someone suggest the only valid marriages were ones that produced children. If you consider heterosexual and homosexual couples, however, only one has ever produced children that I know of. The argument this is (presumably?) mocking might be referring ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment