NationStates Jolt Archive

I've just had a thought.

One of the principal "rationalistic" arguments against gay marriage is "It would be giving homosexuals special rights". This is not true. Here is the "anti-" argument; I shall dispel it immediately afterwards.

1. Any man can marry any woman, with minor prohibitions (not one's sister, mother, not when one is already married etc.).
2. Any man cannot marry any other man, and any woman cannot marry any other woman.
3. Many homosexual men and women want to remove/reverse (2).
4. To do this would be to give a special right to homosexuals and homosexuals alone, because (2) would only be removed in regard to them, not in regard to everyone.

I hope you can see the fallacy already, but if not, here it is:

If (2) is removed then everyone, hetero- or homosexual, will have the right to marry any person of the same gender. It is therefore not granting a special right to homosexuals; it is granting a right to everyone.

Addendum: To say that it is a right that nobody heterosexual would like to use is logically isometric with saying that the right to marry a partner of the opposite gender is a right that nobody homosexual would like to use.

This is not a question, and is also not intended to lead to argument. It is an honest and open statement, to which I would like response from those here who have claimed that gay marriage would be "privileging a certain sector of society."

I've just had a thought.

One of the principal "rationalistic" arguments against gay marriage is "It would be giving homosexuals special rights". This is not true. Here is the "anti-" argument; I shall dispel it immediately afterwards.

1. Any man can marry any woman, with minor prohibitions (not one's sister, mother, not when one is already married etc.).
2. Any man cannot marry any other man, and any woman cannot marry any other woman.
3. Many homosexual men and women want to remove/reverse (2).
4. To do this would be to give a special right to homosexuals and homosexuals alone, because (2) would only be removed in regard to them, not in regard to everyone.

I hope you can see the fallacy already, but if not, here it is:

If (2) is removed then everyone, hetero- or homosexual, will have the right to marry any person of the same gender. It is therefore not granting a special right to homosexuals; it is granting a right to everyone.

Addendum: To say that it is a right that nobody heterosexual would like to use is logically isometric with saying that the right to marry a partner of the opposite gender is a right that nobody homosexual would like to use.

This is not a question, and is also not intended to lead to argument. It is an honest and open statement, to which I would like response from those here who have claimed that gay marriage would be "privileging a certain sector of society."

*applauds*

I love it when logically inconsistent arguments are debunked.

bump

*snip*

I haven't done this in a while, but you have earned it.

(Hands New Watenho a Bolol Nuclear Cookie)

That was clear, clean and simple. Well done!

Thank you. I just wish someone wanted to respond! I can't tighten up the argument without rebuttal!

final bump

Thank you. I just wish someone wanted to respond! I can't tighten up the argument without rebuttal!

I agree with you but if you want a rebuttal I'll try and play devils advocate.

By allowing homosexual couples to marry when currently only hetrosexual, monogamous, non-related couples are allowed to marry would set a precedent under which others who enjoy less mainstream relationships could fight for legal recognition.

For example, incestuous relationships are illegal, but once gay marriage was introduced these people could push for recognition before the law, closely followed by people who want multiple spouses and those with an interest in bestiality. For these reasons a line must be drawn now and it must not be allowed to waver

N.B. I don't agree with these points, I'm just trying to help.