An exercise in recognizing and refuting logical fallacies
In the last few months, as I stretch my logic and reasoning skills, I've been learning about logical fallacies and critical thinking. Having found the following case against gay marriage from a Catholic webpage, I figured to deploy some of these newfound skills on a topic that is very near and dear to my dark little heart.
10 Reasons why Gay Marriage is Dangerous:
(My rebuttal after each point)
1) Marriage will not be considered a unique natural family building institution.
This argument, taken at face value, suggests that GLBT people are not capable of building a “family institution”. This also needs clarification as to the definition of a “unique natural family building institution”, and why GLBT are incapable of building one.
2) Churches will be harassed and labeled as bigots for remaining faithful to their beliefs and reason.
Doubtful. The closest they might come to harassed is a drunk homeless guy pissing in the holy water. Otherwise, they'll be generally ignored and die off; preferably along with these, um... "values". What this argument calls “harassed”, most people call “getting with the program”; and by getting with the program, I mean entering the 21st century. Marriage is a secular, civil matter, a contractual matter, separate from religion; churches just provide the ceremony space and spiritual affirmation of the union. If a church doesn't want a gay wedding, that IS their right. The happy couple are free to head for your competitor across the street.
You didn't need more tithing parishoners, anyway.
3) Businesses that deal with weddings will be sued if they do not conform with this redefinition.
As they should be. While sexual orientation is not currently a federally protected status on par with ethnicity or gender, the day will come when it is. And when that day does come, business will have to make some hard choices about honoring the civil rights and dignity of their customers. Just like businesses in the past had to make some tough choices about whether to cater to minorities or face the wrath of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Until then, the free market will be more than happy to decide. Your competitor has already put up a Pride flag in their window.
How's business, natch?
4) Children will grow up confused.
Who's children? The children of the gay parents, or the children of their neighbors, friends, and family? And confused about...what, exactly? Do you mean your children, who can't rectify what they witness in real life with what you indoctrinate into them? This argument is so general as to border on non sequitur.
5) Science will be teaching falsehoods in regards to biology.
I call a big, fat stanky red herring on this. Science doesn't give a lab rat's ass about marriage (unless a graduate student can get a grant to study it). And science, as a discipline, doesn't teach jack; people teach it. You know, people with pee-aych-dees and master degrees and some real book learnin'. What “falsehoods” will these be? Until specific examples can be made, this point isn't only in left field, it's left the park and sunk in the bleachers.
6) Psychology will have to be altered in order to avoid contradictions in studies.
Again, red herring. It's not like psychology is a constantly changing practice as new evidence and discoveries are revealed, anyway. Also, I thought the avoidance of contradictions in scientific studies is supposed to be a GOOD thing (unlike contradictions in the bible, which are numerous)? Altered in what way? As above, has no bearing on this argument unless specific examples can be made.
7) Evolution will be questioned because same sex relations serves no biological purpose in the advancement of a species.
This is where I call not just bullshit, but total, complete, and utter bullshit (that's some serious bullshit). Traditional married couples do not own a monopoly on the mechanics of procreation! This argument suggests that gay couples are incapable of the natural, biological desire to spawn, which defies the same “science” trotted out in #5. That they are incapable of nurturing, raising young, instilling values, teaching them not to set fire to the cat, showing them how to thrive, of loving offspring sprung from their own gay loins or of others as their own. Gay marriage is a cultural and human rights issue, not an evolutionary argument, so has zero bearing on the study of evolution as a scientific discipline.
8.)The family will go and then society will follow.
Uh, what? “The family will go”...where, exactly? This argument infers...implies... Dammit, I can never get that straight. Get it? Straight? Ha! I kill me! Um, anyway... that gay marriage will be responsible for the breakdown of the family unit; unlike abuse, infidelity, divorce, marriages of convenience, shotgun weddings, and celebrities re-marrying for the umpteenth time in tune with the Neilson ratings. This argument suggests (oh who the hell am I kidding, it blatantly asserts) that where the "family" goes, so goes the enveloping society. The suggestion here is that gay marriage will lead to political collapse, the disintegration of infrastructure, chaos, famine, war, dogs and cats living together. Society will follow them...where? To a place where GLBT families are respected and honored on equal footing as traditional families?
The horror!
9) Societies that have done this are now extinct.
Not only is this a post-hoc appeal to consequences, but the consequences never even happened, making this more straw man than the Scarecrow in Wizard of Oz. This argument suggests that societies that have done this are extinct BECAUSE of gay marriage; not due to war, political strife, invasion, natural disaster, time, revolutions, population attrition, or alien abduction. Not to mention, there are now over a dozen societies in the modern era that are going quite strong despite recognizing gay marriage, with no sign of a meteor bearing down on them. That was a metaphor, you know, as in dinosaurs.
Dinosaurs are extinct.
Like your reasoning skills.
10) All other subcultures will demand marriage under the same pretense.
Ah yes, the old “slippery slope” argument. Actually, this is one where I will offer the benefit of the doubt. Other “subcultures” will begin demanding equal respect, though I suspect you are referring to polygamy (which is recognized in the *gasp* bible). The day may come where they will have their day on court, and our descendants will cross that bridge when they get there.
That is, if the society hasn't gone extinct.
Like your case.