Deconstructing the "sanctity" argument

[athenaltena]

As I’ve mentioned, I’ve been trying to figure out a way to tear down the fear mongering tactics being used by the anti-gay marriage crowd, so putting my sociologist and philosopher hats on for a second (yes, I can wear both at the same time, I'm just that badass), let’s take a look at this.

The whole “Defense of Marriage” argument operates

Comments

[kryptyd]

"God" and "sanctity" shouldn't be brought into logical debates in the first place. Well, I suppose there's no use in pointing out what shouldn't be. I realise from your posts that you are working very hard with the situation you've got.

[athenaltena]

There's also the old "God argument" fallacy, but that's so entrenched in our culture that it's hard to get by that one. This is more of a brick by brick deconstruction of this particular argument.

I think that doing anything but working hard is admitting defeat, so it's the only thing you can do when it's basically your life on the line.

[meepalicious]

I've been thinking a lot about the same argument lately, particularly what you said about the already changed/ing definitions of marriage.

I usually like to add that if marriage is a religious institution, the U.S. government has no business in it at all, regardless of the sex/gender of the people involved.

[athenaltena]

There's that too, but I'm not sure we'll get around to changing that any time soon. I do think it's incredibly revealing about the people making that argument, since in some ways it shows that they really don't believe in our constitution or what it stands for if they think it can just be supplanted.

[le_section_8]

And here I thought marriage was all about dowries...

*imagines Rose wearing Pope hat* Tee...