A Response To a Reader About Gay Marriage

I came across these comments in the Gay Marriage thread...................... I started responding and then I figured I'd share the debate with all of you (the reader's comments are in italics, my rebuttals are bolded)--------

When arguing from the high ground of logical consistency, try to be more careful. You declare the "slippery slope" to be "by definition" fallacious, but provide no rationale. In fact, there is always the danger of reductio ad absurdam, but those who point out that legal opposition to same-sex marriage and legal opposition to polygamous marriage rest on the same philosophical presuppositions are not indulging in the "slippery slope." They're simply pointing out that when the foundation is undermined, the whole legal structure inevitably topples.

It seems you have misread, I spent the entire post destroying the slippery slope and did not just arbitrarily deem it a fallacy (though I did define it as such). In order for me to believe that a slippery slope was a rational possibility there would have to be a logical connection between the starting point and that which we were concerned with slipping towards. In the case of the arguments cited in the post I have demonstrated that said analogy is a non-existent illogical construct.

You make several truth claims quite as dogmatic ("morality is mutable") as the ones you seek to refute for their alleged dogmatism. You raise points irrelevant to the matter at hand, or at least irrelevant to your opponents' argument (i.e., the cost of benefits). You accept your opponents' judgment concerning the greater societal harm of pedophilia, yet reject it concerning marriage, without providing any rational basis for distinction.

The burden of proof is on your side to demonstrate a real discernable compelling interest for the state not to extend the benefits that are federally granted to opposite sex marriage to same sex marriage, not the other way around. How “cost of benefits” is irrelevant (particularly when dwelling upon the constitutionality of the issue) escapes me. When we are talking about equal protection the unequal distribution of unique government benefits to one group above and beyond that of another is extraordinarily relevant. Ultimately, I outlined point for point a distinct societal detriment that pedophilia causes (again I did not just “deem” it so as you have mischaracterized), I outlined how polygamy is in no way analogous to gay marriage (and is therefore a non-issue in terms of the slippery slope), I further demonstrated a unique societal ailment created by incest. All of the above provide a compelling interest for the state to continue their prohibition. Your side has yet to come up with a reason an analogous unit should be denied the benefits of another (aside from your nonsense rhetoric and insistence upon an illogical undermining of the “system”). Be more concrete, what are the ails that would be created by gay marriage?!?!

Your distinction between "excluding" equivalent groups (same-sex) and failing to extend benefits to non-equivalent groups (polygamous) rests only on a mathematical difference, not a difference of kind. Finally, your assertion that the government cannot legislate based on moral concerns is patently ridiculous. Theft is a moral concern. Cheating on your taxes is a moral concern. Religious tolerance itself is a profoundly moral value.

When assessing the constitutionality of the situation the mathematics merits more attention than the alleged morality (which I submit would vary from individual to individual regarding gay marriage) of the situation. However, there is a difference of kind, particularly if we look at the accepted definition of marriage as outlined within the post. Theft and cheating on taxes may be a moral concern for you, but the reason the alleged “morality” is legislated is more for utilitarian reasons than for moral ones. In both theft and tax evasion there is a discernable detriment to society as a whole and social cohesiveness that would be evident by the rampant participation in either of the actions. A society functions best when it functions cohesively, lest the society be swallowed up by another more fit society (simple Darwinian selection). Even religious tolerance has an ultimate utilitarian aspect to it. Were there a society with one creed, such “morality” would never become an issue; therefore we cannot look at this as a moral value as the universal applicability one seeks in morality is clearly absent. However, when there is a multiplicity of religious beliefs within a pluralistic society tolerance becomes necessary, particular in matters of religion, where the belief system becomes intertwined with identity. In order for society to continue to function at a level that outperforms competing societies as it grows in diversity (which will aid said society with the import of ideas) it must function as a cohesive unit encouraging “tolerance” of those members whose diversity the society is benefiting from.

Again the burden of proof falls upon the detractors to demonstrate a distinct and real societal detriment that would provide a compelling interest for the state to not apply the 14^th amendment to Gay Marriage. The slippery slope simply doesn’t cut it.