Rebutting Rebuttals: Arguing Against “Marriage Equality”, Part 5.1

So, we continue in our series of responses to the series by Bob Seidensticker and his series, “20 Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage, Rebutted”.

We pick up in part 5 of his series, where he writes in rebuttal 12, titled “It’s a slippery slope,” to an argument that Turek makes,

We don’t need to worry about what would happen if the definition of marriage changed since it already has changed—for example, in the cases of mixed-race marriage, no-fault divorce, and laws against marital rape.

One of these things is not like the other(s). As I have written before, comparing inter-racial marriage to same-sex marriage is a red herring because such prohibitions were based upon false standards. No-fault divorce did nothing to the definition of marriage, it just lowered the bar as to the grounds for seeking divorce. And laws against marital rape…well…that should be self-explanatory, namely that being married to a person isn’t the same thing as having consent to do whatever that you want to them.

Bob continues,

Frank says that everyone puts limits on the definition of marriage, and again we agree. No definition of marriage would make sense if it weren’t clear what things were not included in that definition.

I would say that there’s something of a confusion of categories in both sets of arguments. Remember, Turek is proceeding from Christian presuppositions: God has defined what marriage is, and what composes it. Man has been given authority in the definitions that God has given to impose some incidental limitations upon that definition, such as the age of the person’s who can legal engage in it without parental permission, but these limits also extend to other endeavors, such as employment contracts and military enlistment.

The question is, what is the slippery slope?

The slippery slope hypothetical put forward by conservatives usually involves incest, pedophilia, or other relationships that cause harm. (emphasis original)

Well, we seemed to have found it because just as soon as the Obergefell decision gave a measure of legitimacy to homosexuals then the transgender movement kicked into full-swing. Now, it looks like pedophilia is starting to be recognized as a “sexual orientation” because, just like homosexuality before it, it’s being argued from a historic perspective. Not to mention that there’s no real argument against incest from a secular position. In fact some religions (i.e. Islam) permit adults to marry children. These aren’t hypotheticals, Bob; they’re today’s headlines.

Moving on to argument 13, “The gay argument defeats itself!” Bob cites part of Turek’s argument and says,

Yes, men and women are different, and homosexuals are romantically attracted to one and not the other, just like you.

And… that’s it?

One sentence. Well, Let’s look at Frank’s argument, because Bob just seemed to miss it, because he’s going after the logical conclusion that is established in earlier premises.

The key to Turek’s argument in this case is one of biology:

1. Male and female are required to produce children.

2. This is a biological reality.

3. Therefore, marriage should be limited to male and female because this is a biological reality.

Bob’s “rebuttal” here doesn’t even touch Turek’s central argument, it just sidesteps it and goes of in another direction. Further, he seems to treat “homosexuals” as if they are something other that either male or female, man or woman. If the argument is merely that a homosexual is merely “romantically attracted” to someone of the same sex, how is that an argument for same-sex marriage?

Simply put, it isn’t, it’s merely a statement of fact.

If the argument that Bob is making that simply because there’s an attraction between two people of the same sex that they should be allowed to marry, why can’t we allow an adult brother and sister to marry, or a father and his adult daughter, or a mother and an her adult son? Moreover, why can’t a man marry a child? His premise allows too much.

Bob, in this instance, is merely arguing by assertion.

I’m going to put a pin in this post, because the next three are fairly long, and I think that this is enough for this section, so stay tuned for part 2.

One comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s