Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1 The Illogic of Same Sex Marriage 
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    I found this article to be an interesting take on modern society's struggle with same sex marriage and lends support to my belief that instead of redefining marriage a new legal category should be established for such relativist unions. The new legal definition (civil union if you will) would start by encompassing same sex unions and could be grown to include all other forms of deviant sexual relationships as society deems them to be acceptable. Marriage stays as the foundational rite between the men and women who believe that valid sexual relationships are defined as one man and one woman. Give both marriage and civil unions the same societal and legal rights but marriage is facilitated by the institutions (religious and social) that hold to the traditional view of marriage and civil unions are facilitated by governments and institutions who see marriage as something other than what it has always been. At any rate... here is an excerpt.

    Even though we do not have all of his writings today, it is safe to assert that Aristotle never wrote anything against same-sex marriage (let alone in favor of such a notion). That is because Aristotle knew how to think, and systematized the rules of thought for all subsequent generations. And it is to Aristotle’s schema to which we must return, if we are to achieve clarity on what is illogical about all proposals to “allow” same-sex marriages—whether celebrated in a civil or a religious ceremony.

    As this excellent article by Robin Phillips reminds us, Aristotle distinguished between the essential properties of a thing, and its accidental properties. To change Mr. Phillips’ illustration of the differences a bit: consider the properties of an apple. Its greenness would not be an essential property, because an apple may also be red, or yellow, or many shades in between, and it would still be an apple. So greenness is an accidental property of apples.

    On the other hand, we could not have an apple that was without malic acid, whose very name derives from the Latin word (malum) for “apple.” It defines an apple’s tartness, and is the acid which is found naturally occurring in all forms of an apple. So one may say, using Aristotle’s schema, that having malic acid is an essential property of an apple, just as having citric acid would be an essential property of a lemon, or a lime.

    Now take this analysis one step further, as does Mr. Phillips in the article just linked. One may easily speak of a red, yellow, or green apple—but one could not comprehensibly speak of a “citric apple,” or of a “malic orange.” If the essential properties of a thing are those that define its essence, its very being, then to ascribe those properties to something else entirely is to create nonsense, and engender verbal (and hence mental) confusion.

    And this is what all the proponents of so-called “same-sex marriage” are doing. For them, gender complementarity (male and female partners) is simply an accidental, and not an essential, property of what we call “marriage.” So the adjective “same-sex” in front of the term “marriage” tells us no more than something about the partners which comprise it, and in their view does not render the concept illogical or incomprehensible.

    For advocates of such a view, it is possible to speak of a current “ban” on same-sex marriage in certain States because those States do not permit such marriages under their laws. But—hold on a minute, and consider this issue as Aristotle would have. In speaking of a “ban” on gay marriage, there is already a hidden assumption made by the speaker: namely, that there is indeed such a thing as same-sex marriage, and that it would be possible to have it exist in certain States, did they not legally prohibit it.

    Aristotle would not let any such spokesperson get away without articulating that hidden assumption, and without asking him to defend its validity. In order to do so, however, the spokesperson would have to show that gender complementarity is not an essential, but only an accidental, property of marriage.
    Whole article is here
    Last edited by FlaGator; 09-25-2012 at 07:41 PM.
    Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.
    Reply With Quote  

  2. #2  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Great article. It's worth going to the link to read the whole thing.
    Reply With Quote  

  3. #3  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    If you allow two people of the same sex to marry, then why not groups of three or more? If you allow gay "marriage," there becomes absolutely no more reason to disallow bigamy/polygamy.
    Reply With Quote  

  4. #4  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Que a retort by Nova in 3...2...1...
    The American Left: Where everything is politics and politics is everything.
    Reply With Quote  

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts