Constitutional Law, Justice, Politics, Religion

Divorced From Logic

-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger

Michael LaBossiere, a philosophy professor at Florida A&M University, has written a short Kindle book entitled For Better or Worse Reasoning: A Philosophical Look at Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage. In this book, LaBossiere reviews the “arguments” against same-sex marriage and points out the fallacious reasoning behind them. I would like to highlight a couple of the fallacious arguments, but for a complete treatment I suggest you download his book which is only $0.99.

In one of LaBossiere’s early examples, he uses a recent blog post by Bristol Palin in which she commented on Obama’s support of same-sex marriage by saying:

While it’s great to listen to your kids’ ideas, there’s also a time when dads simply need to be dads.  In this case, it would’ve been helpful for him to explain to Malia and Sasha that while her friends parents are no doubt lovely people, that’s not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage.

This common argument from same-sex marriage opponents is an Appeal to Tradition, a logical fallacy. The fallacy occurs when something is assumed better or correct simply because it has been around for a long time. In reality, the “tradition” of marriage has evolved since ancient times. As Jay Michaelson points out:

Abraham had two wives, … King Solomon had 700 wives, … Jacob, the patriarch who gives Israel its name, had two wives.

Rick Santorum suggested that legalizing same-sex marriage was akin to legalizing polygamy:

So, everybody has the right to be happy? So, if you’re not happy unless you’re married to five other people, is that OK?

Santorum used the fallacy known as the Slippery Slope where the legalization of polygamy inevitably follows from the legalization of same-sex marriage with no argument for the inevitability. The reasoning is fallacious because there is no reason to believe the inevitability. Ironically, polygamy has been a “traditional” form of marriage for thousands of years.

Santorum’s slippery slope could also be used to argue against opposite-sex marriages: “if we allow different-sex people to marry, the next thing you know, same-sex couples will get married and then people will be marrying flying fish.”

With regard to consenting adults, LaBossiere writes:

I regard homosexuality the same as I regard heterosexuality, namely as being morally neuter: neither good, no bad.

H/T: WaPo, WSJ.

84 thoughts on “Divorced From Logic”

  1. Shano, I saw the federal cases where they had done a civil seizure (they call it forfeiture) case separate from the criminal charges they may be alleging and where they keep what they have seized NOT because there is any criminal case going with it, but because normally a person cannot retrieve their money or property from the civil forfeiture without a high-priced lawyer. So the thing is clever: Charge someone with a crime so you can grab their property; drop the charges so you don’t have to prove anything; keep the property because (allegedly) you don’t need as much evidence in a civil case as you do in a criminal case. They need to spend so much to try to get it back that it will never happen. And you don’t have to give them appointed counsel!

    Has our government “become” a criminal enterprise? It started OUT as one. It has become a more complex one, that’s all.

  4. Actually Matt Johnson I live in Washington.

    Thank you for the comment Matt. I didn’t think I had such clairvoyance to know that my previous posting was directed at you specifically (because I wrote “Many American Corporations” and not ALL American Corporations) but since it seems you mention the books that you have not cooked, it would seem logical you must be of the Eunuch/Accountant role. Most admirably you seem well versed in what my testicular status is, we might also assume which of the two is you.

    For me, I guess I would refer any questions you Matt might have as to my jewelry collection to the shareholders. They hold my jewels in trust in the event of a liquidation. It’s been a rather tight market and I am hoping for a good bid/ask spread before I close my Naked Short position. But, I’ve been out of the market for so long my performance is causing a Neglected Firm Effect. I am confident though an uptick will occur and I can Merge with the Shareholders among the Pink Sheets. Hope this helps, mr. JOHNSON.

    BettyKath, LottaKatz, idealist. Appreciate you comments.

  6. Because I have a strong libertarian bent in my DNA, I have to wonder how much better off we’d all be, if our government had absolutely nothing to do with our marriages.

    Stick to post offices.

    I suspect much of the turmoil would cease to exist, if our government would evolve to take a huge step backward, and become completely agnostic on the subject of who-marries-who.

    I submit that a society’s legislators ought have no right whatsoever to a professional opinion on such a personal – and private – decision.

    And as far as “gay’s damaging the institution of marriage?”

    Hetero folks have gouged the “sanctity” to the bone and back.

    How much more damage could anyone else possibly do?

  7. The notion of “same sex” is intriguing. There is the story of the person who was filling out a form that had a fill-in blank for “Sex” and the person entered, “Once, in Peoria, in June, 1969.”

    What if no two (or more) people are actually the same sex when the totality of human sexuality is accurately recognized?

    Perhaps “same-sex” marriage is an impossibility.

  8. Mr. Smith,

    Do you want to go to Washington?

    The Eunuchs/Accountants protect the CEO because they lack the cajones to report him. And, the unpaid interns, well I suppose its preferrable to the lion’s den.
    ==========================================================
    The Eunuchs/Accountants might get their balls cut off if they have any. Do you have any jewels, or were they already removed? I never cooked the books, and do you know how many fights I got in over that? I think you’re a nutless wonder.

  12. I’m glad you love being wrong, Dredd. Given that you often are wrong, that works out well for you.

  13. Gene H. 1, May 19, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    Awww.
    =========================
    Original knowledge.

    Gotta luv it.

  14. Darren Smith: “I suggest we diversify marriage structures to include the following…”

    LOL.

  15. Awww. First you tell me “stick it” on another thread and then you call me “dipshit”. You’re adorable when you’re frustrated, Dredd. In the exact same way a child running loose screaming in a restaurant is adorable. If you don’t like having your logical errors pointed out? Learn to make less of them. Your entire statement was premised on the idea that logic cannot yield novel thought when there is plenty of evidence that logic is a fantastic tool for doing just that. You were begging the question that your presumption was correct. It wasn’t. Too bad for you.

  16. Gene H. 1, May 19, 2012 at 12:25 pm

    “Logic does not develop original knowledge, it only provides derivative knowledge, assuming that the premises are correct, and the conclusion is well taken from those premises.”

    The assumption you make
    =========================================
    That is begging by the dip shit.

  18. Also I am very confident the Ottoman Harem as a C Corporation would fit very nicely with what is seen in many American Corporations: The Sultan/CEO does exactly the same thing to the shareholders as he does to the concubines. The Eunuchs/Accountants protect the CEO because they lack the cajones to report him. And, the unpaid interns, well I suppose its preferrable to the lion’s den.

  19. Perhaps our politicians would be well served with a Venn Diagram or two.

    While I believe strongly that marrying a a second person while the first spouse and the second spouse are unaware of each others’ existing marriage status, and therefore fraudulent, should always be a felony, If all concerned are of legal marriage age and are of sufficient capacity to enjoin in a contract I don’t understand why it would matter to me as another and an uninvolved person. Plus, if I found it to be objectionable I could always look the other way and go about my own business.

    The problem I see for this is presently our tax and estate system is not structured properly to address this relationship. It can be changed to provide for the same tenants of a standard type of marriage but it can certainly be done. I think it is just like business structures such as LLCs LLPs, INCs, XYZs, or whatever. The IRS allows many type of business structures that it recognizes but strangely only recognizes the Partnership structure between man and woman as being legitimate.

    I suggest we diversify marriage structures to include the following:

    Spinster: Sole Proprietership
    Standard Marriage: Limited Liability Partnership
    Same Sex Marriage: Limited Liability Partnership
    Plural Marriage: S Corporation
    Ottoman Harem: C Corporation
    Sultan: CEO
    Queen Mother: Controller
    Concubine: Shareholder
    Favorite: Class A Stock shareholder
    Wife: Member of the Board of Directors
    Eunuch Accountant
    Odalisk: Unpaid Intern

    Darren

  20. “Logic does not develop original knowledge, it only provides derivative knowledge, assuming that the premises are correct, and the conclusion is well taken from those premises.”

    The assumption you make is that a conclusion necessarily cannot be original – i.e. being a first instance. This is begging the question. The history of science is full of original ideas that came from logic applied to premises previous. The novation of relativity was built by Einstein applying logic to the framework of Newton. Just so, the counter-intuitive framework of quantum mechanics was built by people like Bohr and Heisenberg applying logic to the work of Einstein. Conclusions are outcomes; the result of information being systematically processed. Novation is an outcome. Logic is a tool to reach outcomes. However, it does not follow that all outcomes are novel. Original knowledge is happenstance when not based upon a new observation but it can still be derived from the application of logic. When logic is best applied, it results in solutions both true and novel. At second best, it results in conclusions verifiable to valuable and certain to a useful degree. At worst, its a bicycle for a fish.

Comments are closed.