Obama recently stirred up some controversy with his selection of Rick Warren to give the invocation at the presidential inauguration. The controversy is the result of the fact that Warren is quite clear in his opposition to abortion and same sex marriage. Obviously, Obama’s choice has some left leaning people somewhat upset.
Warren has had considerable influence in the dispute over same sex marriage and i thought it would be reasonable to sort out some of this.
Warren recently had the following to say about same sex marriage: “The issue to me, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.”
As Warren seems to see it, same sex marriage runs contrary to the 5,000 year old definition of marriage and this presumably makes it bad. He further adds that it is on par with incest, pedophilia, and polygamy in regards to being a threat to the standard definition of marriage.
While Warren seems to be a well read fellow, the history of marriage does not seem to be his strong point. After all, the modern notion of marriage is just that: the modern notion of marriage. An examination of the historical reality of marriage shows that the concept of marriage has been redefined throughout the centuries. For example, modern marriage in the West (and other areas) treats men and women as equal. This is in contrast with the more traditional view in which women were regarded as markedly inferior and as being subservient to men. The shift towards marital equality seems to be a good thing, although it clearly changed the traditional definition of “marriage.” Also, men marrying very young women (girls, actually) has long been accepted and even today very young people can get married legally. In the United States (and other places), traditional marriage was between people of the same race. I will assume that Warren rejects that aspect of traditional marriage and does not consider mixed-race marriages a threat to the traditional definition of marriage.
Of course, it could be replied that Warren is focused only on one aspect of traditional marriage-that it has been between one man and one woman. All the other details, one might content, are irrelevant. Of course, questions arise as to why that one aspect is what matters and why it should be accepted as the correct definition of “marriage”.
Obviously enough, the mere fact that the definition is an old one is hardly adequate proof that it is correct. To accept this definition as correct based on its age would be to fall victim to a fallacy: an appeal to tradition. After all, people can be wrong for a very long time. As such, Warren’s appeal to tradition has no logical weight. It does, of course, have emotive appeal and that is no doubt why people use it.
Warren does more than just appeal to tradition. He notes that he has a general opposition to re-defining marriage. To be specific, he is opposed to incestuous marriage, the marriage of adults and children and polygamy. As he sees it, same sex marriage is on par with these other three. Of course, there is the question of whether this is true or not.
Obviously, Warren is not trying to make an argument by analogy: he is not arguing that same sex marriage is analogous to these other situations. While there could incestuous same sex marriages, same sex marriage would not automatically have the key qualities of an incestuous marriage. I make this point because I have heard people make confused arguments about same sex marriage and incest,etc. What they do is argue that same sex marriage is like incest. When I have asked them about how they are alike, they seem confused and then often say something like “well, they are both bad so they are alike. This is why same sex marriage is bad.” This begs the question.
What Warren seems to be doing is claiming that these four types of marriage are all bad and something that he opposes. His view that marriage is between one man and one woman does rule out marriage between an adult and a child as well as polygamy. It does not, however, rule out incest. Presumably an expanded definition of marriage would be that it is between one man and one woman who are not related.
Given this definition, same sex marriage would be on par with polygamy, etc. because it would involve marriage between two men or two women. Of course, it would be on par with the others in that it does not fit the definition. Whether it is morally on par with incest or pedophilia is something that would need to be argued.
While asserting that same sex marriage to polygamy, incest and pedophilia are on par does nothing to show that this claim is true, it does have significant emotional appeal. After all, most people react negatively to polygamy, incest and pedophilia and hence same sex marriage can be tainted by being associated with these. While this is rhetorically effective, it has no logical merit. What would be needed is an argument showing that same sex-marriage is actually on par with the other three.
If same sex marriage is morally on par with a marriage between a pedophile and a child, then it should not be allowed. However, I have yet to see a convincing argument in support of this.
I’ve never seen the need to defend traditional marriage simply because it is alleged to be traditional. Many of the changes to traditional marriage have been morally laudable. For example, treating women as equal partners and outlawing forced marriages both seem like very good things. As another example, allowing “interracial” marriages also seems good. Perhaps allowing same sex marriage would be another good change rather than a bad change. I am open to arguments either way: but I need good arguments and not just fallacies.
I can think of lot of arguments against marriage (marry in haste, repent in leisure), but none against gay marriage per se.
I, actually, can almost see where he comes from. Personally, I do not believe in same sex marriages. This is only because, right now, that is the modern definition. I do not believe in the appeal to tradition, though. If the church changes the definition of marriage, I would be perfectly fine with that. I think that the real crux of the problem is largely ignored. As Americans, we are supposed to have the largely nominal “separation of church and state”. I am of the opinion that marriage is a religious thing and that it should be left up to the religions to decide whether or not the marriage between two men or two women should be allowed. The government should have absolutely nothing to with it.
If we are arguing about the reasons for this controversy, then I think the problem is that since gay marriages are unaccepted, same sex couples do not get the same benefits while living together. This could be easily changed if we made civil unions possible between same sex couples and give that union all of the same rights and benefits as a “marriage” in legal terms.
As far as the morality of same sex marriages goes, if it were not for the current most popularly accepted catholic view, I would find it not immoral. Firstly, is not marriage supposed to be a physical symbol of love? Love is love, no matter what loves what, and as long as the feeling is mutual. The love of two men is no different than the love of a man and a woman. Besides, the bible says nothing of a woman being with another woman, only that a man cannot be with another man. That is rather inconsistent and does seem to leave its ensuing questions unanswered. I would even go so far as to say that incest is not immoral. Why would it be? Love is love. Just because some people find it repulsive does make it wrong.
The history of marriage is so convoluted and almost nonsensical that to trust it now and base current beliefs on it is just poor judgment and ignorance.
I could probably go on forever about this and related topics, but I think that I have made my point. Same sex marriages are not morally wrong except in the eyes of the church. While that is likely to change, it does not matter because no laws should ever be made concerning this topic because that would be an infringement of the state upon the church (something that we fought so hard to get rid of way back when early Americans wanted to separate from the Church of England).
I think gay couples don’t want a civil union, they want marriage and they want to be seen as the same as a hetro couple. I think if you really want to be fair about it (which i’m not necessarily inclined to be in this case..) you would have everyone have a civil union. so heterosexual and homosexual couples would all have a civil union (or some other term) in the eyes of the law, and then a marriage in church if you so choose.
alternately you could offer gay couples the ability to do a civil union, but i suspect that will not go over well. seperate but equal?
I know people feel very strongly about it on both sides of the issue, so the best thing to do might be to let people vote on it..that way it is at least the will of the majority deciding the issue.
as for Obama having Warren at his inauguration, I applaud it. It shows me that Obama will not always bow to the PC police. Warren let Obama speak at one of his functions, even tho they do not agree on Abortion and other issues, so why not return the favor?
To me the issue about gay marriages is,/ I can please my body in whatever I way I want to. Which is disturbing to “the rank and file” who have rules for each area of there bodies. The slippy slope is slippery. One other area not addressed is bi-sexulity. Can not a bi person desire to marriage both sexes? Hence the crossover the issues. (many partners married) there are intimacy, love-object priorities to follow 1 first wife second wife or my man against my family and other boundaires concerns. Mental health will make money. ha. ha. Defining family is another place of focus. Census and money divisions regarding gay families. Health is about saftey. If I do what ever I wish with my body then morality enters in, full disclosure or truthfulness which when once violated, the human conscience triggers and starts calling for the now often wasted human trait of right and wrong . (STD,s AIDS) Gays claim self-morality but nwhy does their platform see the triggers to the rank and file conscience of what can be violated. The what you do sexual is not what I do sexually revelation causes painon both sides. So the gay lifestyle is trying to go home and make a FAMILY? Talk about fiction copying life.
I am very nervous about all this crossing over (global) talk. Differences are being removed and cookiecutter identities are being issued out to us all. Who are the pattern makers? If they do not wish to be there when Pastor Rick prays then let the opposing groups show up fashionably late. Unity at any cost is a evil road to lead the USA after our history of fighting for our individual rights.
barron- you name it yourself…. your argument relies on a slippery slope fallacy. If you want to believe that fallacious reasoning gives good justification for anything, then I think you’re posting on the wrong website. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
Perhaps/maybe because everything is supposedly part of the “god’s- plan”, or is “created” by god, the modern phenomenon of same-sex marriage (and homosexuality too) is part of “god’s plan” to help/stop us human beings from breeding ourselves to extinction via over-population.
Sooner or later Humankind as a whole is going to have to decide to limits its numbers, or the planetary system WILL do it for us—guaranteed.
We cant go on increasing our numbers forever.
As per Holy Bible, marriage should be between a man & a women only. Also unless adultery, this should not be broken. Anything outside this is not a marriage. It is adultery. Holy Bible is very clear. Many do not read, belive and live as per the Word of God. That’s the issue.