!

!
!
Argumentative Fallacies In Same Sex Opponents Stances!
Maxwell Schoenfeld!
Phil-1120-001!
Alexander Izrailevsky!
4 - 18 - 2015!
http://maxwellschoenfeld.weebly.com/e-portfolio.html!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
Identifying Fallacies of Same Sex Marriage Opponents Arguments!
!

As a child of a gay parent, my support and passionate participation in the

marriage equality movement should hopefully come as no surprise. Its a pretty

common and even fair assumption that is usually made of someone in my shoes,
and one typically made when someone expresses a degree of LGBTQ familiarity,
or even just gender issue familiarity for that matter. My entire life, Ive been raised
around people who arent straight. Theyre family, theyre friends, theyre even
people that Im not particularly fond of. At the risk of arrogance, prior to this report
I wouldve said that I was more or less competent when it came to this particular
issue. But, in preparing this report, and upon really delving into my reasoning and
support for the LGBTQ community, I found myself honestly somewhat stumped:
why do I unequivocally and whole-heartedly advocate same sex marriage?
Simple reasons like its just the right thing to do, and be on the right side of
history hold validity in their own regard, but theyre just simply not enough for
me. I couldnt for the life of me find any conclusive answers, nothing that was

resolute enough. But I think I found one conclusive question that

comprehensively addresses the root of my initial question and gives direction:
How well do I understand the opposition? Am I at all familiar with their points,
their motivations, and their method of argumentation? And, in attempting
understanding the opposition, to what degree, if any will that affect my previous
stance on same sex marriage, despite my previous biases?!

!
!

In looking at this issue, I initially decided to familiarize myself with the

various views and stances of same sex marriage opponents, all while looking for
a specific argument to really break down; and while a large portion of the
argumentation is religious in nature, Im aiming to find moral stances that exist
outside any religious realms. Typical argumentation can range anywhere from
disputing the ability of a same sex couple to parent a child, to distinguishing the
actual function of marriage itself, whether or not it solely functions as an
economic tool, a reproductive tool, and just how same sex marriage challenges
our institution of traditional marriage. Reproduction seemingly plays a key role
in the evidence offered by the same sex marriage opposition, and it also falls
outside of the sphere of religion, for the most part. What Ive found in terms of
reasoning, or addressing these problems logically, however, delves into the
mechanisms of argumentation. One common argument made against same sex

marriage proponents is the case for procreation, or more specifically, the notion
that homosexual couples CANNOT reproduce, while heterosexual couples can,
and that the inability to procreate, yet perpetuating an established relationship, is
therefore immoral. A large majority of these lines of reasoning are rampant with
what appear to be is/ought fallacies, also known as Humes Guillotine, and
they typically form the major contradictions Ive found in the argumentation
against same sex marriage. Now, the is/ought fallacy is essentially a assumption
that in turn implies justification, stating that because something is and exists a
certain way, it should or ought to be that way, jumping from facts to values, and
resulting in a sort of logic gap between the two.!

!
!

For example, again, a typical argument heard from same sex marriage

opposers is that Human reproduction requires both male and female; therefore
the right to marry should be solely reserved for a man and woman. It has been
this way, so it should be and remain this way. The main issue I find within this
specific is/ought fallacy scenario is that it doesnt really offer any sort of concrete
proof detailing why the inability to procreate makes same sex marriage or
relationships wrong, Yes, this kind of union is indeed a portrayal of our
traditional institution of marriage, but it seems that the assumption that
consistently follows is that any deviation from this orthodox view of marriage is

explicitly immoral. Relying so heavily on implication doesnt pass as an excuse

for solid conclusions. This is a fundamentally flawed form of reasoning, in that the
movement made from factual observations to judgement of values, or in other
words drawing moral conclusions is not only relying greatly on flawed logic, but
mere assumptions posing as logical and sound conclusions, and therefore I
believe it negates procreation, or simply an inability to procreate as a justification
for reserving the right to marriage to heterosexual couples.!

!
!

Working in conjuncture with the is/ought fallacy in this situation is the

appeal to nature fallacy, one of the fallacies of irrelevance. It addresses another

assumption, that whatever is natural is inherently GOOD, solely because it is
natural, and whatever is unnatural is inherently BAD, solely because it is
unnatural. The main problem here is that natural and unnatural are neutral,
unaffiliated notions, and yet they are twisted into a shoddy form of justification. A
common claim made by opposers of same sex marriage is to the unnatural
nature of same sex relationships (as it behaves contrary to our present notion of
a traditional marriage). The issue that follows, however, is the fact that a
universally agreed upon affinity of natural doesnt exist; The good nature of
natural and the bad nature of unnatural are nothing but pre-conceived
notions. Julian Baggini states that "Even if we can agree that some things are

natural and some are not, what follows from this? The answer is: nothing. There
is no factual reason to suppose that what is natural is good (or at least better)
and what is unnatural is bad (or at least worse)." The appeal to nature fallacy
serves an immensely important role in clearing up a widespread issue in the
misuse and misconception of natural and unnatural. And their roles in the
oppositions arguments!
!

Its seems quite apparent to me that the fundamental factor of my stance

on same sex marriage is a logical interpretation and a thorough consideration of

not only my perspective, but opposing perspectives as well. I believe that any
view held by any individual is more than deserving of inquiry and questioning; in
fact I believe it demands a comprehensive examination. I am sincerely and
genuinely ashamed of the vehement opposition to same sex marriage, but I can
say with great certainty that I would be even more regretful if I hadnt made an
attempt at understanding the opposition. When I look at an issue such as this, I
dont feel a need to weigh the moral points, looking for a justification. I feel a
strong compulsion to factor a sense humanity into the arguments, and see how it
affects them afterward. When viewing the issue of marriage equality, specifically,
I find myself unwavering in my support. When I think of why I unquestioningly
support same sex marriage, I dont think of supporting legislation, or political

activism; I simply think of supporting people. Some might call it indoctrination,

some might call it comfort, and some might even call it tolerance. Truth be told I
may not be able to pinpoint exactly when, or even if I did in fact make a
conscious decision like that, but I simply choose to call it the company of other
people and leave it at that. And its been that way ever since I can remember.