This is such a simple concept that it just baffles me how this could be seen any other way. I would, however, qualify this by making the point that we should treat homosexuals with love because they’re person just like us. Their actions may be sinful and indeed in need of a savior, but let’s not forget that we are just like them, if not worse. But please, don’t think that they somehow have a right to be treated as equal to marriage. This is no more the case than someone who asserts that a driver’s license should give that person a license to fly an airplane. There’s a substantial difference between the two. If you allow for one exception, then you allow for all other exceptions. Marriage license can be reduced to mean anything you please. Want to marry a dog? Go ahead. Want to marry your friend? Go ahead. As you do that, I’m going to flying an airplane now. Let’s hope I don’t crash!
9 Responses to Not Unjust Discrimination
Justin September 12, 2012
I don’t think that’s a fair comparison. People flying planes without licenses could only spell disaster. It’s why we have those laws in place. The same thing is heavily debated for SSM.
Gil Sanders September 12, 2012
True. But I think SSM spells disaster as well – both morally, and socially.
Justin September 12, 2012
That’s exactly what we’re debating, though. Sure, the chart may make sense to you. But it’s not going to be a ‘gotcha!” moment against SSM advocates
.
Gil Sanders September 12, 2012
But that’s just a side point of the post, the main focus is on discrimination. And indeed, all SSM advocates with any understanding of the nature of things would have to acknowledge that their relationship is distinct from one male and one female – both in nature and in purpose.
Lerrrr September 15, 2012
SSM marriage advocates would argue that there are no SIGNIFICANT differences which justify this particular difference in treatment. This much is debatable as it depends entirely on how you define marriage, and there is no universal agreement on this. There is universal agreement about how one drives a car and how one drives a plane. So I don’t think the two are the same – like Justin said, I suspect you are more inclined to agree with the comparison the chart makes as you already agreed with it before you saw it!
Also I must complain about the argument that “if you allow one exception, then you allow all other exceptions” – this is untrue! It is the same logic that people who are against gun ownership use: if you allow people to own handguns, well then you must also allow them to own grenades, and weapons of mass destruction…….it simply doesn’t follow. There are different arguments to be made for and against different situations and ideas, you cannot arbitrarily lump together many different situations of completely different types.
Gil Sanders September 16, 2012
Lerrrr,
They certainly would argue that, but it is self-evident that there is a significant difference between a male and a female. Both of them are biologically and psychologically purposed for each other. This in turn leads to procreation, the very essence of a one flesh union. No amount of denial can substantiate the claim that a homosexual is of its own nature capable of procreation. Furthermore, SSM is of the same sex and if there is a significant difference between sexes as there clearly is, then traditional marriage is necessarily significantly different because both parties are of the opposite sex.
To understand the image, I think you need to understand the context. SSM advocates argue that different treatment is necessarily discrimination. This concept is not exclusive to them, however, as some think that this principle should be applied in the government where minorities receive special treatment because of their race, rather than their skills. The photo is only refuting the notion that “treating things differently” is discrimination, it is not dependent on how you define marriage.
To quickly respond to your other argument, I think it’s easy to show that self-defense is not the same as national defense. A right to a weapon is limited by the nature of the body – whether it be an individual, family, or a society. I do not think it’s fair to refute my application of that principle (one exception allows for all exceptions) by comparing it to an unsound application of that principle. For example, if you give special treatment to one minority in your business, then by principle you allow all other minorities to receive special treatment. That’s certainly a valid application of my principle, isn’t it? So really, this comes down to your disagreement over that being the case rather than it being a “logical fallacy” of sorts. As such, it is best to deal with my argument rather than compare it to a flawed application of it.
Lerrrr September 18, 2012
1) It is evident that generally they are significant differences between a male and a female (it is also evident, by the way, that within “male” and “female” there are also significant differences). However that’s not what I was saying; I was saying that a SSM advocate would claim that these differences are not significant to the discussion. And as I said, this depends on how you define marriage; you make claims here about “the very essence of a one flesh union”……..you are referencing here your definition of marriage, which I suspect would differ from that of a SSM advocate, hence my point.
2) SSM advocates (or any advocates of equality of rights for that matter) tend NOT to argue that different treatment is necessarily discrimination but that arbitrary different treatment on the basis of unimportant/irrelevant differences is discrimination. Those two ideas sound similar but are most definitely and importantly not; it is not self evident that because two things have a particular difference, that they therefore must be treated completely different in every regard, including with regard to the rights afforded them.
3) I disagree; in the same way that you consider it acceptable to lump SSM in with marriage to a dog (or a baby perhaps) under the banner of “all marriage other than heterosexual”, anti-gun individuals feel it is acceptable to lump handguns and weapons of mass destruction under the banner “weapons”. Whether your “minority” example holds depends entirely on WHY you gave special treatment to the one minority. Was there a particular reason or argument that this minority gave as to why THEY should receive special treatment? The only way it is a valid use of the principle is if the REASON for the special treatment was that they are a “minority” (as you have therefore implicitly stated that “minorities deserve special treatment”).
By the same token, lumping in same sex marriage with all other forms of marriage including to dogs and children is valid if and ONLY IF the REASON that SS couples believe they should be allowed to marry is the same reason given by couples who want to marry 1 yr old babies. I dare say that the arguments and attempts at justification are on different grounds, and it is therefore an invalid application of this principle to lump them in together.
Gil Sanders September 18, 2012
First, I should note that this post is intended to invite discussion on that issue. A SSM advocate cannot deny its significance to the discussion, however. After all, it depends on the idea that there are sexes at all to make same sex possible. And it is clear that their relationship is different than a relationship with the opposite sex. It’s just a matter of whether it makes a significant difference for marriage. Second, I don’t know many SSM advocates that argue in the intellectual manner that you have just described. I have personally met and debated many and only one person has truly discussion this issue in a rational manner with me. The others have just repeat the mantra that different treatment automatically entails unjust discrimination. Jean and VP, for example, argued in this exact manner. Third, I think all “rights” and all “ethical” principles are grounded in natural law. Thus if it is in principle permissible to frustrate our sexual organs, then it is also permissible to frustrate them in different ways – e.g, through masturbation, sex with animals, etc. And I hold to this claim because I think natural law is the only proper means of grounding morality. Of course all of this must be argued for and I completely agree! This was just a casual post on my part, it was not meant to be an “exhaustive” or instant refutation as Justin implied.
Lerrrr September 18, 2012
It’s just a matter of whether it makes a significant difference for marriage
Precisely! They would make exactly this point, in the same way that black people used to make the point that while they are physiologically different from white people, that difference was irrelevant to many of the issues relating to things they were forbidden to do.
The others have just repeat the mantra that different treatment automatically entails unjust discrimination
Well that just means you’ve personally been unlucky in who you’ve talked to. Talk to serious advocates of equal rights for either different races, different genders, or different sexualities – and they will almost always tell you that what they oppose is arbitrarily different treatment on the basis of irrelevant/unimportant differences.
As for the third point, you’ve gone on to specifically sex here when we were talking about marriage: my point is simply that you can only lump them in together to the extent that they are the same. Owners of handguns would argue that they are radically different in kind to weapons of mass destruction – just like an adult man who wants to marry another adult man whom he loves would argue that his situation is in no way similar to a man who wants to marry a 2 yr old child and have sex with them.