1st AQ Feedback / Review of 2008

Arguments for Gay Marriage

Passage A

Argument 1

Premise 1: The Court’s obligation is to define the liberty of all.
Premise 2: State anti-sodomy laws violated the right of adults to choose how to conduct their private lives with regard to sex.
(Implicit Premise: State anti-sodomy laws imply ruling against gay marriages.)
Conclusion: That obligation could well lead the justices to uphold the right of gays to marry by revising anti-sodomy laws.

Evaluation: Premise 1 is not true. Not every manner of liberty is desirable, e.g. the liberty to indulge in voyeuristic acts, or the liberty to be cruel to animals.
Fallacy: Amphiboly – when one of the statements has more than one plausible meaning because of the loose or awkward way in which the words in that statement have been combined.

Argument 2

Premise: When The Economist first argued in favour of legalising gay marriage eight years ago ("Let them wed", January 6th 1996) it shocked many of our readers, though fewer than it would have shocked eight years earlier and more than it will shock today.
(Implicit Premise: The shock generated by such a sudden and radical proposition easily translates into opposition against the cause mooted.)
Conclusion: That is why we argued that such a radical change should not be pushed along precipitously. But nor should it be blocked precipitously.

Evaluation: Indeed, quick and heated opposition to legalising gay marriage should not be motivated by resistance to sudden change or shock alone. But is the motivation behind the strong reactions really that simple?
Fallacy: Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (a variation of false cause) – inferring that X must be the cause of Y just because X is followed by Y.

Argument 3

Premise: Loving, consenting heterosexual adults have a right to marry, if their act of marrying does not do damage to anyone else.
(Implicit Premise: Homosexual adults should enjoy equal rights as heterosexual adults.)
Conclusion: Loving, consenting homosexual adults should have a right to marry, if their act of marrying does not do damage to anyone else.

Evaluation: It is debatable, and therefore should not be taken for granted, that homosexual adults should enjoy equal rights as heterosexual adults in everything. There is also a suggestion in the argument that so long as one’s relationship does not harm anyone else, nobody should have any objections against it. Is it true that gay marriages are personal affairs that do not affect others adversely?
Fallacy: Complex question – a question that is posed in such a way that a person, no matter what answer he/she gives to the question, will inevitably commit him/her to some other claim, which should not be presupposed in the context in question.

Argument 4

Premise: Practices such as black adults marrying white ones were formerly banned but are now legal.
Conclusion: Similarly, the appeal to legalise gay marriages should not be rejected just because gay marriages were not allowed in the past.

Evaluation: It is true that there can be a change of mindset pertaining to what’s unthinkable or abominable in the past. But the analogy here is pointless if the reason for not legalising gay marriages goes beyond an appeal to traditional practices.
Fallacy: Red herring – introducing some irrelevant issue which diverts attention from the main issue.

Argument 5

Premise: Defining marriage as the union of a man and woman, some people therefore think that marriage cannot be extended to same-sex couples. The real nature of marriage should be seen in terms of a binding commitment, at once legal, social and personal, between two people to take on special obligations to one another.
Conclusion: Homosexuals who want to make such marital commitments to one another, and to society, are then preserving the meaning of marriage. So why should they be prevented from marrying each other as heterosexuals are allowed to?

Evaluation: The meaning of marriage does not only involve commitment. Commitment is a necessary but not sufficient condition for sanctioning marriage. Is there counter-evidence of how the marriage commitment of homosexuals would undermine, rather than uphold, the institution of marriage?
Fallacy: Narrow definition.

Argument 6

Premise: Legalising gay marriages will not weaken marriage as an important social institution or cause social instability. Allowing gays to marry would, if anything, add to social stability, for it would increase the number of couples that take on real, rather than simply passing, commitments. The weakening of marriage has been heterosexuals' doing, not gays', for it is their infidelity, divorce rates and single-parent families that have wrought social damage.
Conclusion: Legalising gay marriages is not a bad thing for society.

Evaluation: One reason behind the view that gay marriages will weaken the marriage institution is that it makes other configurations of unions, perhaps even polygamy, permissible. Reasons such as this should be addressed. Besides, it is not clear how does an increase in committed couples contribute to the strengthening of the marriage institution. On the charge of causing social instability, it is not shown how legalising gay marriages will not have this result, although it is probably right that the heterosexuals should bear some part of the blame.
Fallacy: suppressed evidence – where there is contradicting evidence, only confirming evidence is presented.

Argument 7

Premise 1: Some would say that marriage is about children, or is a religious act.
Premise 2: Marriage is not always about children. And if it is a religious matter, it is no business of the state to impose a religious choice. Indeed, in America the constitution expressly bans the involvement of the state in religious matters.
Conclusion: So it would be especially outrageous if the constitution were now to be used for religious ends.

Evaluation: It is not true that where it involves a religious choice, the state should not interfere. Qualify ‘religious choice’ – does it extend to matters involving, say, the sanctity of life and filial piety? Is it possible for the state not to get involved in religious matters?
Fallacy: Equivocation – putting forward an argument where a term changes meaning without having it pointed out.