Follow on Twitter
Subscribe by RSS
As shown by Cory Bernardi’s resignation today, the arguments against same-sex marriage are neither rational nor logical, says Dr Benjamin Thomas Jones.
Rod Benson and Senator Cory Bernardi
AS AN ACADEMIC and an educator, I am guided above all by Plutarch’s immortal words:
‘The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled.’
This idea sits at the centre of my pedagogical approach.
I have been blessed with opportunities to teach in many different settings. I have taught at Australian universities, comprehensive and selective high schools, private coaching collages as well as done private tutoring. In each case my unum ago was never to teach students what to think but how to think. To achieve this goal (and I believe it to be a noble one) I endeavour to teach my students some basics in Western philosophy. In particular, I find it crucial that they understand the logical architecture of a formal argument and understand how it can be tested for fallacies.
Having taught and studied political philosophy for close to nine years, I see the ability to engage in rational discourse as a crucial life skill not a mere academic pursuit. The ability to use reason and logic to test the myriad claims that surround us at both a conscious and unconscious level is key to making informed decisions. This is why I teach philosophy to even my youngest students. At 13 and 14, students have the capacity to weigh claims and to develop critical and creative thinking skills. Many of my most enjoyable classes have involved teaching logical fallacies to young people and then watching them apply those skills to the world around them (California State University has a great summary of logical fallacies).
I recently discovered the blog site of Baptist minister and ethicist, Rod Benson, who, among other things, is Public Affairs Director for the NSW Council of Churches. Benson is generally left-leaning (by Christian standards) and is a noted activist for several laudable causes including ‘climate change action, justice for Palestinians, religious freedom, and gambling reform’.
Despite this, he is a staunch opponent of marriage equality for homosexual couples. Benson has recently published an article listing his five ‘non-religious’ arguments against same-sex marriage . For a person in such a position of authority, with such influence and education, it is truly sad to see him put forward this impotent apologia for prejudice. Sadder still, the youngest of my students would be able to identify the blatant logical fallacies passed off as arguments.
Firstly, we are told that marriage ‘is intended as the lifelong union of one man and one woman’ and that this is the ‘natural basis of the family’. This fallacy is known as the appeal to nature and it should set off alarm bells for two reasons. Firstly, Benson seemingly believes that monogamous, heterosexual relationships are always the case in nature. If we leave aside the animal and insect worlds, which certainly have a different interpretation of natural, Benson’s false premise can quickly be revealed if he flips through his Bible, where polygamy and concubines are the order of the day. Benson is trying to suggest that Victorian era concepts of marriage are natural while, ironically, Biblical ones are somehow not. The second inherent fallacy in the appeal to nature is that it presumes that natural must be better. This is clearly not the case. Hospitals regularly keep people alive with pig’s arteries, pacemakers and a litany of very unnatural devices. This is not an argument of any merit.
Secondly, Benson tells us that marriage is ‘deeply embedded in human history and culture’ and that ‘those who oppose same-sex marriage do so because they respect the wisdom of hundreds of generations of human tradition’. This fallacy is called argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). I’ve already mentioned that Benson is guilty of an historical anachronism when he suggests monogamous, heterosexual marriage has always been normative. King David had at least eight wives and ten concubines (2 Samuel 3:2-5); however, his son King Solomon took polygamy to the extreme with over a thousand wives and concubines (1 Kings 11:1-3). It was not just kings, though — polygamy was acceptable for any man who could afford to care for more than one wife. Leaving that aside, the appeal to tradition is just about as weak an arguments as can be imagined. Slavery was condoned by hundreds of generations of human tradition also, as has the oppression of women. One might expect that an ethicist such as Benson would know that an injustice with great longevity remains an injustice.
Next, Benson looks into his crystal ball and tells us with unnerving certainty that ‘once the law is changed there will be calls for group marriage and other variations devaluing the meaning of marriage’. Really? This sounds remarkably like what Cory Bernardi said yesterday and resigned as Tony Abbott’s parliamentary secretary over today.
Let’s just digress for a moment to recall what Bernardi said yesterday. From The Australian (19/9/12):
During a debate last night over proposed gay marriage laws, Senator Bernardi said legalising same-sex unions would prompt calls for more extreme changes.
“The next step … is having three people that love each other be able to enter into a permanent union endorsed by society, or four people,” Senator Bernardi said.
“There are even some creepy people out there, who say that it’s OK to have consensual sexual relations between humans and animals. Will that be a future step?”
What possible evidence is there to support Bernardi and Benson? Leave aside the stinging irony that so many of Benson’s Biblical heroes were quite the fans of group marriage — is there a lobby group for group marriage or have any of the same-sex rights activists ever indicated this is on the agenda? This logical fallacy is worst of the lot. It is called a non sequitur (does not follow) and means the conclusion does not follow the evidence. This is bottom of the barrel stuff. No attempt is made to explain how or why a heterosexual marriage will be devalued if loving homosexual couples are afforded equal rights and no attempt is made to justify the claim that this will inevitably lead to a push for group marriage or anything else. In the absence of a single logical argument, the strategy is to spread fear that the sky will fall in if homosexual couples are afforded the same rights heterosexual couples have always enjoyed.
Fourth, Benson says that ‘in the absence of children conceived and born through natural means, same-sex couples may resort to IVF or surrogacy to procure children’. Benson immediately stumbles into his own contradictions here and makes no attempt to explain why it is ethically fine for a heterosexual couple to explore these ‘unnatural’ avenues, but not for homosexual couples. We are left with nothing but a value statement and a false, prejudicial binary. Heterosexual couples will be loving, nurturing carers of children; homosexuals will not. Benson claims to worry only about the wellbeing of the children, noting the possible commodification of babies and human rights abuses in other countries. The most petty and cruel of his non-arguments is that IVF or surrogacy for same-sex couples would involve ‘the allocation of scarce medical resources’. Would he dare to tell a heterosexual couple using IVF that they are wasting scarce medical resources? The argument is completely invalid as Benson makes no attempt whatsoever to justify his premise.
Finally, despite his promise, Benson does not have a fifth argument. Having exhausted his ideas, he embarks on a short tirade against those who compare the struggle for marriage equality to the fight for civil rights in the 1960s. It is curious to note that the same logical fallacies – the appeal to nature, tradition and the ‘opening the door to other evils’ argument –were all used by conservatives when they fought against racial equality. Desperate to avoid sounding like a bigot, Benson closes his article declaring:
‘…to hold that marriage is the exclusive union of a man and a woman is neither discriminatory nor unjust, but common sense’.
The article finishes as it began, with a logical fallacy, in this case argumentum ad populum (appeal to popularism). Of course, just because something appears to be common sense, and a large number of people agree, does not make it true.
We were promised five, but Benson has failed to present one single logical argument against same-sex marriage.
His blog promises that he will soon present five religious reasons to oppose marriage equality. This is telling and I suspect he will feel on much safer ground if he can appeal to the Bible rather than logic.
The argument against same-sex marriage is not rational or logical, it is grounded in bigotry — and Christianity, sadly, has been partly guilty in spreading and perpetuating this needless prejudice. There is a large and growing wing of Christianity which is able to see this discrimination for what it is. I truly hope that Rod Benson, who fights for so many wonderful causes, will eventually reconsider his position on this one.
The psychological trauma this draconian attitude causes for same-sex couples, especially Christian same-sex couples, is enormous. If you do believe in a creator God, then God made homosexuals that way and He doesn’t make mistakes. I would encourage you to listen to Matthew Vines excellent response to years of institutionalised homophobia in the Church. when asked what was the greatest commandment, Jesus said simply:
‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and … Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’ (Matthew 22:37-39).
If more Christians were dedicated to loving their neigbour rather than judging their sexual preference, the world would be a far better place.
Editor’s note to Rod Benson: If you feel I have taken you out of context, or if you would like to reply to this article, IA would be more than happy to publish your response in full on this site.
(You can read more by Dr Benjamin Thomas Jones on his blog Thematic Musings.)
13 Comments
I am sick of these bigots being given so much oxygen.
trouble is most of our parliament are bigots.
Cory spoke of when sex between humans and animals is ‘consensual’. Bizarre.
If marriage is the”natural basis of the family” then Rod Benson should explain to us why 50,200 decided to opt out in 2010 (Australian Bureau of Statistics on Divorces).
And I wonder if Cory Bernardi has heard of the following animals:
galah, jackass, monkey, goat, goose and flathead.
Those lobbying for same-sex marriage to be legalized dismiss the slippery slope argument far too readily. I’ve not yet heard anyone explain just how ‘marriage equality’ should encompass homosexuals but not, say, bi-sexuals. It’s simply naïve to assume that once ‘equality’ is granted to one group, those of other sexual orientation/preferences aren’t going to seek the same.
The gay marriage lobby has adopted the ‘marriage equality’ rhetoric (admittedly, quite cleverly) because it sets the context of the debate – that is, it makes it an issue of ‘equality’. It’s ironic that they would then apparently deny such ‘equality’ to those who Bernardi describes – for nobody seems to be arguing that bestiality and polygamy are acceptable. So why should Bernadi be dismissed as a bigot for his opposition to gay marriage?
Speaking of illogical arguments: if we added a third frame to the cartoon above (showing a 1960s protest against inter-racial marriage and a 2000s protest against gay marriage), and had a fat man holding a sign protesting “incestuous marriage” or “child marriage”, we might gain some perspective on what a strange debate this has become.
Marilyn I don’t believe the PM really supports the ban on same sex marriage. I think her stance can be summed up in three words: Joe. de. Bruyn.
He has delivered Gillards majoriy to her and will not countenance her support for same sex marriage. It’s de Bruyn who’s the bigot, Gillard is just his puppet while he holds that power.
PaulBaker as far as I know nobody has mounted yet an argument for polygamy or child marriage. Until they do, please don’t try to confuse the issues being debated. The “gay marriage lobby” as you call them, is using equality as the basis for their argument. They are not obliged to consider the merits or otherwise of polygamy or animal or incestuous unions simply because they are not being debated. Why should those considering any reform, whether it be gay marriage, or GST, ‘consider’ extensions of that reform into the absurd? Did you argue against the GST on the basis that once it was law, it would be only a matter of time before it was applied to other itmes, then raised? If not, why not?
Did you actually read the article or are you just refusing to accept its logic? You haven’t countered any of Benjamin’s arguments.
I reckon the PM is playing politics as well.
paulbaker : I would reckon a fair amount of bi-sexuals are married and if polygamy is consenual then why not ?. The important matter here is the legal protection of all in what is a fairly serious arrangement.
Frankly I am only interested in my own personal arrangements but I would like Cory to explain to me how a human could prove that the sex they had with an animal was consensual.
Mercurial, yes of course I read the article; though I’m only dealing with the admonition of Bernardi’s comments.
That nobody has yet mounted an argument for polygamy etc. is irrelevant – these issues should be considered, and ARE indeed being debated (as Bernardi’s apparently infamous remarks attest to). They need to be considered because they DO FOLLOW (contrary to Dr. Jones’ claim of non sequitur) from the proposed change to the Marriage Act. As you yourself agree, this debate has been framed in the context of ‘equality’. To then reject any discussion around which other groups might then be considered for ‘marriage equality’ is to undermine the very basis of the debate!
This is not a matter of considering “extensions of that reform into the absurd”, because such extensions are not absurd. Redefining something at a fundamental level so as to include an ‘excluded’ group will inevitably lead to calls from other excluded groups to then also be included. In fact, doesn’t your claim that such extensions are absurd admit that gay marriage is itself a non sequitur of marriage as it is currently defined? Isn’t this tantamount to stating “gay marriage is not marriage, therefore should not be debated”?
To highlight where this debate has really been confused, as I alluded to in my previous comment, consider the above cartoon which suggests that blocking same-sex marriage is akin to denying inter-racial couples from marrying. The latter is wrong because it is racist. The cartoon would have us then believe that denying same-sex couples from marrying is equally discriminatory. But this is nonsense, because in both contexts marriage is between a woman and a man. Denying a woman and a man to marry because they’re of different ethnic origin is not at all the same as denying a man and a man to marry. Inter-racial marriage should be allowed because it does not violate the nature of marriage (being between a man and a woman). Same-sex marriage should not be allowed simply because it would contravene the very heart of what marriage is. To say so is not bigoted.
Anyone who is seriously interested in thinking through “What Is Marriage?”, might like to read the following from the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155
(Incidentally, a peer-reviewed journal).
Hi Paul,
I appreciate where you are coming from but I think you are confusing a possibility opening up and a direct cause and effect. The non-sequitur is a logical fallacy that occurs when you try and state that if we move from point A down path B, it will lead to C. It may be possible to get to C from path B but in and of itself, it only gets you to B.
To give an example, the government might say, we need to raise taxes by 5% to cover crucial social needs such as an understaffed police force. If an opponent was to say, ‘this is unacceptable because after the 5% increase the government might increase taxes by a further 10%. This is a non-sequitur and a logical fallacy. Is it possible the government may increase the tax again? Yes, of course but that is not the issue. The opposition has completely ignored the proposition at hand which is merely the 5% increase. Unless the opposition can say why a 5% increase is a bad thing, they have not presented a logical argument.
The group marriage argument is like this (although Bernardi’s bestiality argument is more like saying a 5000% tax increase will immediately follow). If gay marriage is legalised that does NOT meant group marriage will be legalised – it does not follow, hence non-sequitur. Another debate would have to be held and the proponents of group marriage would have to make their case. In order for them to be successful they would need public opinion and political support to reach a critical mass. Frankly, this is inconceivable. Bernardi, Benson and presumably yourself are all wrongly assuming that homosexuals and supporters of same-sex marriage will automatically support further charges to the marriage laws. This also is plainly false.
In sum, the opponents of marriage equality are completely devoid of logical arguments so they prefer to argue against group marriage thinking that is an easier argument to win. It simply does not follow. I’m happy to hear any further comments but I have listened extensively to the opponents of same-sex marriage and have not heard a solid argument that doesn’t rely on religious intolerance or conservative smoke and mirrors yet.
Peace
BTJ
Hi Dr Jones,
I am currently studying debate, so please help me with the following problems I found in your argument:
- In your article, you connected Bernardi’s argument with Benson’s argument (which are not equivalent) and then attack Benson’s argument. You did not refute Bernardi’s argument at all. By doing that you was employing a fallacy called Straw Man Fallacy, wasn’t you?
- In addition, as paulbaker had mentioned in his argument, non-sequitur can’t be applied to Bernardi’s argument. In your reply to paulbaker, you argued that group marriage DOES NOT follow gay marriage. However, in fact supporters for group marriage can employ the same logical argument that is employed today by supporters of gay marrige, which is “equality”. Therefore, legalising gay marriage while not doing the same for group marriage would be illogical (and double-standard).
- To distance gay marriage with group marriage on the same logical argument, you then appealed to “public opinion” and “political support”, which is also fallacious in logical debate.
- The example about tax debate is not applicable, because tax debate is quantitative (how much is enough), in which people debate on how much the rate is necessary to achieve an administrative goal (budget, for example). While the tax rate can be adjusted over time, the same can not be applied to the gay marriage debate.
Thanks,
Tris
Hi Tris,
Great to hear from you and I think it is wonderful you are studying debate. I wish there were a few more people like you out there. It is truly sad to see this wonderful thinking exercise losing the prominence it once had in school and university life.
Let me run through your points.
1. A straw man argument is when you present a false impression of the oppositions’ stance so that you can more easily mock it. You can usually spot a straw man when someone talks excessively about what the other person says but with only minimal and generally out of context quotes. I have not done that here. Bernardi’s statement was quoted (and is infamous by now anyway). Benson was quoted extensively and I have offered to publish a reply from him if he feels I have taken him out of context. As for being not equivalent, you would need to justify that claim. Both have said that gay marriage will lead to group marriage. Benson then says other variations devaluing marriage will follow. Bernardi is different only because he actually specifies what that variation might be – bestiality. So the argument is exactly the same, gay marriage will lead to group marriage will lead to further variations. My refutation of this non-sequitur applies to both.
2. I’m not sure you read my reply to Paul Baker closely enough. Could advocates of group marriage apply similar logic about equality? Yes of course. But does that mean legalising same-sex marriage will lead to group marriage? No. It is a separate argument to be had. I’m surprised how many people struggle to grasp this concept.
3. Appealing to public opinion is indeed a logical fallacy but you misunderstand what ‘appeal’ means. In debating, an appeal means you a resting your case (or part of it) on some external authority. What I stated is that public opinion would have to be in favour of group marriage for it to pass. As we live in a democracy, that is a simple statement of fact, not an appeal. If I had said, ‘most people agree with same-sex marriage therefore we must pass it’, that would be argumentum ad populum.
4. Your last point unfortunately contradicts your previous points. You have said ‘While the tax rate can be adjusted over time, the same can not be applied to the gay marriage debate’. But wasn’t your whole point, and that of Bernardi and Benson, that once same-sex marriage is in, it will be adjusted over time to include others? In any case, the analogy does work. Opponents of same-sex marriage seem to have the idea that just a general ‘anything goes’ law is being advocated. Any specific bill will be tightly and carefully worded and the change will be completely quantifiable. The change will be, nothing more and nothing less than what is legislated and further changes will require further argument.
Thanks for reading the article so carefully Tris and thanks for holding me to account. I wish more people read the news with your keen eye. Best of luck with your debating.
Cheers,
BTJ
The crucial point, which I think same-sex marriage advocates fail to grasp, is that to make marriage anything but between a man and a woman is to fundamentally redefine it, so that it is in fact no longer marriage. To enshrine such a change in law would be to set a precedent which invites push for further change within the newly-established parameters. It’s a perfectly valid concern.
Ah, Paul, you are ignoring the second, implied part of the “equality” proposition – that there should be equality before the law UNLESS THERE ARE GOOD REASONS FOR THE DISCRIMINATION.
The point is that you, and the anti-marriage side, have not presented any good reasons for discrimination against gay people before the law. If you had any, you would not need to raise proposals not on the table – you could simply raise the problems with gay marriage directly.
You’ll notice that Paul and Corey never mention what precisely is wrong with, say, polygamy, because to do so would be to immediately identify why there are problems with polygamy that are not present with gay marriage.
(I challenge either of them to outline this polygamy proposal they fear, and why it would be a bad thing. They won’t, because they can’t, because to do so would be to destroy their attempt to link it with gay marriage.)
The slippery slope argument is a dishonest one – it’s trying to argue against A when you don’t have any arguments against A by pretending it’s the same as B which you do have arguments against, but not specifying the arguments against B because they’d prove that it’s NOT the same as A. It’s a fudge.
There are certainly good arguments against bestiality (animals can’t consent, for one thing, and is anyone seriously arguing that consent is not a necessary condition for marriage? How does an animal make a marriage-type oath?), incest (which is actually a CRIME because of the effect of inbreeding), and polygamy (how do you regulate partnerships of more than two people? What if one partner wants another to join and the other doesn’t? What if one wants to leave some partners but not others? Traditional polygamy, as practiced in societies where being gay can be punished by death, only resolves these by serious discrimination against women).
In short: either the problems with these other ideas are present in gay marriage, in which case raise them directly and tell us what they are, or they’re not, in which case they are a reason we would not have to pass them just because we’d finally recognised same sex marriage.
PS In what way does same-sex marriage “fundamentally” redefine marriage, Paul? Everything I do with my wife (we’re childless, by the way) can be done by a gay or lesbian couple. I don’t see why they are incapable of committing their lives to each other as my wife and I have done.