Perversion Leakiness?
Jun 19th, 2008 by Micah Tillman | 2 Comments |
One of the things that worries a lot of people about the legalization of same-sex marriage is that it seems to break a barrier without which an entire host of perversions could not be held at bay.
The reasoning involves a kind of Venn Diagrams approach, like my discussion of “semantic leakiness”: the circles tend to be leaky, and if you puncture one by having it intersect another, there’s not telling what from the surroundings will seep in through the breech:
There is a logic to this view, in that you can spell it out (even draw it). It’s not self-contradictory, that I can see.
The question this view leads you to ask is, “If government decides to condone something in ‘the beyond’ (something outside the traditional marriage ‘circle’) what logically-consistent reason would it have for not legally condoning everything in ‘the beyond’?”
_____________
Okay, so that’s the set-up. Later I’ll talk about why, if the actual logic of legalized same-sex marriage is adhered to by those in government, the above picture won’t actually describe the situation. (And therefore the fears associated with the above picture won’t have to kick in.)
(Of course, I’ve also argued that the actual logic of legalized same-sex marriage wasn’t adhered to in the CA Supreme Court decision . . . .)
Couldn’t have somebody run this very same argument in the days before it was legal to marry somebody with a different skin color: that’s it’s not so much this one particular issue as it is the slippery slope we’d be stepping on to?
From our historical vantage point we see, of course, that there was no slippery slope involved because there is nothing wrong with marrying somebody of a different skin color.
In my opinion, slippery slope arguments ultimately become a sort-of subtle question begging. In making the claiming that other “perversions” could result from admitting this perversion, we’ve smuggled the conclusion into our set of premises.
I’m not at all prepared to argue that same-sex marriages are what God would want. But for me, it’s a pretty long hike to go from “The Christian Church should not sanction same sex marriage” to “The American government should not sanction same sex marriages”
Interestingly, and perhaps hypocrtically, I find myself and others having done a flip-flop.
Many people argue that the government should not be taxing us so heavily and giving out aid: they claim our taxes should be lighter so that we’re left with more and can choose where our money goes.
Some Christians have said that God would rather the neediest not get helped than it be compulsory via taxes. In this case, they have wanted the government to be a-moral so that we can develop our own sense of moral authority as individuals. (The idea being that it is worth the risk of the neediest not getting their needs met if it grows people up by having to meet these needs individually.)
I disagree with these people. Ultimately, I think the government should act as a moral agent in this case. But in the marriage case I want it to be a-moral.
At first blush, I have to admit that it looks like I’ve got some inconsistencies to work out… But I think maybe the other side does, too.
Dude. Excellent points. That’s the kind of analysis more people should be confronted with.