Kim Davis, Gay Marriage and Civil Disobedience

[The Thinker]

Alec, Martin Luther King Jr was arrested and jailed around thirty times. Was he wrong for following his conscience and breaking the law?

So Seer, would you also support a Muslim county clerk refusing to issue a marriage license to a man wanting to marry a Muslim woman on religious grounds?

[The Thinker]

And somewhat ironically you would object to us pointing out that the same arguments for homosexual marriage can be used to argue for both polygamous and incesteous marriage.

Nothing in the Bible precludes polygamous marriage, or marriage between a 50 year old man and 10 year old girl. So would you allow those to happen on religious grounds, or do you think the State should prevent them?

[Starlight]

To say that much of the opposition to interracial marriage came from Christians (and don't think I didn't notice the "conservative" qualifier that no one but him is using) back when such a thing was an issue is pretty much a nonstarter. Most people in America at that time were weekly church going Christians. Might as well say, most people who bought sliced bread were Christians. Or even, conversely, that much of the support for interracial marriage came from Christians.

I take it you therefore equally renounce and disown the idea that "Christians fought for the abolition of slavery", which I often see listed as being one of the historic great moral achievements of Christianity.

Furthermore, there simply isn't any place in the Bible that can be pointed to that demonstrates opposition to interracial marriage.

Bob Jones in his 1960 speech would beg to differ. In his view "the bible is clear on this".


The fact that polling shows people's views on gay marriage changing at the same rate over time as their views on interracial marriage suggests an underlying similarity in terms of how people are thinking about them:


A very accurate line can easily be drawn through each of those graphs, and those lines have an identical slope: 1.5 percentage points per year. I find the fact that both have both have changed at an identical rate over time and both have held so close to linear over such long periods (over 50 years in the case of interracial marriage) to be indicative of the fact that we're dealing with basically identical sorts of social change. So the data clearly empirically validates the idea that these two social phenomena are perceived by the public to be very similar, and does not support the idea that the public is thinking about them in very different ways to each other.

[Adrift]

I take it you therefore equally renounce and disown the idea that "Christians fought for the abolition of slavery", which I often see listed as being one of the historic great moral achievements of Christianity.

Nope. Christian movements, for Christian reasons, led the way in the abolition of slavery, and the Civil Rights Movement. As professor Yancey pointed out, the same cannot be said for the anti-miscegenation movement.

Bob Jones in his www.drslewis.org/camille/2013/03/15/is-segregation-scriptural-by-bob-jones-sr-1960/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz]1960 speech[/url] would beg to differ. In his view "the bible is clear on this".

Yes, Professor Yancey deals with that in his blog post.

The fact that polling shows people's views on gay marriage changing at the same rate over time as their views on interracial marriage suggests an underlying similarity in terms of how people are thinking about them:

Says you. According to Yancey, that isn't the judgement of those historians who've studied this issue.

A very accurate line can easily be drawn through each of those graphs, and those lines have an identical slope: 1.5 percentage points per year. I find the fact that both have both have changed at an identical rate over time and both have held so close to linear over such long periods (over 50 years in the case of interracial marriage) to be indicative of the fact that we're dealing with basically identical sorts of social change. So the data clearly empirically validates the idea that these two social phenomena are perceived by the public to be very similar, and does not support the idea that the public is thinking about them in very different ways to each other.

Similarities between these statistics has absolutely nothing to do with Christian opposition to gay marriage, which is what I was replying to. You're making some sort of odd association fallacy.

[Raphael]

There's plenty of both of those in the bible.

But you're wrong in that secular arguments based on a harm/benefit analysis of the pros and cons of homosexual, polygamous and incestuous marriages do not give the same results in all three cases. Homosexual marriages are clearly all benefit and no harm, whereas the other cases are not remotely so clear cut. Hence, funnily enough, why secular people strongly support the first of those and are not nearly as unanimous on the others.

And there you are objecting to me pointing it out.

Would you agree then that the similarity between the arguments does not make the one you support invalid?

Oh and talk to Boxing Pythagoras some time. He is an atheist and he has friends who are in polygamous (or atleast polyamorous) relationships who use the same arguments for legalising them getting married as those pro-homosexual marriage use.

Likewise those individuals who support the idea of incestious marriage (between consenting adults.....thinking about that recent case with that brother and sister, who met as adults and started a relationship even while knowing they were siblings).

They use nearly identical arguments as those pro-homosexual marriage use.

The argument that because some used a particular argument to try and disagree with inter-racial marriage does not automatically mean that people cannot legitimately use similar arguments in order to object to the legalisation of other types of marriage.

Just because someone misused a tool does not mean that it can't be used for legitimate use.

[Adrift]

Likewise those individuals who support the idea of incestious marriage (between consenting adults.....thinking about that recent case with that brother and sister, who met as adults and started a relationship even while knowing they were siblings).

They use nearly identical arguments as those pro-homosexual marriage use.

For another example of someone from this forum who actually holds this view, I believe Seasanctuary has stated that he sees no issue with consensual incestual marriage.

[Jichard]

And somewhat ironically you would object to us pointing out that the same arguments for homosexual marriage can be used to argue for both polygamous and incesteous marriage.

Nope. Slippery slope fallacy, since, for example, there are arguments against polygamous marriages that do not apply to same-sex marriage.

Anyway, for further background see:

"Rock-salting the slippery slope: Why same-sex marriage is not a commitment to polygamous marriage"

[Jichard]

He's wrong at any rate.

No, I was actually right when I wrote this:

That's false. For example, much of the opposition to inter-racial marriage came from conservative Christians, as does much of the opposition to same-sex marriage. And conservative Christians took many of the same arguments used against inter-racial marriage, and applied them to same-sex marriage. These included arguments based on the Bible. And much as with the fight on inter-racial marriage, the conservative Christian opponents lost the fight on same-sex marriage and their position will be relegated to the dust-bin of history.

That's why you weren't able to point out any false claims in what I wrote. In a bit, I'll go over some evidence in support of what I said.

To say that much of the opposition to interracial marriage came from Christians (and don't think I didn't notice the "conservative" qualifier that no one but him is using)

There's no need to act like one doesn't know what a social conservative is. Social conservatves back then tended to oppose inter-racial marriage, just as social conservatives tend to oppose same-sex marriage now.

back when such a thing was an issue is pretty much a nonstarter. Most people in America at that time were weekly church going Christians. Might as well say, most people who bought sliced bread were Christians. Or even, conversely, that much of the support for interracial marriage came from Christians.

There's a reason I said conservative Christians. Socially conservative Christian do not hold the same views as socially liberal Christians. Socially conservative Christians tended to oppose socially liberal Christians when it came to inter-racial marriage, integration of schools, etc. then, just as socially conservative Christians tend to oppose socially liberal Christians on same-sex marriage now.

As sociology professor George Yancey at the University of North Texas points out in this review

That's a blog post, as opposed to an academic. But if you want cite sources, then OK. I'll cite some as well.

"Same-Sex Marriage and Public Policy: The Miscegenation Precedents"
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/prebuilt/p...1996-1997).pdf

"[...] the Southern courts regarded marriages between blacks and whites as "connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them."9 The statutes prohibiting such marriages were worded at least as strongly as those of the recent laws against same-sex marriage: they usually declared such marriages void and punished their celebration with criminal penalties (109)."

"American Wedding: Same-Sex Marriage and the Miscegenation Analogy"
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handl...n=journals#106

"This Note compares the successful effort to legalize mixed-race marriage with the ongoing struggle to legalize same-sex marriage. Many of the same justifications for prohibiting interracial marriage are now vigorously proffered against gay marriage.
[...]
This Note demonstrates that the arguments supporting anti-miscegenation and gay marriage prohibitions are unfounded in reason, and concludes that same-sex marriage, like interracial marriage, should be legalized (94).

[...]

Arguments against gay marriage fall into three categories that are analogous to arguments proffered against interracial marriage. Opponents of gay marriage assert that homosexuality is unnatural, that gay marriage might encourage homosexuality, and that gay marriage provides a confusing environment in which to raise children (108)."

"Sex, Segregation, and the Sacred after Brown"
jah.oxfordjournals.org/content/91/1/119.full

This article explores how religion served as a vessel for one particular language crucial to racial segregation in the South: the language of miscegenation. It was through sex that racial segregation in the South moved from being a local social practice to a part of the divine plan for the world. It was thus through sex that segregation assumed, for the believing Christian, cosmological significance. Focusing on the theological arguments wielded by segregation's champions reveals how deeply interwoven Christian theology was in the segregationist ideology that supported the discriminatory world of Jim Crow. It also demonstrates that religion played a central role in articulating not only the challenge that the civil rights movement offered Jim Crow but the resistance to that challenge [emphasis added]."

"Loving for All"
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pdfs/m...-statement.pdf

Loving, and loving, are all about."

"On their wedding day, turned away by NC magistrates"
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...e22949817.html

Which supports what I said:

"For example, much of the opposition to inter-racial marriage came from conservative Christians, as does much of the opposition to same-sex marriage. And conservative Christians took many of the same arguments used against inter-racial marriage, and applied them to same-sex marriage. These included arguments based on the Bible. And much as with the fight on inter-racial marriage, the conservative Christian opponents lost the fight on same-sex marriage and their position will be relegated to the dust-bin of history."

Furthermore, there simply isn't any place in the Bible that can be pointed to that demonstrates opposition to interracial marriage. In fact, to the contrary, there are a number of passages that demonstrate support for miscegenation.

And there simply isn't any place in the Bible that can be pointed to that demonstrates opposition to same-sex marriage. Instead, many socially conservative Christians interpret the Bible in such a way as to denounce same-sex marriage, just as many socially conservative Christians (back in the 1950s and 1960s) interpreted the Bible in such as to denounce same-sex marriage.

Finally, just as we can say that there existed people who used the Bible to support anti-miscegenation laws, we can just as accurately say that there were people who used Darwinism to support the same. The common factor wasn't religion, as professor Yancey points out, it was a general atmosphere of racism, the belief that blacks were intellectually/biologically socially inferior.

I have no less (and no more) reason to think that opposition to inter-racial marriage was motivated by racism, than I do for thinking that opposition to same-sex marriage is motivated by homophobia. Similarly so for those in favor of things like sodomy laws that heped ruin the lives of people like Alan Turing.

The opposition to homosexuality by Christians isn't based on an atmosphere of "homophobia", especially in this day and age where homosexuality and coming out is being celebrated everywhere on TV, the internet, in pride parades, and pride months, at your bank, in your detergent, and on your bag of Doritos, and

Despite what you mentioned, homophobia still exists in various Western cultures, even though society is taking steps to combat it. Yes, many societies are transitioning towards being more open to homosexuality. But that doesn't change the fact that homophobia still influences the views of many people. A parallel point applies in the case of inter-racial marriage and other forms of racial integration. In the 1950s and 1960s, some portions of Western society were transitioning to celebrating non-white people more, allowing them onto sports teams, granting them moe opportunities in the entertainment industry, etc. But that didn't change the fact that racism stil influenced the views of many people.

Christians who oppose same sex sexual relations don't believe that gay people are intellectually/biologically socially inferior at all (well aside from one-offs like DE).

Well, many of those Christians think that homosexuals are morally inferior, and there are numerous studies showing persistent homophobia, including amongst many Christians.

Christian opposition to same sex sexual relationships is based on the clearly spelled out Biblical passages (both Old and New) on it as sinful behavior, or (typically in the Catholic Tradition) on Natural Law.

First, just because one uses the Bible (or Natural Law) to justify homophobia, doesn't change the fact that it's still homophobia, anymore than racism stops being racism just because one uses the Bible (or Natural Law) to justify racism. For example, take what I quoted above:

"Same-Sex Marriage and Public Policy: The Miscegenation Precedents"
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/prebuilt/p...1996-1997).pdf

"[...] the Southern courts regarded marriages between blacks and whites as "connections and alliances so unnatural [emphasis added] that God and nature seem to forbid them."9 [...] (109)."

"American Wedding: Same-Sex Marriage and the Miscegenation Analogy"
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handl...n=journals#106

"Arguments against gay marriage fall into three categories that are analogous to arguments proffered against interracial marriage. Opponents of gay marriage assert that homosexuality is unnatural [emphasis added], that gay marriage might encourage homosexuality, and that gay marriage provides a confusing environment in which to raise children (108)."

Second, as I mentioned above, nowhere does the Bible say that same-sex marriage should be illegal. Nowhere. And even if the Bible denounced homosexuality, said that homosexuality was morally wrong, said that God was opposed to same-sex relationships, etc. that would be utterly irrelevant since we don't make laws based on what the Bible condemns. For example, blasphemy, taking God's name in vain, adultery, fornication, insulting one's parents, etc. are all still legal, even though the Bible condemns them. Yet strangely, I don't see a mass of contemporary socially conservative Christians eager to make blaspemy, adultery, etc. illegal, even as those same socially conservative Christians eagerly cite the Bible as grounds for saying that same-sex marriage should be illegal. I wonder why? (*cough* prejudice against homosexuals *cough*)

[Jichard]

That's a blog post, as opposed to an academic.

This should read:

"That's a blog post, as opposed to an academic source."

[Starlight]

I feel like Adrift just won the prize for most inconsistent position ever. And that's a pretty hard prize to win on these forums...

First of all, he said that you can't blame Christianity for opposition to interracial marriage, because everyone was Christian at the time:

To say that much of the opposition to interracial marriage came from Christians... back when such a thing was an issue is pretty much a nonstarter. Most people in America at that time were weekly church going Christians. Might as well say, most people who bought sliced bread were Christians. Or even, conversely, that much of the support for interracial marriage came from Christians.

Yet when I pointed out that everyone was Christian at the time when slavery in early modern Europe was introduced, practiced, and abolished, and that therefore his logic would lead him to say that you can't praise Christianity for abolishing slavery, he responded:

Nope. Christian movements, for Christian reasons, led the way in the abolition of slavery, and the Civil Rights Movement.

So when everyone is a Christian, you can praise Christianity for the good stuff that happens, but not blame it for the bad stuff.

[Jichard]

Nope. Christian movements, for Christian reasons, led the way in the abolition of slavery, and the Civil Rights Movement. As professor Yancey pointed out, the same cannot be said for the anti-miscegenation movement.



Yes, Professor Yancey deals with that in his blog post.



Says you. According to Yancey, that isn't the judgement of those historians who've studied this issue.

Why do you keep citing Yancey, when Yancey is clearly not up-to-date on the research on this topic? That's clear even in the blogpost of his that you quoted. For instance:

"Ultimately, there is very little support from these historians that Christian justification has been the driving force inhibiting interracial marriages. Admittedly, it is quite plausible that I missed important works since I did not do any original historical research myself and thus felt little need to exhaust all possible research on the history of interracial marriage. Furthermore, I have not done any serious research on interracial sexuality for several years, and it is quite possible that new historical research has come out since the literature I cite here. However, unless there is serious research out there that says differently, it is not feasible to argue that resistance to interracial marriages was based mostly in Christian theology. However, now that this social argument has been made, there likely will be a revisionist historian who will pull together the material to make the case that historical opposition to interracial marriage is religiously based. Unfortunately, there have been actions from Christians in the past who will give them some material for that case, but given the current political environment, I will be skeptical of the timing of such a claim."

It's pretty teling that even as Yancey that there is much support for there being a Christian justification driving opposition to inter-racial marriage, he hedges his bets by pre-emptively saying that historians who provide such support are "revisionist[s]" falling prey to our "current political environment". That way, he can side-step any support he is provided. In fact, he engaged in this side-stepping when someone cited Fay Botham (who wrote "Almighty God Created the Races: Christianity, Interracial Marriage, and America Law") as support:

"Did a quick review of her introduction. She was kind enough to state that her goal was to make a parallel case of interracial and same-sex marriage. So much for objectivity. I also notice that she focused on two 20th century cases. The underpinnings of anti-miscegenation developed well before that. Notions of racial superiority and the economic gain whites enjoyed due to racism are generally seen as the origin of anti-miscegenation and even of racism in general. In fact the first organized institution to officially oppose slavery was the Quakers - a Christian group. The best she can do with cases like Loving and Perez is show that Christianity become a part of the resistance of interracial marriage, not that it was part of the original formation of anti-miscegenation. Credit for finding a scholar (although technically she is not a historical but an American Studies scholar) but given the overwhelming work cited above in the blog I am comfortable with my contention that Christianity was problematic in its failure to resist opposition to anti-miscegenation but that the case of it being the source of anti-miscegenation is wildly inadequate."

It's also telling that Yancey had to publish this as a blogpost, as opposed to submitting it for peer-review. Because if he actually had submitted this for peer-review, the reviewers would likely have either rejected it, or told Yancey that he had overlooked the work of number other historians and he should re-submit after he'd adequately addressed the work of those historians. For example, he overlooked the following work that's actually cited in the peer-reviewed literature:

"Sex, Segregation, and the Sacred after Brown"
jah.oxfordjournals.org/content/91/1/119.full

"On the whole, American historians have subscribed to King's version of the sacred history of the civil rights movement. Most books written about the struggle for racial equality emphasize the central role that religion played in articulating the challenge that the civil rights movement offered to the existing order of segregation. There are good reasons for this [...]

The religiosity of anti-integrationists has not fared so well in the scholarly literature. Some of the historians most engaged with the religious beliefs of civil rights activists have, almost in the same breath, denigrated the religious faith of segregationists. For example, David Chappell, who sees black Christian faith in the prophetic tradition as the key to the success of the civil rights movement, downplays the theological beliefs of white southerners and considers religious segregationists dupes at best. Harvey, Leonard, Charles Marsh, Wayne Flynt, and Andrew Michael Manis are among the few historians who have reckoned seriously with the substance of segregationists' religious beliefs [emphasis added].

[...]

This article explores how religion served as a vessel for one particular language crucial to racial segregation in the South: the language of miscegenation. It was through sex that racial segregation in the South moved from being a local social practice to a part of the divine plan for the world. It was thus through sex that segregation assumed, for the believing Christian, cosmological significance. Focusing on the theological arguments wielded by segregation's champions reveals how deeply interwoven Christian theology was in the segregationist ideology that supported the discriminatory world of Jim Crow. It also demonstrates that religion played a central role in articulating not only the challenge that the civil rights movement offered Jim Crow but the resistance to that challenge [emphasis added]."

And that's a paper from 2004, while Yancey's blogpost was from 2014. That's about a 10 year gap, which is more than enough time for Yancey to have become aware of this work, if he was really trying. So Yancey apparently overlooked quite a number of historians and scholars who provided support for there being a Christian justification driving opposition to inter-racial marriage. He'd even have to admit that that is quite a number to overlook, since he thinks that 6-7 historians is a significant number:

"I cited 6-7 historians, none of which locate religion or Christianity as the source of anti-miscegenation. That is not just a couple of people."

So yeah, I'd recommend no longer relying on Yancey's blogpost. It doesn't seem very reliable or up-to-date.

[Teallaura]

Nothing in the Bible precludes polygamous marriage, or marriage between a 50 year old man and 10 year old girl. So would you allow those to happen on religious grounds, or do you think the State should prevent them?

Um, on a, yes, it does. See NT. On b, good grief, have you read this book? The OT precludes this.

[Raphael]

Nope. Slippery slope fallacy, since, for example, there are arguments against polygamous marriages that do not apply to same-sex marriage.

Anyway, for further background see:

"Rock-salting the slippery slope: Why same-sex marriage is not a commitment to polygamous marriage"

And again you prove the point.

That does not stop those who are pro-polygamous marriage from using the same arguments.

The fact that someone uses (or misuses depending on your perspective) the same argument for or against something that a different group uses to argue for or against something else, doesn't mean that the argument is bad and should never be used.
All it means is that one group misused it.

[Jichard]

And again you prove the point.

Not really. You claimed that the same arguments that work for same-sex marriage also work for polygamous marriage and incestuous marriage:

"And somewhat ironically you would object to us pointing out that the same arguments for homosexual marriage can be used to argue for both polygamous and incesteous marriage."

I pointed out that was false, by noting that there are arguments againt polygamous marriage, where those arguments are inapplicable to same-sex marriage. So no, I didn't prove your point at all. I disagreed with it.

That does not stop those who are pro-polygamous marriage from using the same arguments.

No. There are specific arguments against polygamous marriage, where those arguments don't apply to same-sex marriage. Proponents of polygamous marriage can't employ the same responses that proponents of same-sex marriage used against those arguments, since proponents of same-sex marriage never even had to make those responses to begin with. Basically, you can't have the same response as Bob, if you make a response but Bob never had to make one.

The fact that someone uses (or misuses depending on your perspective) the same argument for or against something that a different group uses to argue for or against something else, doesn't mean that the argument is bad and should never be used.

That's just special pleading, where you claim that that form of argument argument is fallacious when you use it, but not when you use it. For example, suppose someone argues that:

1 : the entire car must be black, since the tires are black and the tires are apart of the car

This reasoning is fallacious, since whole need not have the same properties as their parts. To say otherwise is to commit the fallacy of composition. Now suppose someone else comes along, and uses the same form of argument to argue that:

2 : the entire house car must be brown, since the doors are brown and the doors are apart of the house

2 is just as fallacious as 1, since both 2 and 1 use the same fallacious form of argument (in the form of the fallacy of composition). Or to put it another way: 2's form of argument would only work 1's form argument worked. But since 1's form of argument does not work, then that means 2's form of argument does not work.

Now, I'm applying the same sort of reasoning to arguments against inter-racial marriage and arguments against same-sex marriage. Many of the arguments against same-sex marriage took the same form as arguments against inter-racial marriage, such that the arguments against same-sex marriage only worked in the arguments against inter-racial marriage worked. But since, those arguments against inter-racial marriage did not work and were fallacious, then that means those arguments against same-sex marriage were fallacious and did not work.

Here's some further background on this:

"American Wedding: Same-Sex Marriage and the Miscegenation Analogy"
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handl...n=journals#106

"This Note compares the successful effort to legalize mixed-race marriage with the ongoing struggle to legalize same-sex marriage. Many of the same justifications for prohibiting interracial marriage are now vigorously proffered against gay marriage.
[...]
This Note demonstrates that the arguments supporting anti-miscegenation and gay marriage prohibitions are unfounded in reason, and concludes that same-sex marriage, like interracial marriage, should be legalized (94).

[...]

Arguments against gay marriage fall into three categories that are analogous to arguments proffered against interracial marriage. Opponents of gay marriage assert that homosexuality is unnatural, that gay marriage might encourage homosexuality, and that gay marriage provides a confusing environment in which to raise children (108)."

"Same-Sex Marriage and Public Policy: The Miscegenation Precedents"
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/prebuilt/p...1996-1997).pdf

"[...] the Southern courts regarded marriages between blacks and whites as "connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them."9 The statutes prohibiting such marriages were worded at least as strongly as those of the recent laws against same-sex marriage: they usually declared such marriages void and punished their celebration with criminal penalties (109)."

All it means is that one group misused it.

What it means is that those forms of argument are just as fallacious when used against same-sex marriage, as they were when they were used against inter-racial marriage.

[Raphael]

Not really. You claimed that the same arguments that work for same-sex marriage also work for polygamous marriage and incestuous marriage:

"And somewhat ironically you would object to us pointing out that the same arguments for homosexual marriage can be used to argue for both polygamous and incesteous marriage."

I pointed out that was false, by noting that there are arguments againt polygamous marriage, where those arguments are inapplicable to same-sex marriage. So no, I didn't prove your point at all. I disagreed with it.

I did not say they worked, I said they can be used to argue for it.
Whether or not the argument works is something that will be seen. But I have seen those who are pro polyamorous marriage use the self same arguments.
You might not like it. You might think their reasoning is wrong. You even object to them using it because their reasoning is wrong, and therein lies the irony.

But they are still pretty much the same arguments (have a chat with some of them sometime.... I am certainly not saying you have to agree with them because they're trying to use the same argument, heck I will probably even agree with your objections)

No. There are specific arguments against polygamous marriage, where those arguments don't apply to same-sex marriage. Proponents of polygamous marriage can't employ the same responses that proponents of same-sex marriage used against those arguments, since proponents of same-sex marriage never even had to make those responses to begin with. Basically, you can't have the same response as Bob, if you make a response but Bob never had to make one.

There are specific arguments against homosexual marriage where those arguments don't apply to interracial marriage. Proponents of homosexual marriage can't employ the same responses that proponent of interracial marriage used against those arguments, since proponents of interracial marriage never even had to make those responses to begin with. Basically, you can't have the same response as Bob, but Bob never had to make one.

That's just special pleading, where you claim that that form of argument argument is fallacious when you use it, but not when you use it. For example, suppose someone argues that:

1 : the entire car must be black, since the tires are black and the tires are apart of the car

This reasoning is fallacious, since whole need not have the same properties as their parts. To say otherwise is to commit the fallacy of composition. Now suppose someone else comes along, and uses the same form of argument to argue that:

2 : the entire house car must be brown, since the doors are brown and the doors are apart of the house

2 is just as fallacious as 1, since both 2 and 1 use the same fallacious form of argument (in the form of the fallacy of composition). Or to put it another way: 2's form of argument would only work 1's form argument worked. But since 1's form of argument does not work, then that means 2's form of argument does not work.

Err, no. I'm claiming that just because someone used a similar argument to the one I'm using to argue for something I disagree with does not mean the argument itself in invalid. The point stand or falls on it's own and not because someone else used a similar line of argument to argue for something different that had a valid objection to it.

The arguments for/against interracial marriage stand or fall on their own
The arguments for/against homosexual marriage stand or fall on their own, even if there are similarities to the arguments above, as you yourself pointed out they have different responses especially where one didn't need a response.
The arguments for/against polyamorous marriage stand or fall on their own, even if there are similarities to the arguments above, as you yourself pointed out they have different responses especially where one didn't need a response.

Now, I'm applying the same sort of reasoning to arguments against inter-racial marriage and arguments against same-sex marriage. Many of the arguments against same-sex marriage took the same form as arguments against inter-racial marriage, such that the arguments against same-sex marriage only worked in the arguments against inter-racial marriage worked. But since, those arguments against inter-racial marriage did not work and were fallacious, then that means those arguments against same-sex marriage were fallacious and did not work.

And you're missing this. I am saying that it was the application of the arguments that was fallacious. Not the arguments themselves. And the irony is, you are quite prepared to claim the same with regards to theose who are pro polyamorous marriage. In that their application of the arguments is what is fallacious and not the arguments themselve.

Many of the arguments for/against polygamous marriage take the same form as arguments for/against homosexual marriage. And yet you are quite prepared to argue that they are wrong to use the arguments for polyamorous as you believe their application of the arguments is fallacious

Here's some further background on this:


"American Wedding: Same-Sex Marriage and the Miscegenation Analogy"
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handl...n=journals#106

"This Note compares the successful effort to legalize mixed-race marriage with the ongoing struggle to legalize same-sex marriage. Many of the same justifications for prohibiting interracial marriage are now vigorously proffered against gay marriage.
[...]
This Note demonstrates that the arguments supporting anti-miscegenation and gay marriage prohibitions are unfounded in reason, and concludes that same-sex marriage, like interracial marriage, should be legalized (94).

[...]

Arguments against gay marriage fall into three categories that are analogous to arguments proffered against interracial marriage. Opponents of gay marriage assert that homosexuality is unnatural, that gay marriage might encourage homosexuality, and that gay marriage provides a confusing environment in which to raise children (108)."

Many are prepared to argue that polyamory is unnatural (although there is probably more to argue for it being natural than homosexuality)
Polyamorous marriage encourages people to pursue polyamorous relationships (Richard Carrier would be delighted to have more people who are polyamorous around he considers it to be his sexual identity.)
Polyamorous marriage provides a confusing environment in which to raise children. (I recently read of a family in England where the child is being raised with three fathers and two mothers.)

"Same-Sex Marriage and Public Policy: The Miscegenation Precedents"
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/prebuilt/p...1996-1997).pdf

"[...] the Southern courts regarded marriages between blacks and whites as "connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them."9 The statutes prohibiting such marriages were worded at least as strongly as those of the recent laws against same-sex marriage: they usually declared such marriages void and punished their celebration with criminal penalties (109)."



What it means is that those forms of argument are just as fallacious when used against same-sex marriage, as they were when they were used against inter-racial marriage.

Which means your Southern states applied an argument using a flawed understanding of the Bible and a flawed understanding of nature (because it stems back from when different races of people were regarded as being almost different species, and in nature cross species breeding is pretty much non-existent outside of captivity.)

This does not mean that because arguments against interracial marriage had their flaws that all arguments against homosexual marriage are fallacious.

And the IRONY I was pointing out in my first post is that while we say that while the arguments against interracial marriage had their flaws those flaws don't apply to the arguments against homosexual marriage even if there are similarities; you do exactly the same in saying that the arguments for polyamorous have their flaws those flaws don't apply to the arguments for homosexual marriage even if there are similarities.




And seriously, you should try talking to some folk who are pro polyamorous marriage.