Gay Marriage- Confusing and Awkward?
The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill was debated in the House of Lords (upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom) on June 3 2013. There were many arguments against the idea of gay marriage as well as this Bill. The Archbishop of Canterbury argues that gay marriage would result in confusion and awkwardness for everyone .The following are a few passages taken from his full speech.
The result is confusion. Marriage is abolished, redefined and recreated, being different and unequal for different categories. The new marriage of the Bill is an awkward shape, with same-gender and different-gender categories scrunched into it, neither fitting well. The concept of marriage as a normative place for procreation is lost. The idea of marriage as a covenant is diminished. The family in its normal sense, predating the state and as our base community of society, as we have already heard, is weakened.
The statement above could be dissected into a syllogism like this:
- Premise: Same-gender marriage and different-gender (conceptual) marriage are not the same.
- Premise: Conceptual marriage is for procreation
- Conclusion: Therefore, same gender marriage is not necessary for the base community for society because they cannot procreate.
The soundness of the argument above can be revealed by breaking it down even further.
- Premise 1: can be contested. After all, marriage is “a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.” – Wikipedia.org. It’s the definition of the word marriage, not the difference in the sexuality that comes with it.
- Premise 2: can easily be contested. “The concept of marriage is not just for procreation. Individuals may marry for several reasons, including legal, social, libidinal, emotional, financial, spiritual, and religious purposes.” – Wikipedia.org.
Even though the form of the argument may be valid as the conclusion follows the premises, further evaluation reveals error in its content thus making it an unsound argument.
The Archbishop of Canterbury’s argument is unreasonable.Procreation is not necessary for homosexuals when they are able to can adopt an orphan and give them a better life. Gay marriage is not that confusing, it is simply the union of two people who love each other.