Welcome to Part II of Three Fallacies in the Gay Marriage Debate. Since the writing of the first post in this series, New Hampshire has become the sixth state to legalize gay marriage. The need for thoughtful, critical, and reasoned dialogue about this subject is needed more than ever as all sides marshal various rhetorical techniques to try to convince the American public of their respective views.

In Part I, I examined the argument that the existence of two genders proves that same sex relationships are unnatural. Using concepts found in Aristotle’s Rhetorica, we find that this is an argument from a non-necessary sign. In this post, I will examine two more arguments: 2) that same-sex marriage advocates want to force their definition of marriage on everyone, and 3) that male-female coupling is a fundamental aspect of the family unit, because male-female copulation is necessary for the survival of the species. I will show that these fall prey to the Aristotelian fallacies of 2) argument from exaggeration and 3) argument from the omission of when and how, respectively.

#2 Legalizing gay marriage forces everyone to radically change their definition of marriage: argument from exaggeration

The following excerpt comes from the National Organization for Marriage, an organization created in 2007 to oppose the legalization of same sex marriage and protect traditional marriage. On its website, the organization provides a tract that users can print out and distribute to their churches and communities called “Why Marriage Matters: Seven Scientific Reasons.” Below is an excerpt from the Protestant English-language version of this tract. I have highlighted a few words in this excerpt to demonstrate how the author uses exaggeration as an argumentative technique.

Same-sex marriage advocates want to force everyone to dramatically and permanently alter our definition of marriage and family.

The word “force” implies compulsion against the will, ignoring that the parameters of marriage are negotiated by members of society and, historically speaking, it is those in power who have “forced” their definition of marriage on everyone else. The word “everyone” suggests that all people must accept this definition, though states which have legalized same-sex marriage have taken measures to assure that this action does not affect marriage as it is performed within religious institutions.  The word “dramatically” presents the nature of the change in definition as a radical departure, wholly distinct from anything that has ever happened before, something alien to human culture, society, and civilization. The pronoun “our” in the phrase “our definition of marriage” creates an us-versus-them scenario, suggesting that only a marginal portion of the population wishes to expand marriage to include same-sex couples.

These word choices exemplify what Aristotle calls argument from exaggeration, and as Aristotle points out, this is not a logical form of argument. Rather than reasoning about the same-sex marriage issue, this excerpt works to incite certain emotions (pathos) in the audience such that any counter-argument for same-sex marriage seems oppressive and radical.

#3 Because male-female copulation is necessary for the survival of the species, it is a fundamental and necessary aspect of the family unit: argument from the omission of when and the how

My last excerpt comes from a piece by Brian Fahling in the American Family Association Journal titled “Activist Judges Misconstrue Equality.” In this piece, Fahling argues that same sex marriage redefines the essence of not only marriage but of what it means to be human. As a part of this argument, he claims that male and female procreative sexual unions are necessary for the existence and perpetuation of humankind, and therefore a man-woman family structure is fundamental to human civilization.

There are certain immutable characteristics of human civilization that have remained unchanged since humanity first appeared on earth. The most fundamental, indeed, the most indispensable to civilization is the male-female union. Every culture that has come into being owes its existence and perpetuation to male-female coupling where procreative purpose is a dominant feature of the union. There are no exceptions….

But there has never been a variant to the fundamental necessity of male-female union for the creation and sustenance of the unitive whole that is called family.

While there is an increasing consensus among anthropologists that there are and have been variations on male-female unions and the family unit, Fahling’s form of argument itself is fallacious, an example of the Aristotelian fallacy of an argument from the omission of when and how.

Fahling’s argument only holds if one ignores the differences in the circumstances between the inception of human cultures and contemporary society. Fahling is correct in stating that the existence and perpetuation of every human society has depended on male-female copulation. However, to then conclude that different sex coupling is fundamental to the family unit asks the audience to ignore the differences between the beginning of human of societies and their perpetuation in contrast to contemporary times.

In the beginning stages (when) of a human society, male-female copulation (how) is necessary for the existence and perpetuation of that society in order to reach a sustainable population. Today in the United States, population growth is at a current rate of a little under 1 percent, .975%. In addition, we have other mechanisms for forming families: adoption and various forms of artificial fertilization. Given the differences between our current society–population growth and multiple means of family formation–and the beginnings of a human society, Fahling’s argument does not hold. While this argument may be persuasive, it is ultimately logically invalid.

I would like to note that while each of these organizations has close religious affiliations, their arguments are not tied to a particular denomination or creed. Instead, they attempt to appeal to a wider audience that is vaguely monotheistic and holds to traditional Western views of men and women. These are not arguments from the pulpit, but arguments made within the larger public, secular sphere. It is my goal with these posts to constructively point out fallacies in this debate such that honest and open dialogue about this issue may take place. While this is a debate that stirs up the passions, and with good reason, it is my hope that we might also consider arguments from both sides with logic and reason.