SSM AND PARENTING: Lucia Liljegren

Recently, we have seen complaints that Gabriel Rosenberg's syllogism regarding gay marriage is logically flawed and lacks clarity. I am writing to suggest two possible alternative syllogisms.

Here is Gabriel's syllogism: 1 Parents ought to be married.
2 Gays are parents.
3 Therefore, gays ought to be married.

The syllogism has obviously upset those who oppose SSM.

It is my impression that those opposed to gay marriage might prefer the following, aka "Lucia's syllogism": 1 Parents ought to marry.
2 If gays marry, the fraction of fertile heterosexual couples who copulate outside marriage will increase. Some will procreate. Because gay marriage is legal, some fraction of these couples who might otherwise have married will not marry. So it is a "fact" that legal gay marriage will prevent the marriage of some genetic parents to each other.
3 Therefore, gay marriage ought to be prohibited.

Many supporters and opponents of SSM agree with my major premise, #1, in some sense. However, many supporters of SSM would deny my minor premise, #2; the existence of legal gay marriage will not inhibit the marriage of any genetic parents.

The other criticism might be that I snuck the adjective "genetic" and inserted the words "to each other" into statement #2, thus narrowing the definition.

These critics would disagree with: "Genetic parents ought to be married to each other." They would agree only with: "Parents who take on the legal responsibility to raise and care for children ought to be married."

Imagine! Now, I find I do not agree my statement 1! I agree in a statistical sense. However, in some cases, I disagree vehemently. For instance, suppose a 14-year old-girl were to be raped and impregnated by an unmarried male neighbor. These two genetic parents ought not to be married to each other. I would, in fact, support laws forbidding the marriage of any 14 year old girl to anyone!

Let me now examine the statement my pro-SSM critics tell me they thought I meant: "Parents who raise children ought to be married." I always agree with this! (However, to be clear, I mean "ought to" in the sense of "are advised to.")

Having evaluated "Lucia's syllogism," I conclude that it is pitifully flawed.

May I suggest this revision to Gabriel Rosenberg's syllogism, which unfortunately, lacks the brevity of the original:

1 Parents who take on the legal responsibility to care and raise children ought to be married.
2 Some gays have taken on the legal responsibility to care for and raise children.
3 Therefore, some gays ought to be married.
posted by Eve at 11:24 AM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home