Kolasinski is a jackass
Posted by: amalaproposmale on: July 7, 2009
While the title of my thoughts is definitely one of a position, and not going to be a fair fight, Kolasinski’s paper is written with MANY a logical fallacy, and the whole paper is based on many presumptions that only a fundamentalist could maintain despite frosting it over with the icing of secularism. But to get more to the point of the paper, the state of Maine is battling back and forth for the right of homosexual couples to marry. The legislature and governor have passed a law assigning the right to marry to homosexual couples. There is a people’s veto movement afoot to remove this law.
“
People’s veto effort is likely to postpone weddings indefinitely”:
This article states how in the state of Maine, after getting enough signatures, a ballot can be placed to veto any recently passed law. While this is a helpful tool, having the many vote on the rights of the few is a dangerous thing. Imagine if you would the deep south NOT having a federal government enforcing the rights of the many. Jim Crow south would probably still be in full swing, as the minority of voters would be the disenfranchised. With the possibility of this petition, many couples in Maine will not be able to recognize their legal marriages until the whole issue is resolved in November. My case states that ultimately there is no secular reasoning for the disallowment of homosexual marriages, and furthermore the rights of the minority should not be infringed upon by the religious beliefs of the majority.
The reason I decided to title my essay as such is the fact that while
Adam Kolasinski, a financial economics doctoral student, argues from an appeal to popularity, and a moralistic fallacy of “this is the way it seems to have been forever, so continue it” he also completely contradicts his own logic in one paragraph stating that a primary reason homosexual couples should not be able to marry is their inability to reproduce sexually, and then at the end of his illogical rant goes on to say that the primary reason homosexual couples should not go on to marry is so that no one can make arguments for future marriages based on their sexuality. Kolasinski states that sexual love should and should not be taken into account for this issue, this argument definitely follows the slippery slope logical fallacy as well, assuming that once two adults that love one another can marry, why not multiple numbers. He also states that a negative issue that will arise is lack of propagation of the society in terms of less birth children. This is a huge false dilemma fallacy, as is the case with China and India, propagation is not always helpful. All of his arguments are stemming from places of either false facts, false logic or dogmatic beliefs warped into secular clothing. Perhaps my title is purely an ad hominem attack on someone who is coming from a position of false authority, but I have yet to have someone posit an authentic secular argument against gay marriage that isn’t true of all populations.
Johnathon Rauch: In “Gay Marriage: The case for Marriage” Goes on to say the exact point, that while an opinion of what marriage is for, maintains no internal logical issues other than it’s being an opinion. Marriage is about love, and gay love is the same as heterosexual love. Gay couples have been proven to be just as good of parents as heterosexual parents, and a stable loving home is a stable loving home.
My feelings on it is this. The day that one can posit a truly secular reason for the denial of gay marriages, one that isn’t true of heterosexual marriages and is original, I will consider that and weigh it with the seemingly oppressive situation that we leave homosexual couples in presently. Until that day, let them eat cake… wedding cake that is.