Critiquing: What if Two Men Who Are Legally Married Choose to Follow Christ?
October 30, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason
Marriage — Gender — Christianity — Compassion — Family
Outline
- Introduction
- Context and main question.
- Logical Inconsistencies
- Marriage definition and cultural vs. divine perspectives.
- Gender and reality.
- Unsubstantiated Claims
- “God’s purpose” and societal norms.
- Testing Alleged Promises
- Examining God’s promises.
- Evidence and Belief
- Degree of belief and evidence mapping.
- Conclusion
Introduction
The content discusses the dilemma faced by two men legally married and raising an adopted daughter if they choose to follow Christ. The central question is whether they should divorce and break up their family.
Logical Inconsistencies
Marriage Definition and Cultural vs. Divine Perspectives
The content posits a strict definition of marriage, asserting that “Two men who are together through so-called legal marriage are not married.” The argument is that only a union between a man and a woman constitutes marriage in God’s eyes, making legal definitions irrelevant.
“Two men who are together through so-called legal marriage are not married.”
This statement reflects a logical inconsistency by disregarding legal and societal definitions of marriage. If societal constructs are dismissed, then why should any societal laws, including those derived from religious beliefs, hold sway in a secular context? This argument undermines the validity of any societal or cultural norms, including those the content supports.
Gender and Reality
The content dismisses the concept of multiple genders, equating it to an invention of language.
“There aren’t 60 genders. There are two genders matching two sexes.”
This viewpoint ignores extensive scientific research and sociological studies indicating that gender identity is a complex and multifaceted construct. The dismissal of these perspectives without substantive evidence demonstrates a lack of logical coherence.
Unsubstantiated Claims
“God’s Purpose” and Societal Norms
The content frequently references “God’s purpose” to justify the repudiation of same-sex marriages and relationships. However, these claims are presented without empirical evidence or logical substantiation.
“They have to repudiate the marriage and disclaim it because that’s not God’s purpose.”
Such claims are based on religious texts and interpretations rather than verifiable evidence. From a non-believer’s perspective, this reliance on divine purpose without empirical backing is unconvincing and lacks logical rigor. The obligation to substantiate claims with evidence is crucial, and in this context, it is unmet.
Testing Alleged Promises
The content suggests that following God’s directives, even if painful, leads to ultimate well-being.
“But if we will trust him and let him kill our sin and go forward in that painful, you know, it’s not easy.”
To evaluate this, one could propose empirical methods to test the alleged promises. For instance, longitudinal studies comparing the well-being of individuals adhering to these directives against those who do not could provide data on the validity of these claims. Without such evidence, the assertions remain speculative.
Evidence and Belief
The content emphasizes adherence to beliefs without corresponding evidence.
“To follow Jesus, I don’t see any other way than repudiate the so-called marriage, the illicit union, and cease being romantically involved.”
A key principle in rational discourse is mapping one’s degree of belief to the degree of the available evidence. The content fails to align beliefs with substantiated evidence, relying instead on doctrinal assertions. This approach does not meet the standard of evidence-based belief, weakening its logical coherence.
Cognitive Biases and Logical Fallacies
Cognitive Biases
Confirmation Bias is evident in the selective interpretation of data to fit pre-existing beliefs. The content dismisses evidence on gender identity and same-sex marriage that contradicts its religious standpoint.
Logical Fallacies
Appeal to Tradition: The content argues that traditional views on marriage and gender are inherently correct, which is a logical fallacy. Tradition alone does not constitute evidence of truth.
“Marriage now are just names on a sheet of paper. That’s all it is. It has no substance to it at all.”
Straw Man: The content oversimplifies and misrepresents opposing views, such as the recognition of multiple genders, to refute them more easily.
“It doesn’t even make sense to say that I’m an ampersand gender.”
Conclusion
The content analyzed displays several logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and cognitive biases. It relies heavily on doctrinal assertions without providing empirical evidence to support its claims. From a non-believer’s and moral non-realist’s standpoint, the arguments lack logical coherence and fail to meet the standards of evidence-based belief.
Feel free to discuss these arguments further in the comments section.
Free of Faith 
Leave a comment