Critiquing: Should I Call a Man’s Partner His Husband if They’re Legally Married?

December 14, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Terminology Issues — Marriage Definition — Legal vs Moral — Linguistic Influence — Pastoral Concerns

---

Introduction

The content discusses whether it is appropriate to refer to a legally married same-sex partner as a husband or wife and addresses the presence of a socially transitioned individual in a church’s youth ministry. Here, I evaluate the logical coherence of the arguments, identify inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and potential fallacies, and suggest ways to substantiate claims and map beliefs to evidence.

Main Argument Analysis

Terminology and Marriage Definition

The primary argument revolves around the refusal to acknowledge legally married same-sex partners as husbands or wives. The speaker equates legal definitions with moral realities, arguing that legal recognition does not change the fundamental nature of marriage.

“The fact of the matter is this regardless of the law, this still is what it is.”

This assertion lacks coherence because it dismisses legal recognition without providing substantial evidence for a superior moral reality. The comparison to abortion fails as it conflates moral judgments with legal definitions, which operate in different domains.

Logical Inconsistencies

The content repeatedly uses reductio ad absurdum to argue against same-sex marriage by comparing it to the hypothetical scenario of marrying an animal.

“Can you marry your canary? No. Because that’s not what marriage is.”

This analogy is flawed as it sets up a straw man argument, falsely equating a consensual adult relationship with an inherently non-consensual and unrelated situation. The argument fails to address the core issue of consensual adult relationships deserving legal recognition.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

Claims regarding the impact of changing marriage definitions on societal norms are presented without evidence:

“Now marriage is nothing. As someone once said, it’s just a list of names that someone’s applied the word marriage to.”

This is an unsubstantiated claim that lacks empirical support. The obligation to substantiate such claims lies in providing data or research showing how redefining marriage leads to societal decay or confusion.

Linguistic Influence and Cognitive Biases

The discussion on language and its power to shape thought introduces the concept of “linguistic maneuvers”:

“The way language is being used to change people’s thinking about things.”

While language indeed influences thought, this argument overlooks the fluidity of language and its evolution to include new social understandings. The content shows a confirmation bias, selectively interpreting linguistic changes as negative without considering the positive aspects of inclusivity.

Pastoral and Social Concerns

Regarding the involvement of a socially transitioned individual in youth ministry, the content suggests a conflict between showing grace and adhering to traditional beliefs:

“It turns out that many times when we have to do the right thing, it creates an inconvenience, a trouble, a difficulty, a hardship for us and maybe for others.”

This stance highlights a tension between compassion and rigid adherence to norms, but fails to provide a coherent ethical framework for resolving such conflicts.

Recommendations for Coherence and Substantiation

1. Provide Evidence for ClaimsSubstantiate claims about the societal impact of redefining marriage with empirical data. For instance, studies on the effects of legalizing same-sex marriage on social stability or family structures would add credibility.
2. Avoid Logical FallaciesEliminate straw man arguments and false analogies. Instead, focus on addressing the actual characteristics and implications of same-sex marriages without resorting to unrelated scenarios.
3. Recognize Linguistic EvolutionAcknowledge that language evolves to reflect societal changes. Present balanced views on how linguistic shifts can positively and negatively impact society, supported by linguistic research.
4. Moral Reasoning and Evidence MappingEncourage mapping moral beliefs to available evidence. Discuss how moral views should be adaptable to new evidence, promoting a rational approach to moral and ethical discussions.
5. Test Alleged PromisesIf the content makes promises about the outcomes of adhering to certain moral views, propose methods to test these promises. For instance, longitudinal studies on communities following these guidelines versus those that don’t could provide insights.

Conclusion

The content’s logical coherence is compromised by unsubstantiated claims, logical fallacies, and biases. Strengthening the argument requires substantiating claims with evidence, avoiding flawed analogies, and recognizing the role of evolving language. Encouraging an evidence-based approach to moral reasoning can bridge the gap between belief and reality, fostering more coherent and rational discussions on contentious issues.

---

Feel free to discuss these arguments further in the comments section.