Today's example comes from Fr Robert John Araujo at Mirror of Justice:
I have, both here and elsewhere, delved intothe equality argument for same-sex marriage. But in brief, let me demonstratewhy her equality argument falters by illustrating with one argument the truth thatsame-sex marriage is not equal to opposite-sex marriage: let us consider thattwo planets similar to earth, alpha and beta, are being colonized by humans.Opposite-sex couples are sent to alpha; same-sex couples are sent to beta.Neither planet will have the capacity to rely on technology-assisted reproduction.In one hundred years, more earthlings go to planets alpha and beta. What willthey find? They will find that alpha is still populated with humans but betawill not be. Her equality argument fails because the claims upon which it isbased are false.This is a version of a standard argument, that roughly goes like this: "equal protection" only guarantees equal treatment to things which are relevantly similar. There is some relevant difference between same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage. Therefore, it is not a denial of equal protection (or "invidious discrimination") to exclude same-sex couples from the institution of marriage.
The problem is that people like Araujo often miss the requirement of "relevance." Opponents of marriage equality like to point out that same-sex couples cannot, without the aid of reproductive technology, produce children. (They conveniently fail to point out that many opposite-sex couples, likewise, cannot produce children without the aid of reproductive technology.) But they are completely unable to present a convincing argument that the difference in question, real as it is, is relevant to discrimination in the institution of marriage.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder