Answer
Sully: I once lived in an apartment
next to a long-term gay couple. They'd lived together so long that everyone
in the building referred to them as "the old married couple." I got to know
them pretty well, and let me tell you, they acted just like a married couple
in every way possible. Among other things, they were mutally supportive,
shared household chores, did everything together and spent long hours complaining
about each other's families. As far as I'm concerned, they were married
in every sense but the legal one.
Ivana: Well, maybe they seemed to act like married people, but they
weren't married in any sense because, if you look in any dictionary, the
definition of "marriage" always includes the stipulation that it's a union
between a man and a women, so two men can't be married.
Standardization.
1. There was a gay couple that lived together for a very long time.
2. This couple behaved as a married couple in every way possible.
(3. Being married is primarily defined in terms of people's behavior.)
(4. The condition of being married is not limited merely to those who are "married" in a legal sense.)
C. This couple was married, although not legally. (explanation - direct
argument.)
1. All dictionaries define marriage exclusively in terms of a man and a woman.
2. A gay (male) couple consists of two men.
C. A gay (male) couple cannot be married. (deductive - opposing argument.)
Burden of proof is a little difficult here because, unlike morality, marriage is a social
and legal construct as well as a particular kind of relationship. Is this an
issue about how we should treat people or is it an issue about how we should
use a word? If it's the first, it's a moral issue, if it's the second,
then it's just an issue of language.
The second argument commits the fallacy of redefinition.
There's two ways to analyze this, but both ways come out badly for the second argument. Consider the following two alternative standardizations of Ivana's argument.
1. All dictionaries define marriage exclusively in terms of a man and a woman.
2. A gay (male) couple consists of two men.
C. A gay couple's stable, long-term relationship, (which is exactly like a marriage), should not be referred to by the word "marriage."
If
the issue is just one of how we use a word, and you're used to using
the word "marriage," then Sully bears the burden of proof, because
he's proposing a change in the way we speak.
1. All dictionaries define marriage exclusively in terms of a man and a woman.
2. A gay (male) couple consists of two men.
(C. A gay couple's stable, long-term relationship, which is exactly like a marriage, does not deserve this same respect and protections as a marriage.)
Whether
or not Ivana bears the burden of proof here depends on whether or not you think
that a straight marriage deserves respect and legal protection. If you do, then
Ivana bears the burden of proof of showing why gay marriages should be treated
differently. If you don't think straight marriages deserve respect and
protection, then Sully bears the burden of proof.
Notice that both standardizations preserve the conclusion that this couple is not "married," but the first standardization makes this just a matter of language, while the second makes it a matter of how people behave towards this couple. The argument is weak either way, but the precise way it is weak depends on how the arguer intends his argument to be taken. Does he think that this is an issue of lexicography or of morality?
If he intends his argument to be merely a matter of language, (followed up by a suggestion for a new word, say "narriage," that would allow us to refer to both straight and gay deeply committed relationships), then his point would only make sense if people were seriously confused by the use of the word "marriage" in this context. Since it's hard to imagine that this would be a problem for anyone, the fact that dictionaries fail to reflect this usage of the word is not enough to show that we should not use the word "marriage" to refer to a gay couple who otherwise meets the definition of marriage. Remember that a dictionary is supposed to reflect the way words are actually used. It is not in itself a list of rules on how we must use words. A dictionary describes the meanings of words, it does not determine them.
If the arguer intends this argument to make a moral point, such as the conclusion that it is morally okay for the state, businesses and individuals to treat persons in deeply committed long-term gay relationships with less respect and consideration than they are morally obliged to treat persons in deeply committed long-term heterosexual relationships, then it is in even more trouble. Moral questions cannot be settled by appeal to a dictionary.
Fist of Death
Based on this dialog, the gay couple was married. As Sully points out, the couple acted married, and that's enough. (True, their marriage isn't necessarily recognized by the state, but the state can't legislate reality.) The question is does the word "marriage" represent something real, or is it just a meaningless technical term which can be arbitrarily set to "mean" anything? Obviously, we want words to mean things, and there's an important difference between a couple that's married and one that isn't. Ivana claims that they're not married because the dictionary defines marriage in a way that excludes them. But this begs the question of why we should take the dictionary as defining what words mean. Nobody goes around forcing us to use words the way dictionaries define them, but dictionary writers spend all their time finding out how people actually use words and changing the dictionary to fit. Ivana commits a redefinition fallacy by basing her argument on the dictionary.
Use your browser's "back" key to return to your place in the reading.
This Site is Proudly
Hosted By:
