The Unprovability of a God's Existence

I submit to you a proposed proof, expanded on a basis from David Hume, that nothing can be proven to exist, other than the mind, including God, thus eradicating the possibility of any proof based on knowledge (not based on arguments a posteriori, or based on empiricism) of a god's existence, including the traditional cosmological, ontological, and teleological arguments, et al.

As a preliminary, I only ask that we accept the laws of logic as knowledge a priori since otherwise nothing is communicable or tenable without.  Of the laws of logic, I will only invoke the usage of axioms derived from intuitionistic logic, but claim knowledge of the excluded middle principle only as an indicator that a narrow acceptance of that which is logical still applies to the broader realm of sets of axioms of logic.  I make mention of this exclusion of the excluded middle, and others, because it is debated whether it is tenable (see Quine's Paradox).

1. The only way to prove something a priori is if its opposite implies a contradiction.

Let's first take a look at whether if the opposite of a statement a priori implies a contradiction, then the statement is true.  Given logic, we have the law of (non-)contradiction.  It says that two contradictory statements cannot be both true.  Now, the only way to test an a priori statement is to subject it to other proven or accepted a priori statements.  The only statement we've allotted a priori is logic, which means that we assume logic to be absolutely true.  Therefore, if an a priori statement were to be true, then the opposite (being a priori itself) would have to be false, by the law of non-contradiction.  If the opposite implies a contradiction with another statement a priori (for us we only so far have logic), then it must be false (because the other statement a priori is proven or accepted as true) and the original a priori statement in question is thus true.  Thus if the opposite of an a priori statement implies a contradiction, the statement is true.  Next we have to ask whether it is the only way. 

Of the six axioms of logic, three of them (commutativity, associativity, and distributivity) say nothing about why a proposition would be true, rather it describes equivalent statements.  Identity only says that which is, is.  The excluded middle only says that which is not, given that which is, and whose use in a proof invokes the law of (non-)contradiction.  Therefore, the only option left of logic is the law of (non-)contradiction or something derived from it.  Thus, by elimination and the previous proof that contradiction of the opposite proves a statement a priori, we have that the only way to prove something a priori is if its opposite implies a contradiction.

2. If something implies a contradiction, then it is inconceivable.

We, as human beings, are capable of logic, and that which is illogical is indeed inconceivable.  You might say that surely you can conceive of say a square circle by simply the fact that you can say it.  But it is not the phrase 'square circle' that is in question; it's the object the language is targeted at.  An object cannot both have 4 sides and no sides.  It's a contradiction and it's inconceivable.  You might be able to come close in having 4 circles with radii approaching infinity thus giving the appearance of 4 straight sides of a square, but in actuality it is impossible (or inconceivable) to have a circle with 'infinite' size radii.  We can think about it by abstracting from a finite case, but it can never be realized.  Similarly, the Penrose stairs might give the appearance of stairs in a loop that always increase, but closer inspection shows that this is an optical illusion of perspective and could never be realized in three-dimensions, i.e. the 3-dimensional objected that our brains try to project when we view the 2-dimensional drawing is inconceivable (try it).  More succinctly, you cannot conceive of something that both is and is not.

3. Everything can be conceived not to exist, except the mind.

I did make one change to the traditional way this argument is made, and that is the part 'except the mind'.  The only a priori that need exist is that thought exists and that there is a perspective that I call (or is called) me, or I.  To paraphrase Descartes: "There are thoughts as viewed from a perspective that is called I."  Why this might be the case is given by the statement in question.  We require the ability for things to be conceived, which requires that there exists a mind (defined as nothing more than a thought or collection of thoughts) to do the conceiving (not as a descriptor of action).  Thus, we require the small caveat of 'except the mind'.

What follows, then, is that the only thing we can ascertain is that there are thoughts which by all means does not necessitate for there to be a cause of these thoughts.  I can conceive thoughts to just exist in a non-temporal 'existence' of which nothing exists but thoughts.  Pain, laughter, anger, joy, etc. are all products of the mind which may always have existed in a determinate manner only as thoughts and not dependent on anything else existing.  Thus all things that I might conceive to exist externally from my mind can also be conceived to not exist - them being merely thoughts.  My body may be all an illusion, as might be the whole external world.  Time may not be existent as I can never be sure that what I thought before wasn't merely what I always thought when I reflect upon it now.  I might very well be a single state thought with an illusion of having previous thoughts (that being one of the thoughts I have now).  Therefore, everything that might exist, apart from the mind, can be conceived to be only a thought, and thus can be conceived to not exist outside the mind (or to exist as merely a thought).

Now, I know a lot of this is deeply metaphysical and in all practical sense is easily disregarded.  I won't pretend that I don't assume many things without knowing that they are true, but I will always acknowledge the valid objections to such assumptions.  Since proofs of a god's existence definitively relates to metaphysics, it is proper when considering whether a god(s) exist to ask ourselves all the appropriate metaphysical dilemmas, of which this is one.

4. Nothing can be proven to exist, apart from the mind, a priori, including God.

This is a direct result of our previous theorems.  The proof is as follows using the law of (non-)contradiction: Assume, without loss of generality, that something X other than the mind can be proven to exist a priori.  Then by #1, the opposite of X, namely that X doesn't exist, implies a contradiction.  By #2, X not existing is inconceivable.  But #3 says that everything can be conceived not to exist.  So by #3, X not existing is conceivable.  Therefore we have a contradiction.  Therefore it is false to say that something X other than the mind can be proven to exist a priori.  Ergo, nothing can be proven to exist, apart from the mind, a priori, including God.

This is the case for why a god's existence, or rather anything supernatural, is not provable, which should be indicative (or, rather, necessary) that all attempted and to be attempted proofs of god's existence based off necessity derived from a priori statements are both fallacious and futile.

The Impossibility of Evidence.

What evidence would it take for an atheist to believe in a god? This question comes up often enough to be worth a lengthy response, and, in short, my reply is that such evidence is impossible. I claim that any event that should ever occur to be observed by man that could suggest the existence of a deity will always, in every case, and indefinitely never amount to sufficient evidence for such an existence through no obstinance or arrogance of the atheist, but through mere logic and reason. My argument is as follows.  

First, I'd like to draw attention, yet again, to the heroic (arguable) David Hume. Concerning miracles, Hume stipulated that in order for a miracle to be accepted as having occurred, the falsehood of the testimony would have to be more miraculous than the miracle itself. After all, the lesser 'miracle' would be more likely to have occurred, just as it is more likely that I am typing this text rather than it just appearing without any direct or indirect user input. To quote Hume:

"When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion."

This fairly accurate worded phrasing puts the nail in the coffin concerning that which would be required for a testimony of a miracle to be accepted as factual. We then have to ask ourselves how such a falsehood of testimony could ever be more miraculous than the miracle itself.  

*On a quick side note, I can foresee the argument that my terminology only suggests that I will accept the more probable event, and that while winning the lotto is less likely than not winning the lotto, both are possible outcomes, and thus I erroneously equivocate the less likely (or improbable) with impossible. However, before you can suggest something to be possible it has to have been given evidence to support the claim. Miracles have yet to be shown possible and thus I do not run into the obstacle just described. Winning the lottery is indeed possible and has been proven so. Moreover, the analogy is a descriptor of what happened before the lottery numbers were picked, not after. After the lottery numbers are known, it's either impossible that I've won if I haven't, or impossible that I haven't won if I did. One merely needs to look at the numbers and submit it to the lottery board to find out. The claimed miracles in question have already occurred and their validity of being called a miracle is in question, not the perception that it has occurred.*  

When David Copperfield, the magician, made the statue of liberty disappear, no reasonable person thought that he actually made the statue disappear. To the viewer, however, the statue did indeed disappear. Similarly, we've probably all seen women cut in half with a saw and rabbits being pulled out of hats by many self-proclaimed magicians. While we do enjoy these illusions greatly, very few, if any, people actually think that the event was anything more than an illusion. Ask yourself why you don't believe the magician actually suspended the laws of nature; why you believe it's a trick of mirrors or the likes; why the idea that what you just witnessed was a miracle does not enter your stockpile of possible explanations. You'd probably answer because we know that people can be deceived. We've seen these tricks before, and some guy wearing a mask explained how a lot of them were done on FOX. But magicians aren't the only people or objects which are capable of deceiving.  

Lyre birds are capable of mimicking the most unusual sounds, including the sound of a chainsaw cutting through a trunk of a tree. We constantly deceive children into thinking there's a Santa Claus. Mirages occur to people travelling through a desert. Derren Brown can use his powers of deception to convert an entire room to believe there might be a deity, or to convince people that a losing race ticket is a winning one. Hallucinations will form to those who are mentally ill or extremely physically sick. People actually believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim and a terrorist, and the Saddam Hussein actually had WMD's. Hell, you've probably even thought that it was your left hand that was shaving your beard, looking in the mirror.  

Pick up any psychology book and you're bound to find numerous instances defining some sort of mental disorder which creates illusions. Are aliens really infiltrating our minds? Is the government wire-tapping my phone line? Am I the next Messiah? Why do the pink elephants steal my pillow at night? When will Nessy wakeup? Who is Bigfoot? We are in constant reminder of the ability of people to be deceived, and yet we never give them any credit to their illusions/delusions. On all levels, and in every corner of the globe, people are deceived, have been deceived, and will continue to be deceived. But what we have never witnessed anywhere near as much is the laws of nature to be suspended. Even if the miracles claimed by the various religions were indeed to have occurred, they are far outweighed by the instances of deception that is continually being put to use for bad and good intentions, and sometimes unintentionally. Thus it is always vastly more probable should you witness or be told by a witness of a miracle to occur that you and/or said person was deceived, and your first inclinations should be as such.  

But let us assume, for the moment, that by some 'miracle' the likelihood of deception was actually outweighed by the miracle itself. That what we saw really did happen and what happened went against the grain or was unknown of our current knowledge of the natural laws of the universe. Do we really attribute it to miraculous circumstances? When scientists discovered that light bent around a planet, did we think it was a miracle that it went against Newton's law of gravity? When the animist of old witnessed lightning, something they certainly didn't understand the physics of, did it command miracle status? Is birth still considered a miracle after biologists have dissected the process of specie fertilization; that of sperm and egg, meiosis, and mitosis? No.  

In any instance in history where there has been a verifiable observed seeming suspension of natural laws, it is not the event that is deemed miraculous; it is our ignorance of the natural laws. Never do we (or ought we) assume that which we don't understand a miracle. Especially since the introduction of quantum mechanics, even some of the most improbable and counter-intuitive events could conceivably occur by no suspension of what is natural. It will always be more likely that we will yet discover what happened by the natural order of the universe than for such an event to actually have ignored the true natural order.  

Lightning, medicine, gravity, stars, chemistry, etc were all once thought miraculous or magical and since then there has been substantial proof that deeming such things as miraculous is to admit our ignorance of natural laws, not of such events being actually miraculous. And since all of our current knowledge of the universe has been preceded by our ignorance of it, it will always undeniably be far, far more likely that we as of yet do not understand how such an event has occurred than for such an event to be truly miraculous.  

That is why no evidence will ever suffice for the proof that miracles happen. That is why the falsehood of the testimony and our ignorance of the natural world will always be far less miraculous than the miracle itself, and thus not command our belief. And that is why I, as a rational human being, will always be an atheist.

The Theists Dance - or Pigeon-Logic

Some years ago, a researcher named B.F. Skinner set-up an experiment where Pigeon’s were kept in a cage and fed at random intervals of time by an automatic pellet dispenser.  The pigeons were observed for any odd behaviour associated with the feeding.  What the results were was that the pigeons developed a sort of dance that seems to have evolved from movements by the pigeon when a pellet was dropped from the dispenser.  The idea behind this is that the food would come and the pigeon would try to copy its previous movements at the time of the pellet dropped before in order to get another pellet to eat.  If the movement seemed to work again in the future, that movement would be incorporated in the repertoire.  If the movement seemed to fail to get a pellet, the pigeon would revise or remove said movement.  On top of that, movements were combined in the idea that some combination of movements would and wouldn’t get a pellet.  After a while, the pigeons in their cages began performing elaborate dances including twirls, head bobs, and footloose all based on previous trial runs. 

Now the thing to remember as the dance evolved was that the dance really didn’t have any effect on getting the pellet.  The pellet dispenser was set to dispense pellets using a random number generator from a computer.  In fact, one not even need to know that the computer existed to know that the dance didn’t have any effect.  One could simply observe the statistical data and show no correlation between the dance and the pellet drop, and I doubt the pigeon itself thought of creating a controlled experiment to test its dance. 

For me, and probably for many others, this behaviour pattern is reminiscent of the irrational cause and effects that theists claim to exist that are due to the deities they respectively believe in.  It’s probably more readily observed by the more primitive indigenous people who perform rain dances and blood sacrifices for a good harvest, but it can also be seen in the more ‘major’ religions which historically have had many of the same superstitious rituals as the rain dances and blood sacrifices. 

Prayer is used by theists to achieve something they desire.  When it ‘works’ they think their god caused it and believe similar prayers will work again.  When prayer doesn’t work, they think they’re not worthy of the answer.  So they either conform the prayer to ones that have worked or try a new one.  As an example, when people pray for a loved one to be cured of cancer they probably go through a series of slightly different prayers until one works, or rather this has already been done and priests will claim to have the developed prayer already necessary to have the desired outcome.  If it doesn’t work, oh well, someone must have been doing something wrong or god doesn’t think it should work this time.  If it does work, the people will think their prayers work, even though all research into the effects of prayer have shown no effect other than a few cases of placebo (sometimes having the opposite desired effect). 

We can also see this behaviour in theists reasoning.  They’ll argue a point but then be shown that their point doesn’t work.  So they revise their point (by changing the words or the meaning of the words) or try a new one.  They’ll repeat this process and even sometimes come back to their previous points that they have been shown to be invalid in hopes that some combination of unreasonable points will make a difference or more simply for the single reason that the theist and/or his/her arguer has forgotten why the point doesn’t work.  Then all it takes is one or two arguers against the theist to fail to recognize a counterpoint (or give-up on the theist being able to reason) and the theist will claim triumph, even though subsequent arguers will show them wrong.  But it worked in the past for the theist, and by their logic (or pigeon-logic) there must be something right about their argument.  We can observe this readily in this group as we see the same people bring up the same arguments and get refuted over and over… and over.  And many times they’ll distance themselves from the original point only to come back to it again in hopes that such distancing removed any counterarguments.  This group is a testament to the claim. 

The basic surmise is that theists generally use this sort of weaseling, wriggling, and twisting of arguments or actions to justify their claims, even though any person could readily test their hypothesis and show it to have no correlation between the action and the outcome.  But showing the theist this isn’t enough because they will always claim there was something wrong with the experiment, not their claim.  Or if they admit something wrong with their claim, they’ll just argue that their claim was mostly right, but it just needed a little adjustment even though they and many others have undoubtedly gone in circles with their adjustments.  I suggest (as many others before me have) that pretty much all of theists supernatural claims (including witch trials, football team wins, lucky charms, etc.) are a result of this sort of ‘dance’ that theists do in order to make one falsely believe in correlation when there is none.  This is pigeon-logic. 

But if theists are so similar in behaviour to pigeons, doesn’t it beg the question of whether or not we should treat theists any differently than we do pigeons?  Should we feed them a bunch of uncooked rice? More importantly, shouldn't we not let them perch on higher ground so they can shit on the rest of humanity?

The Stone is a Paradox?

For those who are unfamiliar with the Stone paradox, it is basically this: Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that said being cannot lift it? 

It's essentially an argument against omnipotence being tenable since the question posed seems to give a contradictory response either way you answer the question.  If an omnipotent being can create a stone so heavy that said being cannot lift it, then said being is not omnipotent.  If an omnipotent being cannot create a stone so heavy, then said being is not omnipotent.  Thus we have the paradox.  There are other arguments against omnipotence, but I want to focus on this one. 

Introductions aside, there is something I felt wasn't quite right with the argument… not that feelings really have any say about it.  My question concerning the paradox is whether the question posed is a valid question, i.e. is it loaded or the likes?  So I tried to think of an appropriate analogy.  Since omnipotence deals with the infinite, I decided upon using the set of rational numbers (here forward known as Q). 

Here's the analogous question I pose: Can the set Q contain a rational number so large that said number cannot exist in Q? 

Any mathematics degree holders will tell you the answer is no and prove it so.  Would we then assume that the set Q doesn't really have the quality we assume, or alternatively would we assume that such a hypothetical number does not exist and therefore the answer is no by a vacuous argument?  Now, I admit there are some fundamental differences in the analogy given.  But let's use the ideas that might have been triggered by my analogy to try to understand the Stone paradox a little better. 

The Stone paradox starts out with the assumption that an omnipotent being (here forward referred to as OB) exists.  We can then consider that all things within the power of OB could do, namely everything – hence the transliteration 'all-powerful'.  However, there is one constraint that we would put on such power.  That is that an OB is restricted to logic.  What I mean by this is that OB cannot do that which is logically impossible, such as an OB cannot create a square circle (or squircle).  A square circle has no meaning and is logically absurd.  What is a square circle anyways? 

Now, within the set of things that an OB could do is certainly create a stone of some finite weight, and should certainly be able to lift that stone.  Just as certainly a rational number exists in the set Q. No matter how big a stone could be created, it will always have a finite weight* and so an OB should always be able to lift it by the simple principle that whatever finite weight (or force) that the stone has, we can assign a force to OB greater than the weight by a factor of, oh, say 10 (arbitrary number greater than one) which is well within the limits of infinity and would then automatically be sufficient to lift the stone.  You can continue to increase the stone's weight ad infinitum and you could still conceive a greater force than the weight of the stone.  So if the question were to be "Can an omnipotent being create a stone of any weight and then lift it?", we would have to answer yes. 

Return, then, to the original question: Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that said being cannot lift it?  What is it we're really asking here?  Are we asking about the stone or are we asking about whether an OB could lift it?  Certainly the stone is mildly arbitrary and as we already saw an OB can create a stone of any weight and then lift it.  We then seem to be asking whether an OB can do something such that the OB cannot do something.  Is that a valid question or not vacuous?  I don't think so, and I'll do my best to explain. 

No matter what size stone an OB can create, it will always have a finite weight*, as discussed, and so the OB will always be able to lift it.  So we ask to create a bigger stone, and a bigger one, and so forth till we get to a stone that the OB cannot lift.  But this is absurd.  As discussed, the OB can always have more force than a conceived stone's weight just as no matter how big a number you can think of, there's at least one bigger (actually there's an infinite number bigger).  So it's no longer a limitation of the OB's power, but a limitation of the weight of a stone.  No such stone could exist such that it would have more weight than what we could conceive a force having, just as no such rational number can exist that it is so large that it exists outside Q.  So by a vacuous argument, since no such stone could exist, the question is logically invalid because it requires a stone to have an 'infinite' weight– what we posed was necessary to not be the case when we consider an OB's power to have the restriction of logic. 

But perhaps there's something else that an OB can do so that the OB cannot do something.  We could ask: "Can an OB create a number so large that the OB cannot count in numerical order to it given as much time as needed?"  But again, such a number would have to be finite, and so the real question would again be "Can an OB do something such that an OB cannot do something?"  But doesn't this seem to be a loaded question?  You're both assuming that the OB is both all-powerful and not all-powerful, so of course you're going to get a contradiction.  It'd be similar in asking how nothing can have the property that it has no properties – it's a kind of word game.  What I pose is this: In the set of things an OB can do, there is nothing that would automatically lead to an OB not being able to do something else.  Perhaps I'm wrong, and I'd like to see an example of something that would make this truly a paradox. 

*A stone with an infinite weight has no meaning.  Infinite is not a number and so cannot  be assigned to a measurement for anything except perhaps abstractions, which even then tends to be non applicable as a measurement especially when you consider that there are 'different sizes' of infinity.

 

On Logic and Reason, the Bible, and A Priori Statements

The delving into metaphysics needs some clarification concerning objections to logic and reason.  The premise is the logic and reason are limited to understanding the true nature of existence because it's not possible to give the a priori statement in question because it requires that one uses logic and reason to conclude it.  I'm not going to argue against that objection because it is valid, though perhaps not conducive.  But I will argue against the Bible being the, or a, gap filler.

The first thing to look at is the premise that logic and reason are limited.  What this suggests is that while logic and reason are valid, they are limited to understanding the true nature of existence.  But what it does NOT say, and what I would suggest no one would claim, is that logic and reason is invalid.  Indeed, in order to have any sort of meaningful conversation, one requires the use of logic and reason to make communication coherent.  To accept logic and reason as tools of understanding is to accept that logic and reason are not contradictory, since by definition it necessitates non-contradiction.  Therefore, if there is a single exception arising from a separate a priori statement which removes the premise that logic and reason being valid, then logic and reason as a whole is invalid since it exists as a single a priori statement.  Since we accept logic and reason to be infallible (though human application of logic and reason is fallible) we must assume that should another premise invalidate the premise that logic and reason are valid, then we would throw out the other premise.  For a simple example, think about the premise that addition is valid so that one and one make two.  If we suggest a separate premise that gives rise to us concluding that one and one makes three, then we assume this separate premise is invalid, not the premise of addition being valid.

To summarize, I would suspect that we all believe logic and reason to exist and to be valid.  At the very least, logic and reason is therefore a subset of our understanding of existence.  To find an exception to logic and reason is to invalidate logic and reason.  We assume logic and reason to be valid.  Therefore, any premise that would invalidate logic and reason is invalid itself, and logic and reason remain.

Now the argument of the Bible comes into play.  The premise suggested is that the Bible gives truth to our existence (from here on out referred to as BB) beyond the limitation of logic and reason.  If we can find that this new premise leads to a contradiction with the premise of logic and reason, we will assume that the premise of the Bible is invalid.

As it goes, the Bible is in fact contradictory in its literal form and thus would necessitate an exception to the a priori of logic and reason (from here on out referred to as L&R).  Therefore we automatically can reject the idea that the Bible gives truth to our existence in its literal form.  Thus, in order for BB to hold weight, we must assume that the Bible must be interpreted.  As it is, the Bible has been interpreted many different ways that are mutually exclusive, as evidenced by the number of denominations of Christianity.  Since they are as whole mutually exclusive, they cannot all be correct and furthermore only one or few (if some small set of the denominations are not mutually exclusive) can be correct because otherwise they would constitute an exception to L&R.  Since this is the case, there is a very small minority of people (if any) who interpret the Bible who are correct in its interpretation.  But here's the kicker.  Roughly at least one person who follows any single interpretation will be just as convinced (or at least it cannot be proven otherwise) as someone else with another interpretation.  So how do we know which interpretation is the correct one?  In what capacity can we measure which interpretation is correct?  There is no answer to this and thus one can never assume to have the one true interpretation.  For any a priori statement to be made, it must be clear (i.e. not vague) and the very meaning of the a priori statement would have to be agreed upon or obvious, though not necessarily accepted.  Therefore, BB needs some extra clarification, specifically that it would be necessary to transform it to say that "a specific interpretation of the Bible, as written , gives truth to our existence" (from here on referred to as IB).

There's not much to say (that I know of) to someone who considers their interpretation to give rise to the IB in question.  All one can say is that there are perhaps an infinite other possibilities which could take the place of any particular IB (including other IBs) and it would suggest a delusion of grandeur for one to admit that only his/her interpretation is the true interpretation, though not invalid.  The only way to avoid this is to not accept L&R, which I again would suggest no one ought to or would do.  As it stands, the correct interpretation cannot be discovered by other a priori statements that don't have the same problem themselves, i.e. there is no objective means to discover the correct interpretation.  Since, then, very few people will agree to accept anyone's particular IB, it doesn't stand as a very strong a priori statement.  Moreover, interpretation requires another a priori of subjectivity, since interpretation is specifically subjective.  Specifically, one would require an a priori statement which decrees that subjective statements can be decided as true (from here on referred to as ST), for if it cannot be decided as true then no person can claim that their interpretation is correct, which implies that no person may claim any particular IB.  ST really opens up a whole floodgate of statements based on subjectivity including but not excluded to: faeces taste good as fact or theism is a good thing as fact (who's to say that these are not true?).  From merely an argument of absurdity, it would suggest that ST is not a valid a priori statement, and thus neither can an IB since it requires ST.

To summarize, BB is not sufficient in literal form since it would require an exception to L&R.  Thus, BB must be specialized to an IB.  IB is not self-evident, and requires ST.  ST leads to absurd statements (suggesting an exception to L&R) so we would/should not accept it.  Therefore, since IB relies on ST and ST is presumed not valid, IB is not valid.  Thus, BB in any form is not valid since it leads to an exception of L&R which no person ought to or would do.  Ergo, the Bible does not and cannot fill the gap (if it exists) where logic and reason leave off.

The Problem of Interpretation

The Bible is so full of contradictions that I need not delve into them as they can readily be researched by anyone equipped with Google and a keyboard.  Because of these contradictions, the bible cannot be taken literally, and I suspect that very few Christians indeed take the bible literally.  Thus, most all theists interpret the bible as they see fit.  But who has authority on these interpretations?  Which interpretation is the correct way to view the bible? 

When you take an English class, you inevitably are required to interpret some novel and write an essay about it.  It has long been stipulated that there is no wrong interpretation (so long as you backup your interpretation), and if you happen to interpret a novel differently from someone else then both views are accepted.  Indeed, most theists who are members of one of the over 200 denominations of Christianity agree to disagree about their varied interpretations of the bible – to a certain extent.  There are those who think you’re actually eating Jesus at communion, and there are those who think it’s only symbolic.  There are those who think that you have to believe to get to heaven, and there are those who think you get there by your actions.  Then you get to the interpretations that Christians more likely disagree to disagree (not inclusively or exclusively): women’s rights, homosexuality, abortions, sex out of wed-lock, contraceptives, indoctrination, etc.  But who’s right? 

Obviously, you cannot know how to interpret an object from the object itself.  There must be an outside source.  We can no longer ask the writers, and so far as we know they didn’t write out how to interpret their own writings.  So who do we get our interpretations from: the pope, the priest, your parents, yourself, the guy on the soap-box, the mentally ill, etc.?  Regardless of where you get your interpretation from, others will get theirs from somewhere or someone else.  Everyone will be convinced that theirs is right.  You might tell me that you just know that yours is right because you (and probably only you) truly know how to correctly interpret the bible because of your supreme closeness and understanding of your god, but then I’d feel obligated to send you to a Psychiatric ward with a toe-tag labeled ‘Delusions of Grandeur’. 

But here’s the question that’s being begged:  What are the limits to interpretation?  Who’s to say that I cannot interpret the bible as condoning child sacrifice, raping virgins of captive nations, going to war over religion, etc.? Who’s to say that I cannot interpret the bible as nothing more than the equivalent of Homer’s The Iliad where there may be some historical relevance but for the most part it’s all the product of human creativity?  Once you allow room for interpretation, there are no barriers to how much is to be interpreted and in how many ways. 

Now if you argue that there are some things to be interpreted and some things to be taken literal, you still have the problem of deciding which of those things are which.  You cannot have your cake and eat it too.  Further, it’s not really that you’re taking a part of the bible literally, but rather interpreting that part of the bible as if it were to be taken literally.  And so I am equally able to interpret that bible as not literal.  Let me explain: If you are to read a book as being literal, you need not read the book first before deciding whether it or which parts should be read literally; just like I don’t need to read a scientific book before I read it as being literal because the book itself is designed to be read literally.  There’s no interpretation either required or intended.  The bible does not have this quality – one has to read it first to decide which parts should be taken literally, and so it is for any book which has room for interpretation.  So, if a book is to be read for interpretation, I need to read it first to know which parts are to be taken interpretively and which parts are to be taken literal.  But then I am only interpreting those parts deemed literal to be literal; just like I can interpret literally Hamlet saying ‘Something is rotten in the state of Denmark’ as meaning there’s some organic substance decaying in the state of Denmark (maybe he was referring to his lunch and was getting hungry?).  The quote itself is not inherently literal, but it can be interpreted as if it were literal. 

So much emphasis is put on the bible and yet so very few people can agree on the same interpretation of it.  If you allow free interpretation, then I’m free to interpret it as a fable and equally as a guide (and proponent for) on how to torment mankind – and you should not think it wrong of me to do so since you allow yourself equal maneuvering.  If you allow for only your interpretation, then you delude yourself with thinking you’re the only one who really knows what it’s all about.  And let me tell you this: no matter how much you are convinced that you know the true interpretation, I guarantee you there’s someone else out there with a different interpretation just as convinced as you – neither of which can be verified since it is a completely subjective stance.  If you allow for no interpretation, you’ll be committed to removing all contradictions from the bible which would ultimately leave you with not much of anything.

The Power of Pasta - (Parody)

Let me bring light to one of the facts about noodles.  Pasta is a highly complex food source.  Indeed, pasta is composed in large part by complex carbohydrates – emphasis on complex.  From whence does the complexity of noodles arise from?  Can you really say that nature, or man, could possible have created such a complex system?  The truth can only be found by worshipping his Noodlieness in which you will find, as I and many others have, that his Noodlieness created all pasta in the beginning. 

All you pasta evolutionists will claim that pasta has evolved from ancient noodles such as those made by the Chinese.  Please, please tell me how the more advanced noodles like spiral rigatoni, or tubular penne, or Spaghetti-Ohs evolved from those flat egg noodles of the Chinese.  Moreover, how do you explain that both Chinese noodles and the noodles of today both still exist!  Explain me that one!  Besides, we all know that pasta was created in his Noodlieness’ image – that being of spaghetti – and thus the first pasta was spaghetti and thus being the superior one.  The fact that there is far more spaghetti in the world than any other pasta is proof that spaghetti is the superior to all other pasta, and also that it was the first.  If you try to show me evidence of Chinese noodles existing before spaghetti, it’s simply your inability to find examples of spaghetti before Chinese noodles or your reliance on your ‘science’ which supposedly can date food items. 

For all you unbelievers I ask where you get your morality.  I’m not talking about morality like the Ten Commandments, but morality concerning pasta.  How do you know which way is best (i.e. ethical) to scoop many of the various noodles into your oral cavity?  How do you know which wine to have with your pasta and which sauces go with which pastas?  Without his Noodlieness to guide us in our pasta morality, we’d all be eating lasagne with a spoon, or having white wine with red sauces, or putting alfredo sauce on Rigatoni.  We all see these combinations occurring in the world, and it is only caused by those who do no believe in his Noodlieness.  Indeed, show me a single person who truly follows his Noodlieness and who commits these atrocities to noodlekind.  Show me where I could find such a person.  You cannot. Moreover, most of the world follows the examples laid down by his Noodlieness, and thus it is proven that all people get their pasta morality from his Noodlieness. 

For any of you questioning the power of his Noodlieness, I ask you to create a figure eight out of a spaghetti noodles and then tip it over on its side.  Behold – an infinity symbol!  Even you cannot deny the fact that spaghetti can at any time be twisted into an infinity symbol thus proving his Noodlieness’ ultimate and infinite power.

Inferring Causes from Effects Concerning Complexity

The theist argument of ‘complexity of design implies a creator’ is well argued against in David Hume’s ‘Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion’. I plan on arguing against it in a similar manner (without thought to evolution, though it would suffice) while borrowing some of his analogies and words.

Concerning the scientific process of determining cause and effect, certain events are observed many times. Similarities of the observances allow us a level of certainty of like events. The less similar an event, the less certain we are, and the more evidence we need. Furthermore, one cannot explain particular effects by particular causes which don’t need explanation themselves.

For example, it can readily be observed how blood flows in humans, and this has been observed many times. Other humans whose blood has not been observed, we can infer with great certainty that blood flows in much the same way because of the likeness of the vessels. It can also be inferred, though weaker so, that blood flows somewhat similar in other animals like frogs and lions, because animals are in some respects similar. Note that this assumption is getting farther from certain. The further we get away from similarity, the weaker the assumption. So if we then go a bit further and assume blood (or sap) flows similarly in plants, it becomes absurd because plants show such little resemblance to humans.

From similar effects we infer similar causes. Each dissimilarity between any two events proportionally decreases the certainty of the causes being similar. What, then, is the similarity between all of existence and that of (allow me to use a common theist example without loss of generality) an eye? Many theists will readily claim that the complexity of the eye could only come about from a creator. Apart from evolution blowing that theory out of the water (see ‘Climbing Mt. Improbable’), from what similar effect can we infer that the eye must have been created?

From here the theist will argue whether I’ve ever seen a house be built without a creator. Certainly the house indeed has a creator (or creators). But how is a house in any way similar to an eye? Indeed, how is anything we’ve experienced or witnessed created in any way similar enough to an eye (or any other proclaimed complexity to bring it back to a general case) that we could say with certainty that by similarity it must have a creator? Much care is to be used to infer. Further, consider, if you will, that anything so complex probably has multiple ‘creators’ and would more likely show a similar cause of multiple creators leading to polytheism… at least it would be more probable to have multiple creators. And so the argument that the universe or existence must have been created cannot be inferred since we have nothing which closely resembles a universe that we have witnessed created.

Even further still, we’ve never witnessed anything being created by a god. Therefore, while you may erroneously claim (see previous paragraph) that a house is complex and has a creator and thus so must an eye, we would only infer that the eye has a creator of similar qualities of the creator of the house. Thus, by theist logic, I would assume that the universe was created by a man or something lesser, not greater.

To continue the argument, those things which are complex have been witnessed to have been created by causes other than a mindful being. A human embryo, being quite complex, is created through generation. A tree sapling, being quite complex, is created through vegetation. Thus, we can similarly infer that complexity to be derived from generation and vegetation along with intelligent creation. Therefore, it would be equally plausible to assume the universe sprung from planting a universal seed or through a cosmic reproductive process. All these suppositions all beg the question “From whence?”

Conclusion: There is nothing like, that humans have witnessed, the creation of the universe from which we can infer a similar cause from a similar effect. Moreover, the existence of a creator derived from complexity (if allowed) could only give the creator those qualities which we have witnessed in creators – namely human or other animal species. This could only undermine the ‘supremeness’ of a deity. Further, we have witnessed other causes of complexity and would need to give equal weight to each in kind. And then comes the ad infinitum argument of from whence?

The Importance of Habit

I’ve had numerous people ask me why I’m so adamant about deists/theists to give up their ‘benign’ beliefs. Usually I go along the lines of arguing against the assumption that they’re benign. However, as of late, I’ve been arguing in the case of habit.

Habit, ideally, need not be of much importance. In practicality, however, it is almost essential. For example, using turn signals and mirrors aids in the reduction of car accidents. Now, if there’s no one in proximity, there’s really no reason to use a turn signal and mirror, as there’s nothing to cause an accident that would be directly related to not using a turn signal and/or mirror. However, using turn signals and mirrors becomes a slightly subconscious event and whichever way your habit leans will probably affect your decision in using one where it may need to be used. Especially in cases where you think there’s no one around, but there actually is in your blind spot… or just a spot you haven’t checked. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve come close (and in some instances have collided) with a car collision on my bicycle because the car in front of me or at my side didn’t use its turn signal or mirror thinking that he wasn’t going to turn into anyone. The point is is that it’s important to keep the habit of using turn signals and checking mirrors before you turn to prevent yourself from subconsciously not using them and run the risk of running into someone.

The same can be said about the habit of using irrational arguments. A child mimics the behaviour patterns of adults. If a child sees their parents using circular logic, or any other logical fallacy, the child will attempt to adopt that pattern, thinking that this is correct. In much the same way as Pavlov’s dogs, the child will grow up to believe that this is sound reasoning and it will become a habit of theirs to use irrational argumentation. It will become characteristic of the person to habitually use irrational logic to explain many things in his/her life and it is not reasonable to be irrational.

The danger of irrational behaviour is that it can pretty much affect any aspect of life. Just take the circular arguing theists use such as ‘It’s right because God said so’. Why would a child, growing up in an environment that preaches this circular logic, think otherwise when it comes to other authority figures such as government and their own parents – oppression and abuse, respectively. Another example would be the argument that “Christianity has increased in the world. The world is a better place than it was before. Ergo, Christianity makes the world a better place.” This style of arguing tells someone that it’s rational to go from loose correlation to cause and effect – a jump to a conclusion which could also readily be used to argue such things as “Pirates have decreased over time, and global warming has increased. Ergo, if we bring back pirating, global warming will go down.”

Irrational arguments should never be supported, much less made a habit. It’s important to remove the habit of irrational argumentation of which theists have devoted their lives to of which, out of habit, will spill out into other areas of their lives.

An Offence to American Civil Rights

It has been said that the same-sex marriage rights are the new civil rights of the century a la African American civil rights of the 1950’s/1960’s.  There are significant similarities between the two to suggest the claim, and let’s face it, we, America, are de facto denying same-sex couples the civil right to marry.

Throughout my life I’ve heard a plethora of arguments against allowing same-sex couples to marry.  Being young and naïve and influenced by a largely homophobic environment, I found the arguments sound.  Now that I’ve allowed my mind to mature and reason I’ve reconsidered my earlier ideas concerning same-sex marriages.  I realize now what it is we deny same-sex couples and how arguments such as family instability, tradition, slippery slopes, religion, and naturalism are virtually unfounded.  Further, I’ve studied a little about what law is and discovered that there is a defining difference between legal and moral issues along with problems of majority vote pertaining to civil rights.

Through the following arguments I hope to show the reader that arguments against same-sex couples having the right to marry are unfounded and that their stance should be reversed.

What We Deny Same-Sex Couples

There is no question about it; same-sex couples are denied the same civil rights of opposite-sex couples in the realm of marriage.  By not allowing same-sex couples to marry we keep them from the benefits of marriage such as: the right to inheritance, hospital visits, tax breaks, joint insurance, etc.  Granted, there are ways to achieve some of these rights (though not all), but why should same-sex couples have to jump through hoops to achieve it?

The one stepping stone that has helped in the acceptance of same-sex marriages is the establishment of civil unions.  While some states do allow civil unions, they are restrictive at least on a national level (tax breaks), and often lack the same rights on a state level.  Additionally, the whole concept of having a ‘separate but equal’ union of two people who are of the same-sex is evidently similar to ‘separate but equal’ facilities for African Americans.

When we look now upon the injustices of separate but equal facilities between black and white Americans, we assure ourselves that we’ll never let something like that happen again.  Yet here we are, repeating history but with homosexuality in place of race.  Ask yourself why ‘separate but equal’ was unjustified then and see how many similarities you can draw between the now and then.  You should find the same arguments that both were not in fact equal and that the system inherently bred prejudice against the minority.  Years from now, when America has granted full marriage rights to same-sex couples, you’ll have to look back on your beliefs and try to justify them to future generations.  Would you listen to your ancestors professing separate but equal facilities for African Americans?

They Already Can Marry

It is true that homosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex if they choose to.  But the suggestion that homosexuals just marry someone of the opposite sex for the benefits itself demeans the ‘meaning of marriage,’ which usually is held dear to those opposing same-sex marriages.  But even if not, you still have the problem of denying same-sex couples the right to marry breeding prejudice against homosexuals.  Further, you still do not allow many of the benefits that would be useful to same-sex couples such as visitation rights and inheritance (which can be worked around in some states but should not need to be so).  Also, you still deny same-sex couples the economic stability function of marriage - really the only function that the government claims.

Same-Sex Parent Environments as Unfit

It is often argued that children growing up in a single-sex environment will lack significant human developments or that there lacks stability in the relationship.  If those proponents of said argument were to look at the research supplied, they would find no cause for their side.
 First off, concerning single-sex environments, there are and we allow single parents to foster children in their care.  Furthermore, regardless of the fact there are two people of the same sex caring for a child, there is one more person than a single parent which actually gives more stability, not less, to the family unit.

Second, we already allow same-sex couples to adopt and have biological children through artificial insemination.  If anything, by not allowing same-sex couples to marry the children in their homes might wonder why their parents haven’t married which could disrupt the family unit (I do not claim this to be so - I only suggest the possibility).

There has been no solid reasoning on the presumption that same-sex family units are unstable or unfit, and in fact studies have shown quite the contrary.

Survival of the Species

Opponents will argue that in order for the human species to thrive and continue reproduction is essential and can only be propagated by the marriage between one man and one woman.  This is borderline a naturalist fallacy but I’ll argue it through other means.

First, same-sex couples already can reproduce using artificial insemination or a surrogate mother.  Second, many opposite-sex couples choose not to reproduce and/or cannot reproduce due to infertility and therefore reproduction cannot be a requirement for marriage.  Third, many claim that the world is becoming overpopulated so that allowing some marriages which do not reproduce would be beneficial to the survival of the species.  Fourth, artificial insemination and surrogate mothers allow for the testing of and eradication of sexually transmitted diseases which combat the survival of the species.

Our species will not become extinct or anywhere dangerously close to because we allow same-sex couples to marry, and allowing same-sex marriages maybe we’ll be better to maintain it.

The Requirement of True Love

People might argue that a marriage is about two people who love each other deeply to share their lives, and that same-sex couples are incapable of feeling that love.  Regardless of whether same-sex couples can feel the same way as opposite-sex couples, there is no love requirement for a marriage.

We’ve all seen movies or read/heard about stories, or even experienced ourselves, of two people getting married very quickly for various reasons.  Some people are desperate, others seek financial rewards, and yet others do it as a way to rebel.  The fact is that there is no love requirement for marriage. Las Vegas weddings are a reality.  People marry each other for green cards or tax breaks.  Others marry because of social pressure or through loneliness.  Often there is no love between two people who get married, or they lose that feeling later in their lives.  Love is by no means a requirement, and furthermore, there is no way to measure it objectively.  Sorry to disappoint, but those machines that tell you you’re a ‘cold fish’ or a ‘hot tamale’ cannot actually measure your love-level.

Second, who’s to say that same-sex couples cannot have the same feeling of love?  Many people have experienced a ‘brotherly love’ far more powerful than the love for their spouses.  Many consider love to be nothing more than a good friendship with physical attraction.  If we can love our neighbour, than certainly people can love deeply people of the same-sex.

The Tradition of Marriage

Probably the most prevalent argument against same-sex marriage is that allowing such marriages to occur will destroy the traditional view of marriage.  However, not only can and have traditions been antiquated, many aspects of the very tradition of marriage itself have been antiquated.

What kind of tradition is marriage?  Yes, for eons only opposite-sex marriages have occurred, and in that sense it is ‘traditional’.  But also, until as of late, slavery has for eons occurred world-wide, and in that sense it is ‘traditional’.  In this sense of tradition it was traditional to cut off the hand of a thief, and it was traditional to have sex and marry people of 14 (I realize that this is still done in practice but it is no longer tradition in the sense that it was pre 1900’s. In America, at least, the states which allow this also require parental consent, which arguably was not required in older times – at least not legally).  Does the fact that they were once long-standing traditions justify any of these?

They’re not justified because the traditions allowed for direct societal harm.  We don’t still have slavery because it didn’t recognize human rights.  We don’t cut people’s hands off because it’s a cruel and unusual punishment.  We, generally, don’t allow sex and marriage at young ages because people of considerably young age are not capable of making decisions of that nature.
 But maybe you think the ‘tradition of marriage’ is different.  Then realize that you are denying same-sex couples the right to marry.  And that directly harms society in ways such as prejudice and lack of civil rights.

The concept of marriage was created by priests to unify two people.  The word marriage has been carried over to legal implications in America.  Thankfully, since America is secular, any religious connotations from the word marriage are not in consideration in American law.  Now knowing that the word marriage would contribute to such a catastrophe against civil rights, it would have been much better to avoid the word marriage in government documents and used the term civil union instead.  Then everyone would receive a civil union, and people could, if they wanted, to have a marriage – specifically a private ceremony in religious terms that has nothing to do with the government.  These private religious organizations could refuse who they want but the government would recognize only and all civil unions between any two people.  Marriage is simply the government recognition of the union of two people for economic stability.  Any religious connotations you add contradicts the idea of secularism. Indeed, many have suggested doing away with marriage completely and only recognizing civil unions which grant the same rights.

Lastly, the tradition of marriage used to have the notions that people do not get divorced, that one cannot remarry, that contraceptives shouldn’t be used, and that interracial marriages are wrong, among other notions.  Obviously we don’t accept these parts of the tradition anymore as we can think of numerous occasions where it is conceived as permissible to allow these aspects to be disobeyed.  We’ve already done away with so many aspects of the tradition that it is hardly a tradition anymore.

Forcing Priests to Marry Same-Sex Couples

Religious organizations will claim that allowing same-sex marriages to be recognized will force religious organizations to participate in same-sex marriages in spite of their personal beliefs.  This issue is a little complicated, but it is actually a non-issue.

First off, this argument is not against same-sex marriage; rather it is against the government forcing religious organizations to recognize same-sex marriage.  So although completely irrelevant (unless direct causation could be found, which it is not) I will touch on this subject.
 As long as any organization receives a significant amount of public funding it is a public organization and therefore is subjected to public law.  Since religious institutions, such as churches, receive a significant amount of money from the government (which they do in America, especially since George W. Bush has been in presidency) they are public organizations.  Therefore it may be just to force priests from churches who receive this funding to perform same-sex marriages under penalty of law.  I will not argue this further and will not claim it to be just or not because that is beyond the scope of this paper and irrelevant as I have pointed out.  But if a religious organization receives little or no money than it would be a private organization and therefore it would be unjust to force priests to perform same-sex marriages, just as we allow Ku Klux Klan members to organize anti-black and anti-Semitism rallies.

Therefore this is an argument that is not related by causation to allowing same-sex marriages and is therefore irrelevant.  Further, it is not clear whether or not it would be just to force priests to perform same-sex marriages.

Nonhuman Animals

This is among the most ridiculous arguments.  The arguers that use this say that if we allow same-sex marriages there will be nothing in the way to stop people from marrying their pets.  There are so many things wrong with this argument it’s hard to know where to begin.

First it suggests that the love between two people of the same sex is equal to a person and their pet, which is of greater or equal degree between two people of opposite sex.  This is very belittling to same-sex relationships and unreasonable.  I’ve already argued that love is not a requirement and that marriage only requires two capable consenting adults.

Furthermore there is no reason to believe that allowing same-sex marriages will lead to marriage between animals and humans.  People and pets will never be able to marry because a pet is not a capable consenting adult.  It is ridiculous to say that a pet knowingly knows that it is getting married and consents to it any more than a 12-year-old does.

Polygamy and Incest

Opponents of same-sex marriage will often make the argument that, similar to nonhuman animal marriages, that allowing same-sex marriage will lead to polygamist and incest marriages.  Again, these arguers never have a reason to believe one will lead to the other and simply state such to try to erroneously equate the two.  Further, this argument assumes that polygamy and incest is wrong. While this is a whole other topic of discussion, I’ll tread on it lightly.

Polygamy has both benefits and detriments to society.  Firstly, polygamy can increase family unity and stability, especially in areas where there is a high death rate of the species. In polygamist families first wives welcome the addition of other wives because they help with the load of carrying for the family and household.  This can increase family stability. You could argue that the jealousy that arises in these families disrupts the family unit, but you’ll have to prove to me that jealousy does indeed arise enough to do so.

In non-polygamist societies, such as America, jealousy does arise because people in those societies are so unfamiliar with the tradition of polygamy, not because polygamy necessitates it.  Another argument I’ve heard against polygamy is that in societies, as it is in most, where the population is split closer to 50/50 between males and females, it would be hurtful to society to allow polygamy because it would restrict further the number of one sex to another which would lead to fewer marriages which would disrupt economic stability in the society and longevity (since it has been shown in studies that married people live longer).  However, there are so many people that don’t marry that there should be plenty of ‘extras’ in society that this argument would fall apart.  Also, this argument only pertains to one male and multiple females, and not to multiple male and female marriages and one female and multiple males.  In such a case, the male to female marriage ratio would average out to 50/50.  But without going any further into the societal harm of allowing polygamy, it is unclear whether we should or should not allow it.  And more so, the arguments that would arise from polygamy being hurtful would not be able to be applied to same-sex marriages.

Concerning incest relations, first this would be only an argument against a sibling or ancestral marriage since up to first-cousins can marry.  Second, there is a genetic mutation problem with allowing incest marriages.  Then, you may argue, that a same-sex incest marriage could be allowed since they could not reproduce with each other’s genes.  Further, it may be argued that the dynamic of an incest marriage is disruptive.  I do not claim to know whether this is true, and I don’t believe you can claim it either.  But more importantly, none of these arguments can be assimilated to an argument against same-sex marriages.

The opponent of same-sex marriage using this argument, therefore, has at least two major problems with using it as fuel for their side.  First, they’ll have to show that polygamy and incest marriages have a net negative effect on society.  Second, they’ll have to show that their arguments can be used against same-sex marriages.  I believe that both cases will be most problematic and perhaps impossible.

Gender Identity

Given that you oppose same-sex marriages, you’ll have to define what a same-sex marriage is.  This may sound easy but it gets rather complicated with people who identify with a gender opposite their genitalia.

First off, you have hermaphrodites.  These are people who have both male and female genitalia. Second, there are transsexuals.  These are people who identify with a gender opposite that of their genitalia.  Third, there are people who undergo sex changes.  Fourth, you have males who have XX chromosomes and females who have XY chromosomes.  Though this last condition is extremely rare, it does on occasion happen and therefore you must be able to deal with it in terms of marriage.  Each of the people in these categories is a functioning adult.  You could argue that these people shouldn’t be allowed to marry, but that’s an obvious prejudice and disregard for civil rights.

First you’ll have to separate same-sex marriage based on the idea of homosexuality or the act of homosexuality.  You’ll have to do this because transsexuals would be participating in the act of homosexuality but in their mind they are having complete heterosexual sex.

If you think same-sex marriage is based on the idea of homosexuality, then you have a problem with people who might change, figure out later, or have just lied about their true gender identity after they get married.  This would essentially lead to allowing same-sex marriages.  Also, it is possible in America to change your legal gender and thus bypassing the requirement of opposite-sex marriages.

If you think same-sex marriage is based on the act of homosexuality, then you also have the problem of people undergoing a sex change mid-marriage.  Sex change operations are confidential, so you may never know with absolute certainty that one person has undergone the surgery.  Again you would essentially be allowing same-sex marriages.  In fact, if you undergo a sex change, it is legal to marry the sex opposite of your post-sex change.  Note that sex changes do not change your chromosomes and therefore chromosome requirements are nullified.
 You also couldn’t determine who should marry who based on their chromosomes because there are abnormal cases where males and females have the chromosomes of the opposite sex.
 It’d be far easier, justifiably and necessarily so, to allow anyone to marry someone of any sex.

Religious Arguments

Many people will quote the bible as justification for opposing same-sex marriage saying that marriage is between one man and one woman.  For all time and in every country there has been and will be a religious base that uses it’s scripture to determine what is right and wrong. In particular to America, you, generally speaking, have denominations of Protestantism which are very prevalent throughout the country.  They often use their own scripture to command what is right and what is wrong and claim that that should influence politics.

Fortunately, though seemingly rarely recognized, America is not a country ruled by religious scripture; countries like Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Cambodia, etc.  America professes that the government should be, and is, secular.  Based on this basic principle of secularity, no argument based purely on a religion should be considered.  We all realize that this is not the case, but it is claimed so by the American system.

The reason secularism is so important is that the instant you declare one religion in a country to have absolute authority, you deny all other religions existent to have a say in the government lest their views lie in line with the authority.  If you prefer religious autonomy in American society, you ignore America’s basic idea of secularism and freedom of religion.  Furthermore, you create prejudice against differing religious peoples effectively removing the right to freedom of religion.

You might argue that you can uphold secularity but still follow your scripture.  This is true in some respects but only where it coincides with arguments not based on any particular religions’ god(s) figure by declaring it so, though that may be all you argue.  But if you get into an argument and it comes down to you necessarily saying ‘because my god said so’ then you’ve not only succumbed to an authoritarian regime (or a cosmic mugger) but you’ve also declared that your god is the one and only authority on such matters and that all other presumed gods are erroneous or nonexistent.  At this point the only leg you have to stand on is the presumption that you know which religion is right… but lo and behold your arguer may say the same thing and have the same presumption about his/her own god(s).  Since neither is verifiable in argument, you’ve come to an argument stalemate.  In fact it becomes a circular argument (it is right because my god said so, and my god said so because it is right) which is a fallacy of arguing.  Therefore, one can never use his/her religion as the sole basis of an argument.

The Naturalistic Fallacy

Probably the most used argument I’ve encountered is that homosexuality is not natural and therefore wrong and/or should not be encouraged by allowing same-sex marriage.  This argument happens to also be the most easily fallible. Specifically it is known as the ‘naturalistic fallacy’.  I’ll describe it a little here and suggest you research it yourself as it will probably be better explained elsewhere.

First, one must define what ‘natural’ is.  This is a very complicated task.  You might think a tree is natural but someone else might not since it was grown in a laboratory and subsequently planted.  You might think that the diamond on your ring is natural but someone else might not since it was created in a laboratory in a high pressure machine.  You might think the earth is natural but someone else might not since it was created in a cosmic laboratory by some god or gods.  We might try to define natural as all that has not been affected by mankind, yet as soon as mankind existed it had an effect on everything even if it be only a slight gravitational pull. I agree that in general we do all tend to agree on what is natural and what is not, but it is not clear-cut and I expect that there will always be an opposition to anything being called natural, even if a small minority.  Not only is it difficult to define but it’s also impossible to determine the true nature of any object.

Second, even if you could define natural, there is an inherent problem with equating morality to it.  If a bicycle is not natural, does that mean it is bad?  If your grandfather’s pacemaker is not natural, is using a pacemaker immoral?  It’s easy to see that you cannot equate that which is natural to that which is good unless you create a circular argument or redefine natural as good saying that ‘all things natural are good, and all things good are natural’.  Again, circular arguing is a fallacy and is therefore void.

Third, even if you thought you could convince yourself that only things natural are good, you’ll still have a problem with arguing that homosexuality is not natural and therefore bad.  Homosexuality occurs on numerous occasions in the animal kingdom. Steers will have sex with heifers, dolphins will form homosexual partnerships, and male walruses will have sex with each other outside the breeding season.  Also, birth, it is said, is a natural process as are the processes of mitosis and meiosis and the creation of your DNA and personality.  Then so is homosexuality.
 People do not choose to become homosexuals.  Teenagers do not strive to be ridiculed at school for taking interest in the same sex.  A person cannot determine their sexual excitement towards any particular sex.  It is as natural as anything developmentally human, and the act of homosexuality is as natural as masturbation.

We can also thank Alfred Kinsey for his virtually uncontested study on human sexual behaviour.  For those that do not know about it, Kinsey’s report found that on a scale between 0 and 6 on the level of homosexuality of an individual, those who described themselves as 1 and over on the scale were much more prevalent (or statistically significant) than thought; specifically a small minority were either a 0 or a 6 - this does not qualify homosexuality for being categorized as abnormal any more than heterosexulaity. This may astonish you, but the study remains supported and is used widely by scholars. To say that homosexuality is not natural defies years of extensive studies and is backed by hardly any. And I’ll further say that I myself am probably close to a two.

Regardless of the proficiency of homosexual behaviour in nature and whether it justifies as being called natural, you cannot equate that which is natural to that which is good without performing a quite obvious argumentive fallacy.

Morality and Legality

There are many cases where something is considered immoral but not illegal. In general, legality is a subset of morality.  Recognizing the difference is essential to knowing how to apply law to morality.

If you still think that what your religion dictates, or what you personally feel, as right and wrong is the ultimate authority on such matters, then you’d still have to determine where it should be law and where it should not.  For example, you may think adultery is wrong but it is not illegal to act upon it.  Granted that in divorce proceedings it becomes an arguing piece for property rights which does have to do with law, there is nothing directly associated with adultery being illegal, especially if a divorce does not occur.  Similarly, lying may be thought of as immoral but we would never throw people in jail for lying, generally. Why do we make this distinction?

We make it, for one reason, because adultery and lying are so prevalent in our society.  Some 50 percent of people in America have admitted to cheating on their spouses at least once.  That’s a whole lot of federal bureaucracy and overcrowded jails.  Similarly, everyone has lied numerous times in their lives.

The other reason we make the distinction is that there is no conceivable significant direct harm to the person committing the act or being affected by the act.  Yes we do hurt inside when our spouses cheat, but the harm done is not physical and is proportional to the level of emotion attached to the other person.  Lying is illegal when there is considerable direct harm done to a person or persons, but mostly the harm is negligible and could be more due to the susceptibility of the victim.

Homosexuality is not illegal in America, nor should it be.  Same-sex marriage by no means harms anyone.  No person is going to contract a deadly disease or have their appendix explode because a same-sex couple got married.  There is no conceivable harm to the society in America allowing same-sex marriages, and there is plenty of societal harm in the form of prejudice against same-sex couples.

Furthermore, on the flip side, studies on Scandinavian countries which allow full marriage rights to same-sex couples have shown a significant decrease in the rate of divorce in heterosexual couples.

Leaving it to Majority Vote

People will argue, erroneously, that we should leave it to the consensus of the majority population to decide whether we allow same-sex marriages.  Thankfully, we do not live in a strictly democratic nation but rather a representative democratic nation.

The problem with leaving it to the majority vote is that people, generally speaking, are uneducated or have not heard sufficiently the arguments for allowing an ordinance.  That’s why we elect officials to represent us and argue for our interests after hearing the arguments of both sides of an issue, even if they do ignore some of them.  No one can argue without fallacy that what is right is what the majority thinks is right and I hope nobody believes that the majority is always in the right.

This is not to say that the common people should not have a say in their government.  In fact they do when they vote for their representative officials.  Since I don’t have a very strong political background I’ll try not to delve too far into the intricacies of American government.  But when it comes to civil rights abuse, it is common for the majority of people to be in favour of the abuse, and only through our elected officials is the injustice able to be overturned.  Indeed, the majority of Americans at one point in time were in favour of restricting African American rights and we can thank Lyndon Johnson for righting our wrongs.  Now, no self-respecting American citizen would think that it was a good thing to limit civil rights to whites, and I suspect with time the same will be thought of when it comes to limiting civil rights to opposite-sex couples.

Conclusion

The bottom line is that all arguments against same-sex marriage stem from a personal aversion to the idea that comes from religious and/or societal upbringing.  Same-sex parental environments are not necessarily any more unfit than that which we already allow and studies have showed quite happy family units exist in same-sex parental environments.  The human species will not go extinct by allowing same-sex marriages and reproduction cannot be a requirement for marriages since we already allow non-reproducing couples to marry.  Love, also, cannot be a requirement because there is no way to measure it and we already allow marriages without love.  Traditions are not justifications and marriage is hardly the tradition it was.  The slippery slope fallacy arguments such as non-human marriages, polygamy and incest are irrelevant.  It becomes particularly tricky and arguably impossible to define what an opposite-sex marriage is when it comes to gender identity dilemmas. Religious arguments have no base in secular societies and equating natural to good is a fallacy of its own.  Same-sex marriages do not harm society and therefore should be legal and its immorality be left to the individual as we do with anti-black sentiments.  We cannot leave the ultimate decision to majority rule because that is not how our government should work and that’s not how it does work, especially in the cases of civil rights abuse.

The reasons for allowing same-sex marriages go on and on as the reasons against same-sex marriages diminish.  Luckily humans have a brain that can reason and control emotions which lead us to perform injustices.  Many of the world’s problems stem from discrimination - homosexuality being one of those problems.  I hope you will take an active role in preventing further discrimination.


I welcome any arguments, additions, or corrections to my views.

~Michael D. Watts