Alcorn: Same-sex marriage is a philosophical impossibility

Published 11:06am Monday, September 24, 2012
Email This Post Email This Post Comments

You can indeed put a square peg into a round hole—if the peg is small enough that its corners get in even when its straight sides do not conform to the curved sides of the round hole. But this semantic trick does not constitute an actual fit, and it is still true “you cannot put a square peg in a round hole.” So it is with many notions; we have done something without accomplishing anything.contains

A profound challenge to same-sex “marriage” is so obvious it often “goes without saying.” It is not only anatomically unnatural, obstetrically unsuccessful and morally problematic, it is even ontologically impossible.

This is a most sober and serious supplement to a satire I offered here a year ago:

“If a triangle can have four sides and a circle can be square, then I guess red can be the new green and black can be called white. If these things were possible, then I guess two men living together and two women living together can be considered a marriage.”

Some readers failed (or were humorlessly unwilling) to recognize the literary genre satire, and some evidenced they do not even know what satire is. Then, read Jonathan Swift or more populists satirists as Mark Twain, Will Rogers or Garrison Keillor.

Or Abraham Lincoln. One reader thoughtfully reminded me of a famous statement by this down-to-earth philosopher: “How many legs does a dog have if you count its tail as a leg? Answer: Four. Counting a tail as a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”

If literary rhetoric cannot be understood or if some simply reject its expression, we will employ philosophy. Ontology (often called metaphysics as a technical term Aristotle introduced) is the study of the nature of being or existence. You cannot get more basic than this, and this is what we do here.

Some complained my satire offered no evidence or reason and is nothing more than a silly story. They are mistaken. It displays evidence and expresses reason—they just do not want to recognize them. Likely, they will also dismiss philosophy and logic as beyond them. Where this is so, they betray not having gone far enough in their own thinking.

Nothing has meaning, much less existence, if it does not have properties that belong to the universe of the thing. With only particulars and no universals, the thing does not belong to any broader thing and is betrayed as a notion and not a concept.

A red ball possesses the properties red and round. Calling a green round object or a red square object a red ball does not make it a red ball. Calling same-sex “marriage” does not make it marriage.

The universe in this philosophic consideration is marriage, which is — by its very definition and essence — the complimentary wedding of male and female. Other properties of this particular can be health, ethnic, and intelligence. All such are non-essentials (the term is “accidentals”) and can vary greatly and still be marriage. This is so because these are either consistent with or indifferent to the essence of the universal. In contrast, same-sex by its very nature is dissonant and incongruous with the essence of marriage.

Again in the taxonomy of philosophy, the accidental properties of a given marriage are irrelevant to its essence. They just happen to be present without being necessary. What is not an accidental property is an essential property. These are accidental properties but heterosexuality is an essential property when the universe is marriage. Again: a green ball is not a red ball precisely because the property red is absent.

Without such essential properties as sex that is compatible and complimentary, an alleged marriage simply is not marriage at all. Without this, the relationship might be a beautiful and wonderful socially or even domestically — but it is not marriage.

I have been reluctant to offer this line of reasoning, because following it requires some knowledge of the terms and categories of technical philosophy. (This, without also showing the invalidity of same-sex marriage by its violation of the laws of identity and contradiction.) But this dimension needs to be factored into any comprehensive consideration. It should be sufficient for some, then, to allow there is this factor even if they need to reread to follow it.

Neither a male-male nor a female-female relationship has the essential — i.e., of the essence — property of male-female. Same-sex marriage is neither validated nor created. It is metaphysically impossible. So to think is a logical fallacy; so to speak is semantic nonsense.

Email This Post Email This Post Comments

Sign in to Comment | Need help commenting? Click here

  • genevieve470

    You sir, are wrong. You are wrong and prejudiced. There are homosexual relationships all around us in nature….and certainly exist within human relationships. The bottom line is that everyone, no matter what color, background, religion, etc, eventually just wants to get old with someone they love. This should include all legal protections enjoyed by straight couples. My husband and I have a traditional, heterosexual relationship. It is not going to be threatened for even a second if gay people are allowed to marry. The “it’s not natural” argument was used other times in our history; like when people argued against ENDING slavery, or (more recently in our history) when it was illegal for black people and white people to marry. It may not be natural for you, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t natural for someone else.

    Report comment

  • hutchings.x

    Marriage is not an inarguable fact or law of nature, so this philosophical argument falls flat. Marriage is an institution created by man…really a symbol of commitment and desire to spend your life with the person you love. Therefore, because it is a man made institution, it can be manipulated my man to suit what looks to be a changing definition. Homosexuality IS a fact of nature, unlike marriage. It doesn’t make sense to deny that and argue marriage can only exist under strict, firm, and unwavering guidelines. It makes even less sense when you consider same-sex marriage effects no one accept the people getting married. There are plenty of philosophical arguments that could argue the base immorality of denying another being their personal sense of fulfillment better than your drawn-out and weak argument did. This article stands in defense of a conviction fueled by prejudice. Ugghhh…

    Report comment

  • Get it over it

    So Whats next? Sex with animals! I don’t care who’s sleeping with who – just don’t call it marriage!

    Report comment

    • hutchings.x

      why not call it marriage? why does that offend you? honestly curious..

      To suggest the hordes of people rallying to gain equality in matters regarding law as well as the eyes of society are somehow going to open the floodgates to alllllll those people out there who desperately want to legally have sex with animals is profoundly ignorant.

      Also: history indicates that when a civil rights movement has gained the momentum the gay rights movement has gained, that movement is, in the end, successful.

      So, maybe you should “get over it”, because it’s going to happen…

      Report comment

    • Guest

      Why must marriage be some kind of “club” where only certain people are allowed?

      Report comment

    • Streiter

      My question exactly. My liberal friends wont answer it. Since it is all about love, then can a man marry 2 women if they are in love? Can he marry his brother if they are in love? Can he marry an animal if they are in love?

      Report comment

      • http://www.facebook.com/Stephanie.K.Hanson Stephanie Hanson

        A human can’t marry an animal because an animal is incapable of consent. So is a child. Don’t be silly. I don’t really care if people marry their siblings or cousins–the Rothschild family was inbred (as is the British throne to some degree) and there are no genetic issues. Besides, it doesn’t concern ME. It doesn’t make any marriage I enter into less important to ME. YOUR marriage is what you make it. You can make it a commercial, “made for television” event, as Kim Kardashian did, or you can make it a loving, lasting exchange for life, as my grandparents did. (Or you can make it a torturous event for life, as my other grandparents did) But this is about denying people rights based solely on the fact that it makes you uncomfortable and that’s not right.

        Report comment

      • Streiter

        That was a very good responds, thank you. But its really about the left forcing the homosexual agenda down our throats. (no pun intended). So lets open it right up, I can marry my brother and sister I can have 4 wives and 2 husbands. But the day I fall in love with my dog that I enjoy having sex with and you say “I can’t because it makes you feel uncomfortable” then Stephanie I will be able to call you ignorant and a bigot and a hater.
        Can this country hold onto any form of morality or are we just going to throw in the towel and let all perversions go unchecked?

        Report comment

      • http://www.facebook.com/Stephanie.K.Hanson Stephanie Hanson

        Again, you aren’t allowed to have sex with your dog (or marry your dog) because they are not considered competent to enter into a contract. Marriage is a CONTRACT. Basic contract law. Animals are not able to enter into a basic contract because they are incompetent to do so. So are children under 18 (with exceptions) and people who are mentally handicapped. In extreme circumstances, people who are under the influence of alcohol or drugs can sometimes get out of a contract, or under duress, can get out of a contract as well–ask Britney Spears about that one. It’s how she got out of her 24 hour Vegas marriage. ;-) But basically, marriage is a contract that people add religious significance to–the nuts and bolts of it is it still legal.

        Report comment

  • John

    This article makes no point. It’s true that round is round and not square. It’s true that calling something marriage doesn’t make it marriage. However, extending that logic to same-sex marriage doesn’t work, because the assumption is already made that same-sex marriage is not in fact marriage. Therefore the only limiting factor is your narrow definition of marriage. Partners should be compatible and complementary, but a penis and vagina are not necessary factors for determining compatibility. Love is. If you can spare two minutes, watch this video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TBd-UCwVAY ) and then argue again that same sex couples can’t share exactly the same sentiments toward each other than can a man and a woman. This article saddens and infuriates me.

    Report comment

    • http://www.austinwelcomecenter.org/ Jake

      What a wonderful video. Thank you, John.

      Report comment

  • http://www.facebook.com/patrick.c.hansel Patrick Cabello Hansel

    This “commentary” surely used an incredible amount of words to essentially make this philosophical point: A cannot be. Why? Because A can not be. That’s the whole argument essentially. No science, no reasoning. Just stating over and over that the author believes that same sex marriage is impossible.

    Report comment

  • darlahood

    Mr. Alcorn, I think I’ll use your own “logic” to refute your argument: Just because you SAY gay marriage isn’t “compatible and complementary” doesn’t make it so. And even if you were to argue that a majority of people in the history of world have deemed it so, that STILL would not make it so. What it does make, Mr. Alcorn, is a tyrannous majority.

    There was a time when a majority of people believed the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth (the bible suggests this is the case, by the way, and even THAT doesn’t make it so); mere popular opinion does not make it so.

    The SOLE purpose of the Constitutions of our state and the nation is to define and defend our RIGHTS, not to take them away. And just because you believe that “equal protection under the law” applies to only those whom you deem worthy, does NOT make it so.

    One thing the Constitution does not allow is for one person’s rights to interfere with another’s. That’s why murder and stealing, for example, are not within an individual’s rights. Your refusal to “share” the right to get married does infringe upon others’ rights to do the same. You will not lose a single right or privilege if all Minnesotans (and Americans) are allowed to enjoy the same right that you have.

    Report comment

  • Openmindedness

    Mr Alcorn (aka Mr Prejudice hiding behind philosphical logic), you might want to start thinking outside of your square peg and round hole boxes, because same-sex marriage is just the tip of the iceberg, have a read of this… http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/aug/17/sex-reproduction-aarathi-prasad

    Report comment

  • http://www.facebook.com/tzabel1 Terry Zabel

    So using the logic of some here if it is natural we must allow it? Dogs have the natural tendency to hump the legs of humans and sniff their crotches. This appears to me to be a sexual related activity. If so then should we pass a law to allow sex with dogs and other animals? We know people can certainly love animals as well. So should this then be a reason to allow marriage to animals?

    Report comment

  • plumbing101mike

    I believe that most Americans agree that equal rights should apply to
    everybody. The problem arises when a group of people decide that they
    want to distort the “sanctity of marriage” that many Americans hold
    dear.

    If it were about equal rights, then the laws could easily be adapted so
    that civil unions (or call them whatever you like other than “marriage”)
    gave equal rights to everybody. The same rights and benefits as
    married couples could easily be extended to anybody who wanted to make a
    commitment to another person. The majority of Americans would not have
    an issue with this and would overwhelmingly support this type of
    legislation.

    However when the insistence and emphasis is placed upon the term
    “marriage” then it becomes something quite offensive and seemingly
    sinister. Why the hard push to seemingly “defile” something that so
    many people hold as sacred? This really has the feel of trying to
    undermine religion much more than gaining equal rights.

    Equal rights? Yes, I am for it and will vote for it if it arises. The inconsiderate and offensive push for homosexual “marriage”? – what a slap in the face to my God. I will
    absolutely NOT support it. So there you have it. Call me all kinds of names (most of which you could stand in front of the mirror and call yourself as well), or hear me clearly. I am offering to support your cause if it becomes about equal rights – the choice is yours.

    Report comment

    • SB

      The marriage that you hold as sacred, is the same kind of marriage that I hold sacred, but just that my marriage is not recognized by the IRS for income tax filing or health care benefits, or the state I live in. I am failing to see the reason why it shouldn’t be, or the reason why it cannot be called marriage. It does not seem logical to me. I value and respect my marriage just the same as the average married person does their own marriage.

      I have to ask, do you also object those marriages that “defile” what you and I both hold as sacred, the ones that disrespect their married partner, disrespect their marriage, do not hold it valuable, lie, cheat, and hold no regard for vows that were taken? Where is your argument to have those marriages not use the term “marriage”?

      Report comment

      • plumbing101mike

        SB,

        I am in agreement with you that the inequalities that our system
        currently has towards same sex unions vs. marriages are not appropriate
        and should be changed to remove the inequalities. I do not agree that
        the term “marriage” is appropriate or accurate for these unions simply
        by looking up the definitions in the dictionary. I have a couple of
        friends who both switched gender and then wound up marrying each other,
        so I understand that life can get pretty complicated at times.

        You asked about the marriages where one of the people lies, cheats,
        abuses, or holds no regard for the vows taken – I hate this! And
        divorce rates around 50% is a horrible thing! Especially when children
        are involved. Children are so quickly and easily influenced. We could both name stellar examples of same sex couples and opposite sex couples and I suppose we could both name horrible examples of both as well.

        I want to thank you for taking the time to ask a good question and to not automatically assume that just because I do not fully agree with you that I for some reason hate you or that I am closed minded or fill in the blank with some basic name calling. Thank you.

        Report comment

      • darlahood

        plumbing101mike–

        Words are creations of human beings. They have meaning (definitions) only because the people speaking the language agree on the meaning. Language is everchanging; word meanings change all the time. Take the word “gay,” for example. Although it originally meant “happy,” we as a culture accept that it now has an additional meaning. Prior to the Information Age, a “computer” was a person–one who computed numbers. Why can’t our culturally accepted understanding of “marriage” also change?

        Insisting that same-sex couples have similar legal benefits but not social ones (the acknowledgement of the legitimacy of their commitment) sounds like “separate but equal” to me.

        Report comment

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=657716714 Brian Schulz

    I really laugh when someone throws out the term “sanctity of marriage”, as if it’s still the bar to which we should hold all people accountable to. Well over half te marriages in this country end in divorce, so please do not stand there and preach to me or anyone else about e “sanctify of marriage”.

    I simply do not understand the intolerance, the fear and the lack of basic human compassion in people like the author of this editorial. If you believe in a God, you also believe that God made us in his own vision. We are all, in essence, a representation of God, whether we are gay, straight, black, white, etc. So to judge a person, to believe that thy do not have the simplest of rights afforded to humans, the right to live and be loved, is saying that God erred and I wrong in allowing this on his Earth

    Report comment

  • http://twitter.com/myposian Eric Goldman

    For someone so not interested in gay marriage, you sure talk about it a lot. Don’t worry, no one is going to make you marry a dude if you don’t want to.

    Report comment

  • http://www.facebook.com/harold.bowlby Harold Bowlby

    The old argument about “Loving relationships” doesn’t hold water either. I knew of a minister who was defrocked when it was discovered he was having a consensual “Loving relationship with his own daughter”. A 40 year old man could have a “loving relationship” with a 12 year old girl. (or boy for that matter). Then there is the Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice scenario gone wild. What if they discovered they all had a “loving relationship” with each other? Shouldn’t they be allowed to each be married to the other three? What a happy family that would be. The restrictions against Multiple partners, age, incest will soon all be gone. Marriage will be meaningless.

    Report comment

  • Carol Morrisey

    The argument seems to be over the definition of marriage. One group says it is a loving, committed relationship involving sex. The other side sees marriage as a public commitment between two people of opposite genders with the potential for creating children, with legal protections for such children and their mother. The second definition dates from the beginning of human life. I see no reason to change it. The author is correct in his analysis of the semantics involved, but apparently some readers are either too unwilling or too uneducated in philosophy to accept his reasoning.

    Report comment

  • http://www.facebook.com/adompeace Adam Adolfo Nakhla-Thometz

    As John already said, you are not making a new point. This is just a variation on the whole “marriage is strictly between a man and a woman” theme, which, itself, is not only a tired argument but also an assumption that is not based on anything other then religious dogma. If you had any actual philosophical training, you would know that this kind of move has no place in philosophy. All you did was decorate the theme with philosophical terminology, which, as a student of philosophy, I find extremely irritating.

    And the second-to-last paragraph is just so condescending.

    Report comment

  • Jem

    Two flaws. 1: that heterosexuality is an “essential”, not a contingent, property of marriage. This is an unsupported claim – back it up with reasoning. Flaw 2: The ideas of marriage and red balls are different in nature. We do not have the power to change the idea of a red ball because it is an external physical object. Red balls will continue to exist whatever we call them. Marriage is an idea held purely in the mind, therefore we have the power to change it. The traditional definition of marriage will cease to exist as soon as there is not one person in a society that does not hold with the idea of exclusively heterosexual marriage. These two are ontologically entirely separate ideas, and cannot be analogous.

    Report comment

Editor's Picks