Jordan and Boonin on Same-Sex Marriage Argument

• Main Authors: Wang, Bing-Yu, 王禀寓
• Other Authors: 鄭光明
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2019
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/u6xqhs

碩士 === 國立政治大學 === 哲學系 === 107 === Jeff Jordan has put forward soundest argument ever that is against same-sex marriage. He assumes that same-sex marriage as a public dilemma which needs to be solved by two resolutions: resolution by declaration or resolution by accommodation. However, Jordan acclaims that there’s no such an overriding reason for this dispute to sanction same-sex marriage by declaration. So resolution by accommodation would be the best for same-sex marriage that each side of defender gets some but not all of what they want and thus either side is an absolute winner or an absolute loser. Another scholar, David Boonin, who accounts different points of view to Jordan. What he demands is that same-sex marriage has overriding reasons for resolution by declaration. Government should sanction same-sex marriage by declaration otherwise it would just be a discrimination to homosexuality. In addition, Boonin emphasizes that same-sex marriage is about marriage and the behavior of homosexuality. Unlike Jordan’s argument, what Jordan’s mistake is to take two different concepts into one category which would lead no one of defenders would completely satisfy by declaration. 　　What is the consequence of same-sex marriage in this depute? Is it really proper to announce same-sex marriage sanctioned by declaration directly? So as to solve this dispute, the examination of behavior of homosexuality is needed. According this field, my work is to examine the study from Michael, Levin and Timothy F., Murphy. In the end of the research, I will stand for declaration by overriding reasons and also explain what is lacking in Jordan’s argument.