M14 Shooter said:
You finding it asinine really doesnt mean much, and it certainly doesnt mean I'm not right.
I am glad you hold your own, even when its an assinine point. I cannot say whether you are right or wrong as of yet, but I can look at history and see that the slippery slope argument didn't hold then and wont hold now. The slippery slope argument is a transparent attempt to create a logic for denying aspects of the constitution to a group of people based on personal biases. It holds no truth that can be proven and is nothing more than the opining of a small minded group who believe they have trumped liberty with a big idea. In truth, the slippery slope argument is ridiculous and most people know it.
You mean it would make a fundamental change in what is defined as a marriage.
Yes, polygamous marriage would make a fundamental change in the definition of marriage...the inclusion of more than two partners, the parental relationship would be expanded, divorce would be complicated, tax law to be rewritten, medical rights would be complicated by multiple partners, death benefits would have to be redefined, insurance rights reworked...it goes on and on.
Just as same-sex marriages would.
Why is one fundamental change OK but not the other?
Nice try, but it doesnt hold water. Same sex marriage would not involve a fundamental change, only a change in nomenclature. You know, the same kind of change that was made when the interracial marriage ban was repealed. Still one person married to one person...using the same laws that are in place now and no added laws. Now I can already hear you hemming and hawing about adoption...but gays are already adopting and have been for some time. Adoption laws are not directly tied to marriage laws...this is pure misinformation on the part of anti-liberty zealots. The undeniable truth is that allowing for civil union or gay marriage is no more a change to the marriage contract than any other change that has been made in the past 50-100 years and any opposition to it is based in the same bias that was shown to interracial marriage less than 60 years ago.
Marriage is defined by the state and is a state, not religous insitution. It is the governments 'place' to define marriage however the people of the state see fit.
I do believe that most religious institutions and most of your conservative peers would disagree with you on that notion. In fact, most of the liberal mass would disagree with you on that, also. I dont feel a need to touch this one.
Not by you, and not here.
Oh, my bad, I was trying to avoid boring our readers by rehashing a tired and solidly debunked debate. I didnt realize I was talking to Johnny Come Lately, but ok. For you, I will summarize the conclusion of that debate of months ago.
The slippery slope argument is unprovable by the opponents of gay marriage because it hinges on prediction of future public opinion. Even if it did hold true, then it is not a valid argument because we are a democracy and if public opinion moved in that direction, by our own standards of government, we would have to allow that movement. However, in the past when the slippery slope was used as an argument (for example, interracial marriages will slide into a total blending of races and an end to the white race) it has been proven to carry no validity. Name me one slippery slope argument from the past that came true, and I will be willing to re open that debate. Unless you can, this particular case is closed and the argument remains debunked.