gay marriage...

[Columbusite]

Slipperly Slope Fallacy. Marriage between one or more consenting individuals has nothing to do with marriage between or among nonconsenting individuals. If a cow could consent, then yes, it could be married. Marriages are contracts; non-consenting entities cannot engage in them.

If the slippery slope could apply to same-sex marriage then it makes just as much when applied to opposite-sex marriage: none.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Exactly =D The whole concept of saying one will lead to "anything" is so absurdly idiotic.

 

[Busta]

Slipperly Slope Fallacy. Marriage between one or more consenting individuals has nothing to do with marriage between or among nonconsenting individuals. If a cow could consent, then yes, it could be married. Marriages are contracts; non-consenting entities cannot engage in them.

I've ilustraited many times already how this "slipery slope" is not flawed ( and thue is not a "slipery slope"). Go back and read.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

I have read. You have not demonstrated that it's not a slipperly slope fallacy. In fact, your reasoning is entirely flawed. The reason why gay marraige is ok has nothing to do with "allowing any marriage" post-gay marriage. That's nonsense.

The reason for gay marriage is contractual. It is a binding agreement among consenting individuals. It does not lead to polygamy; it does not lead to "marrying your sister." Reason leads to those and Reason alone.

There is nothing inherently immoral about gay marriage, polygamy, or even marrying your cousin (the only thing of concern comes through having children, and that can easily be avoided via abortion, birth control, contraception). Short of your personal distaste for the practices, there are no valid, objective reasons for denying them, and neither of the above lead to "goat marrying" or "marrying your toaster." WHy? Goats and toasters cannot consent. Plain and simple. If goats could consent, well...then you could marry your goat.

 

[Kelzie]

I have read. You have not demonstrated that it's not a slipperly slope fallacy. In fact, your reasoning is entirely flawed. The reason why gay marraige is ok has nothing to do with "allowing any marriage" post-gay marriage. That's nonsense.

The reason for gay marriage is contractual. It is a binding agreement among consenting individuals. It does not lead to polygamy; it does not lead to "marrying your sister." Reason leads to those and Reason alone.

There is nothing inherently immoral about gay marriage, polygamy, or even marrying your cousin (the only thing of concern comes through having children, and that can easily be avoided via abortion, birth control, contraception). Short of your personal distaste for the practices, there are no valid, objective reasons for denying them, and neither of the above lead to "goat marrying" or "marrying your toaster." WHy? Goats and toasters cannot consent. Plain and simple. If goats could consent, well...then you could marry your goat.

Hey you can marry your first cousin in Colorado. Anyone else know that? Not really relevant....just felt like chiming in. :2wave:

 

[George_Washington]

There is nothing inherently immoral about gay marriage, polygamy, or even marrying your cousin (the only thing of concern comes through having children, and that can easily be avoided via abortion, birth control, contraception). Short of your personal distaste for the practices, there are no valid, objective reasons for denying them, and neither of the above lead to "goat marrying" or "marrying your toaster." WHy? Goats and toasters cannot consent. Plain and simple. If goats could consent, well...then you could marry your goat.

Well, I think that one could say there is at least no logical purpose to gay marriage and gay relations because it is impossible for two people of the same sex to reproduce. At least with heterosexual marriage, there is both an incentive and a purpose for them to marry.

 

[TheBigC]

Exactly =D The whole concept of saying one will lead to "anything" is so absurdly idiotic.

Then you don't understand stare decisis.

 

[Kelzie]

Well, I think that one could say there is at least no logical purpose to gay marriage and gay relations because it is impossible for two people of the same sex to reproduce. At least with heterosexual marriage, there is both an incentive and a purpose for them to marry.

And we've already been through this. What about heterosexuals who can't or don't want to reproduce? Should they be denied the opportunity to get married? What about women past menopause? Should they have to divorce their husband since it is impossible for them to reproduce?

That argument is one of the weaker ones from the anti-gay marriage camp, IMO.

 

[MrFungus420]

Well, I think that one could say there is at least no logical purpose to gay marriage and gay relations because it is impossible for two people of the same sex to reproduce. At least with heterosexual marriage, there is both an incentive and a purpose for them to marry.

So, you don't think that love is a reason to marry?

Again, we're brought back to the "procreation" argument.

Based on this logic, then you don't think that people who are infertile should marry. After all, if they are infertile, then there is no logical purpose for them to get married.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Then you don't understand stare decisis.

Yes. I do. However, I also understand that the logic of the previous case makes for the decision of the following cases. The previous cases are not decided based on marriage being legal as a contract via consenting adults. Since this is the case, it is irrelevant if the next case brought up is a man wanting "equal marriage" with his donkey, since you cannot give a contract to a donkey.

The reasoning and facts behind decisions are looked at, not just the conclusion. Reasoning is all important. You don't understand the concept of "personhood" or "consent."

 

[Busta]

I have read. You have not demonstrated that it's not a slipperly slope fallacy. In fact, your reasoning is entirely flawed. The reason why gay marraige is ok has nothing to do with "allowing any marriage" post-gay marriage. That's nonsense.

The reason for gay marriage is contractual. It is a binding agreement among consenting individuals. It does not lead to polygamy; it does not lead to "marrying your sister." Reason leads to those and Reason alone.

There is nothing inherently immoral about gay marriage, polygamy, or even marrying your cousin (the only thing of concern comes through having children, and that can easily be avoided via abortion, birth control, contraception). Short of your personal distaste for the practices, there are no valid, objective reasons for denying them, and neither of the above lead to "goat marrying" or "marrying your toaster." WHy? Goats and toasters cannot consent. Plain and simple. If goats could consent, well...then you could marry your goat.

I think that you are missing what I'm trying to say.
It is not the legalization of gay 'marriage, its self, that will allow "any other marriage". It is *the argument being used* that will allow any kind of 'marriage.

If gay 'marriage were argued on the basis of being beneficial to unwanted children (a married gay couple could addopt, and I do not doubt a gay couples ability to raise a child up to be an intelligent and moral member of society), businesses (married men do better in the work place then non-married men) and/or Uncle Sam's pocket (the Marriage Tax Penalty that I have been living with for the last 6 years....for starters), then my perfectly sound "slippery slope" argument would not apply since no one would be invoking "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

It doesn't suprise me that "the left" doesn't argue it that way, because in order to do so they would have to give up their victim/entitlement mentality and actually become a positive force.

Canya-dig'it?

ps. Kelzie, that is as close as I'm ever going to get to telling you of the pro. gay 'marriage argument that I can not contest.

 

[Kelzie]

I think that you are missing what I'm trying to say.
It is not the legalization of gay 'marriage, its self, that will allow "any other marriage". It is *the argument being used* that will allow any kind of 'marriage.

If gay 'marriage were argued on the basis of being beneficial to unwanted children (a married gay couple could addopt, and I do not doubt a gay couples ability to raise a child up to be an intelligent and moral member of society), businesses (married men do better in the work place then non-married men) and/or Uncle Sam's pocket (the Marriage Tax Penalty that I have been living with for the last 6 years....for starters), then my perfectly sound "slippery slope" argument would not apply since no one would be invoking "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

It doesn't suprise me that "the left" doesn't argue it that way, because in order to do so they would have to give up their victim/entitlement mentality and actually become a positive force.

Canya-dig'it?

ps. Kelzie, that is as close as I'm ever going to get to telling you of the pro. gay 'marriage argument that I can not contest.

What? Ah come on, I can argue that. If your arguing that it's a benefit to society, than so would allowing sibs to marry and polygamy. In fact, polygamy would be better because in theory they could adopt more children and pay more taxes.

It has to be more complicated than that. Just tell me. Pleeaasse???

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

I think that you are missing what I'm trying to say.
It is not the legalization of gay 'marriage, its self, that will allow "any other marriage". It is *the argument being used* that will allow any kind of 'marriage.

What argument being used? My argument doesn't lead to a slipperly slope at all. The primary argument for gay marriage is constitutionality and the concept of moral personhood and how that relates to contractual relations. It stands to reason that you cannot have a contractual relation with your donkey or your toaster. Do you disagree?

If gay 'marriage were argued on the basis of being beneficial to unwanted children (a married gay couple could addopt, and I do not doubt a gay couples ability to raise a child up to be an intelligent and moral member of society), businesses (married men do better in the work place then non-married men) and/or Uncle Sam's pocket (the Marriage Tax Penalty that I have been living with for the last 6 years....for starters), then my perfectly sound "slippery slope" argument would not apply since no one would be invoking "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Ok. That is not the only argument, however.

It doesn't suprise me that "the left" doesn't argue it that way, because in order to do so they would have to give up their victim/entitlement mentality and actually become a positive force.

This is not a left/right issue. It's an issue of pure Reason itself. There is no valid reason AGIAINST any of the practices I listed. The burden of proof is on someone who says it's bad, not the person who disagrees. If they cannot show it is bad, there is no reason to assume it is, and thus, there's no legitimate foundation for making it bad. There isn't even a legal reason to make it legal, since doing so is highly unconstitutional.

My position has nothing to do with "victim" mentality. It has to do with moral personhood. Every individual who achieves moral personhood has the right to equal protection under the law to do what he wants, given that it hurts no one else. This includes contractual relations with consenting individuals. All adults ought to be able enter into contractual relations with consenting individuals.

 

[Busta]

What? Ah come on, I can argue that. If your arguing that it's a benefit to society, than so would allowing sibs to marry and polygamy. In fact, polygamy would be better because in theory they could adopt more children and pay more taxes.

It has to be more complicated than that. Just tell me. Pleeaasse???

The details of similar pro. family arguments made in favor of bigamy, insest and such, would stand alone because there is no Amendment to glue them all together. For example: Someone who voted for gay 'marriage could turn to the pro. insest people and start talking about genetic deformities, of which such genetic deformities did not apply to the gay 'marriage issue.

Without the Constitution involved, anyone could just say "no" and slay it outrite.

Other than that, I know how to counter the anti-homosexual bible quotes.....then one could use the same procedure that is used in the ongoing assult on fathers to stir unstopable pro gay 'marriage p.r.......change the language from "oh poor me" and "gimme gimme gimme" to $$$$$ with an "it's for the children" accent.......

 

[Busta]

What argument being used? My argument doesn't lead to a slipperly slope at all. The primary argument for gay marriage is constitutionality and the concept of moral personhood and how that relates to contractual relations. It stands to reason that you cannot have a contractual relation with your donkey or your toaster. Do you disagree?

Ok. That is not the only argument, however.

This is not a left/right issue. It's an issue of pure Reason itself. There is no valid reason AGIAINST any of the practices I listed. The burden of proof is on someone who says it's bad, not the person who disagrees. If they cannot show it is bad, there is no reason to assume it is, and thus, there's no legitimate foundation for making it bad. There isn't even a legal reason to make it legal, since doing so is highly unconstitutional.

My position has nothing to do with "victim" mentality. It has to do with moral personhood. Every individual who achieves moral personhood has the right to equal protection under the law to do what he wants, given that it hurts no one else. This includes contractual relations with consenting individuals. All adults ought to be able enter into contractual relations with consenting individuals.

Mine is the argument accused of being a slippery slope, not yours. I didn't mien to imply otherwise.

Marriage is not just a sterile legal contract. As it involves allot of passionet, real people, Marriage is a germy, wet and sloppy issue. I can't help but observe the red flag that went up when you sterilized your view:

*The three-step propagandist*

1st.: Change the name; It's not a gay 'marriage, it's a civil union; It's not a child, it's a fetus; it's not guns used in crime, it's assult weapons; it's not a rais in taxes, it's repealing the tax cut......
2nd. Sterilize and dehumanize the object of your focus; explain that it is a simple matter of "facts" and/or law, speak about your view in a manner so as to intimidate compliance by appealing to a persons natural need to be accepted.
3rd. Label, insult and discredit any who will not turn; Self explanitory.

 

[Busta]

Oh...burden of proof.....I almost forgot.
The burden of proof rests on those who wish for new law to be passed. When you tell me that gay 'marriage should be legal, the burden of proof is on you as you must convince me why I should go agents my conscience.

When I tell you that gay marriage should be federally denied, the burden of proof is on me as I must convince you as to why you should go agents issuing a group the same rights as every other group.

Fair?

 

[-Demosthenes-]

Marriage Spectrum

It seems that there is a "marriage spectrum":

Only two people of the opposite sex should marry.
>
Consenting adults can marry (homosexual marriage, poligamy, ect.).
>
Anyone can marry anyone.

Just depends on you opinion of who should be able to marry who, the common misconcption is that people who believe in the "consenting adults" crusade believe that it is the end of the spectrum, and it is not.

 

[Kelzie]

Oh...burden of proof.....I almost forgot.
The burden of proof rests on those who wish for new law to be passed. When you tell me that gay 'marriage should be legal, the burden of proof is on you as you must convince me why I should go agents my conscience.

When I tell you that gay marriage should be federally denied, the burden of proof is on me as I must convince you as to why you should go agents issuing a group the same rights as every other group.

Fair?

I don't remember, and this threads gotten too long for me to go back and look. Did you ever come up with a defense of anti-interracial marriage? Because they weren't being denied any rights either. Black men could marry a women of the same race just like white men could.

 

[Columbusite]

Oh...burden of proof.....I almost forgot.
The burden of proof rests on those who wish for new law to be passed. When you tell me that gay 'marriage should be legal, the burden of proof is on you as you must convince me why I should go agents my conscience.

When I tell you that gay marriage should be federally denied, the burden of proof is on me as I must convince you as to why you should go agents issuing a group the same rights as every other group.

Fair?

You want to retain something that is blatantly unconstitutional. We are simply saying that where the government meddles in marriage it is going to have to follow a definition in line with the Constitution. So we had mandatory same race marriage (unconstitutional), but now no one is allowed have a same sex marriage (also unconstitutional). Your stance is unconstitutional, plain and simple. The burden is on YOU to explain why we must continue this unconstitutional practice.

 

[Busta]

You want to retain something that is blatantly unconstitutional. We are simply saying that where the government meddles in marriage it is going to have to follow a definition in line with the Constitution. So we had mandatory same race marriage (unconstitutional), but now no one is allowed have a same sex marriage (also unconstitutional). Your stance is unconstitutional, plain and simple. The burden is on YOU to explain why we must continue this unconstitutional practice.

Legislation doesn't pass by defalt, sorry. You are proposing new law, now tell me why I should support it.

 

[Busta]

I don't remember, and this threads gotten too long for me to go back and look. Did you ever come up with a defense of anti-interracial marriage? Because they weren't being denied any rights either. Black men could marry a women of the same race just like white men could.

The origin of marriage never had a restriction regarding race.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

You want to retain something that is blatantly unconstitutional.

Curious, where does it say that?

 

[Columbusite]

The origin of marriage never had a restriction regarding race.

Someone should have told the South.

 

[Columbusite]

Legislation doesn't pass by defalt, sorry. You are proposing new law, now tell me why I should support it.

The new law would be in line with the Constitution, as should ALL of our laws be.

 

[Busta]

Someone should have told the South.

We did, and now their unfounded inter-racial ban is gone.