Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 44
  1. #11  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    I wonder if wilbur will point out to you as he has pointed out to me that this will never happen. The slippery slope idea is just silly when it comes to the long term ramifications of same-sex marriages
    A slippery slope is a fallacy that gets paraded about when a person has no solid case for their position... such as yours here, in this case.

    How about listing the top reasons you can imagine as to why we should not to recognize marriages or partnerships with inanimate objects... what does that list look like?
    Last edited by wilbur; 04-15-2009 at 02:42 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,265
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    A slippery slope is a fallacy that gets paraded about when a person has no solid case for their position... such as yours here, in this case.

    How about listing the top reasons you can imagine as to why we should not to recognize marriages or partnerships with inanimate objects... what does that list look like?
    Are telling me that you support marriage to inanimate objects? If so perhaps first you should list the reasons why it should be allowed. None of your usual conjecture that you pass off as facts. Hard evidence that such relationships would benefit the individual and society.

    If you don't support the marriage of people to inanimate objects then how about instead of dealing in theoreticals we deal in actual events and I produce evidence of the slide down the slippery slope. I'll post links to news articles (which I've done before) referencing people who wish to marry non human lifeforms and object. One piece of evidence is the article itself.

    Normally I don't by in to the slippery slope argument but in the case I have to because evidence of it is starting to occur now.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    eeeevil Sith Admin SarasotaRepub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sarasota,FL
    Posts
    42,769
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    A slippery slope is a fallacy that gets paraded about when a person has no solid case for their position... such as yours here, in this case.

    How about listing the top reasons you can imagine as to why we should not to recognize marriages or partnerships with inanimate objects... what does that list look like?

    1.) It's fucking stupid and anyone who buys into it is fucking stupid too.
    May the FORCE be with you!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,265
    Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaRepub View Post
    1.) It's fucking stupid and anyone who buys into it is fucking stupid too.
    I can't believe that wilbur is going to defend marriage to inanimate objects in order to make a point about the differences between heterophobe marriages and the slippery slope marriages he claims won't happen. I think I see where his is going with this but it only confirms my belief that Mrs. Smith has finally succeeded in her neferious plot to drive him insane.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    11,365
    There are likely many women in conventional marriages who would describe their husbands as inanimate objects, especially in the evenings in the LaZBoy, with the remote.
    "Today, [the American voter] chooses his rulers as he buys bootleg whiskey, never knowing precisely what he is getting, only certain that it is not what it pretends to be." - H.L. Mencken
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    I can't believe that wilbur is going to defend marriage to inanimate objects in order to make a point about the differences between heterophobe marriages and the slippery slope marriages he claims won't happen
    Unless you plan on relying on an endless cascade of possible marriage permutations that we would be powerless to stop if another is allowed, you actually need to pick one and justify why its bad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post
    This is why I advocate domestic partnerships. They are little different from an LLC with provisions and they skip all the tedious sexual entanglements.

    It's obvious that once same-sex "marriage" is enacted that there little or no argument barring group marriage or incest for consenting adults. Monuments and appliances won't be far behind. Let's just take the sex angle out of it altogether for all the non-religious people. It will be less sticky.
    Polygamy is already making inroads in Europe, thanks to Sharia law. It's only a matter of time before it comes here as well. I suspect that some Hollywood star is going to convert when he realizes that he can give his ongoing threesome, foursome or whatever, legal status.
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    A slippery slope is a fallacy that gets paraded about when a person has no solid case for their position... such as yours here, in this case.
    Hardly. Once a precedent is established in law, it must be followed through to its logical conclusions (or, in the case of the Ninth Circuit, illogical conclusions). The estabilshment of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment has given rise to numerous rulings that the enacters never foresaw, including Title IX, which has resulted in the elimination of male sports teams in the interests of "fairness." Slippery slopes happen because precedents have implications beyond the initial decision.

    BTW, it's extremely disingenuious for liberals to deny the validity of slippery slope arguments when one of the major tenets of the progressives is that each decision towards "progress" sets the stage for the next milestone. Take, for example, the gay activists' desired endstate, which is the end of heterosexuality as the dominant norm of the culture. Each step towards that goal has facilitated the next step and created momentum towards it. When gay activists demanded (and got) equal considerations for domestic partnerships in terms of health benefits, hospital visitations, etc., those who stated that the next step would be gay marriage were ridiculed. Now we're at gay marriage. Slippery slope arguments aren't invalid if the slope is visible and you can see the bottom from where you are.
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    How about listing the top reasons you can imagine as to why we should not to recognize marriages or partnerships with inanimate objects... what does that list look like?
    Sure:
    Inanimate objects cannot express consent. Consequently, unless you are the owner of the object in question, anyone can lay claim to its affections. Who gets to decide who marries the Washington Monument, for example (Don't laugh, there are a lot of women who find it attractive, and size matters, no matter what women say to the contrary). If there is no means of deciding who has a claim to a public monument, then we end up either denying the right to marry the object or accept the premise that multiple people can marry it. The choice is then between no marriage to inanimate objects, or poligamy.

    Even if property rights are not an issue (in the event that you wish to marry something that you already hold title to), does someone have to divorce an inanimate object before marrying again? Remember, no consent from the pet rock is possible, so it clearly cannot be an issue. That means that marriage, once entered into, can be unilaterally disolved. If that applies to marriages between people (and once the precedent is established, it eventually will), you end up with marriages that can be destroyed at will by only one partner. For an idea of what that looks like, take a look at Islamic divorces, where a man can simply publicly repeat that he is divorced three times and it's a done deal. The result of that will be families that collapse at the first disagreement. We'll end up with marriages that have no more meaning than casual hookups, with a complete collapse of familial responsibility, which, BTW, was one of the major arguments against no-fault divorce, one of the first steps on the slippery slope to where we are now. Precedents matter.
    Quote Originally Posted by linda22003 View Post
    There are likely many women in conventional marriages who would describe their husbands as inanimate objects, especially in the evenings in the LaZBoy, with the remote.
    Mrs. O, is that you? :eek:
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Unless you plan on relying on an endless cascade of possible marriage permutations that we would be powerless to stop if another is allowed, you actually need to pick one and justify why its bad.
    Recognizing a relationship with an inanimate object as being socially and legally on par with traditional marriage is bad because it degrades the institution as a whole and makes the institution less desirable to normal people. It opens a precedent of making human relationships subject to the law that would normally govern property. It allows for arguments that would inevitably eventually propose voluntary slavery (among consenting adults).

    While I'm perfectly aware of the Libertarian argument for voluntary slavery, I have no desire to live in a nation that would recognize it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    11,365
    Perspective has to be maintained. In terms of inanimate objects, I had a deeply meaningful relationship with a double-ribbed smoked pork chop a couple of years ago at the Six Penn restaurant in Pittsburgh. It was fabulous while it lasted, and when it was over I just wanted to sit next to it for awhile, but ultimately I knew it couldn't last forever.

    I still think about it sometimes, though. :o
    "Today, [the American voter] chooses his rulers as he buys bootleg whiskey, never knowing precisely what he is getting, only certain that it is not what it pretends to be." - H.L. Mencken
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by linda22003 View Post
    Perspective has to be maintained. In terms of inanimate objects, I had a deeply meaningful relationship with a double-ribbed smoked pork chop a couple of years ago at the Six Penn restaurant in Pittsburgh. It was fabulous while it lasted, and when it was over I just wanted to sit next to it for awhile, but ultimately I knew it couldn't last forever.

    I still think about it sometimes, though. :o
    You're such a slut, Linda. :D
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •