Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 44
  1. #21  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    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.
    A slippery slope is always fallacious reasoning... it doesn't always mean its conclusions arent true, but the conclusion was arrived at improperly.

    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.
    Good, I can work with this.

    You have highlighted several good reasons why marriage between humans and objects is at best a non-sensical proposition. Property issues.. the fact that contracts are meaningless unless made between entities that are sentient and self-aware... heck, it might even raise strange issues in criminal cases.. would we charge someone for kidnapping for stealing an iPod that was someone's spouse?

    We certainly can't stop people from having little ceremonies and declaring they have an intimate relationship with some object, but it certainly makes no sense to recognize it legally. One might say it makes about as much sense as creating a legal framework that allows one to loan money to themselves.

    Now that we have a basic outline of the objections that pose seemingly insurmountable problems for proponents of object-marriage, we should take a look at the alleged slippery slope.

    If the slippery slopers are to be believed, we should be able to plainly see how same-sex marriage will directly weaken these core objections to object-marriage that you and I have raised. If allowing X will remove our ability to object to Y, then the core objections to Y must be directly circumvented by X. In other, words, same-sex marriage needs to directly answer answer or provide a way around all (or at least the most important) of your core objections to object-marriage. It should be obvious to everyone, that it doesn't. But unless it does, our ability to oppose object-marriage has not been diminished.

    Allowing same-sex marriage provides no possible answer to disputes that may arrise between two people who both want a monogamous marriage with the Washington Monument. Same-sex marriage provides no justification for a unilateral dissolution of all marriage, nor any other objection you have raised in regards to object marriage.

    Object marriage is still just as incoherent and unworkable and will be just as easily opposed whether we allow same-sex marriage or not.

    Hence, the fallacy of the slippery slope. This holds true for pedophilia marriage as well. Recognizing marriage between two of the same-sex in no way provides justification for disregarding all contractual laws and restrictions regarding minors, not to mention child rape laws. In other words, the slippery slope argument against same-sex marriage is simply BS... and there's no way around it.

    Next.
    Last edited by wilbur; 04-15-2009 at 02:03 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,316
    Hence, the fallacy of the slippery slope. This holds true for pedophilia marriage as well. Recognizing marriage between two of the same-sex in no way provides justification for disregarding all contractual laws and restrictions regarding minors, not to mention child rape laws. In other words, the slippery slope argument against same-sex marriage is simply BS... and there's no way around it.

    Next.
    So at some point, let's say in 5 years, some 40 year old makes makes the argument in a state court that their civil rights and the rights of a 12 year old child are being violated because the two are not allowed to marry and have a sexual relationship. Now let's say the judge agrees with them and grants their petition to marry, you are saying that lies out side the scope of the slippery slope argument?

    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. #23  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    11,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post
    You're such a slut, Linda. :D
    Why, just because I've had lots of other pork chops in my life? This one was really special. Ask PoliCon, he probably knows the restaurant.
    "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  
     

  4. #24  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    So at some point, let's say in 5 years, some 40 year old makes makes the argument in a state court that their civil rights and the rights of a 12 year old child are being violated because the two are not allowed to marry and have a sexual relationship. Now let's say the judge agrees with them and grants their petition to marry, you are saying that lies out side the scope of the slippery slope argument?
    Whats to stop someone from doing that now? Lack of same-sex marriage? Don't think so.

    Nothing about same-sex marriage would force a judge to rethink all the laws and regulations regarding statutory rape and child abuse.
    Last edited by wilbur; 04-15-2009 at 01:30 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,316
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Whats to stop someone from doing that now? Lack of same-sex marriage? Don't think so.
    If they use the same argument and the thought was put in their head or enboldened them because of the attempts at legalizing same sex marriages then there is an ideological cause and effect established. We have seen similar legal manuevering where hate crimes are concerned. Originally there were no hate crimes then because of the attacks upon blacks by white surpremists lead to the creation of hate crime laws. After that evey minority or fringe group wished to have the same additional protections as the African-Americans enjoyed.

    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  
     

  6. #26  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    If they use the same argument and the thought was put in their head or enboldened them because of the attempts at legalizing same sex marriages then there is an ideological cause and effect established.
    So what if they are emboldened? A temporary jolt in courage doesn't make their arguments any more sound, or legally possible.. nor does it mean we have to give them any more credence than we did yesterday. There are no legal avenues, nor philosophical avenues, that are opened up as a result of same-sex marriage that could cause a judge to re-think and repeal all our child abuse laws, child rape laws, and our ethics and morals regarding the treatment of minors. None.

    We have seen similar legal manuevering where hate crimes are concerned. Originally there were no hate crimes then because of the attacks upon blacks by white surpremists lead to the creation of hate crime laws. After that evey minority or fringe group wished to have the same additional protections as the African-Americans enjoyed.
    White supremacists persecute any minority. Even whites who are homosexual. I think hate-crime laws are stupid, but there isn't a significant gulf between hate-crime laws applied to African-Americans and other minorities like there is between same-sex marriage, object-marriage, and pedophilia. Not even close. Apples and toasters.
    Last edited by wilbur; 04-15-2009 at 02:00 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,316
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    So what if they are emboldened? A temporary jolt in courage doesn't make their arguments any more sound, or legally possible.. nor does it mean we have to give them any more credence than we did yesterday. There are no legal avenues, nor philosophical avenues, that are opened up as a result of same-sex marriage that could cause a judge to re-think and repeal all our child abuse laws, child rape laws, and our ethics and morals regarding the treatment of minors. None.



    White supremacists persecute any minority. Even whites who are homosexual. I think hate-crime laws are stupid, but there isn't a significant gulf between hate-crime laws applied to African-Americans and other minorities like there is between same-sex marriage, object-marriage, and pedophilia. Not even close. Apples and toasters.
    OK then lets take hate crime laws as a stand alone since you don't want to take the broad view and see that they represent exactly the same.

    Anyways, one group was seeking civil rights that it felt it deserved and then received them. Then other groups began seeking the same rights that didn't exist before the first group established them for itself. Is this not a text book case of the slippery slope argument. You said you don't like them and I don't care for them either so we agree at this point. At the time when the first hate crime laws were inacted I sure someone pointed out that if you created this new set of civil rights then others would claim them too. In short made the slippery slope argument and in this case it was a valid logical conclusion.

    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  
     

  8. #28  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    OK then lets take hate crime laws as a stand alone since you don't want to take the broad view and see that they represent exactly the same.

    Anyways, one group was seeking civil rights that it felt it deserved and then received them. Then other groups began seeking the same rights that didn't exist before the first group established them for itself. Is this not a text book case of the slippery slope argument. You said you don't like them and I don't care for them either so we agree at this point.
    Actually, hate crime laws in various states and federally were always intended to be applicable to any group (religion, race, gender, etc), not just African Americans... so its hard to see what you intend to accomplish here. Not to mention, there are no special civil rights created because of hate crime laws, except maybe some extra compensatory or punitive damages awarded in court cases... thats it. Hate crimes are mostly about punishment, and discouraging the ideologies behind the hate crimes... not 'receiving civil rights'.

    At the time when the first hate crime laws were inacted I sure someone pointed out that if you created this new set of civil rights then others would claim them too. In short made the slippery slope argument and in this case it was a valid logical conclusion.
    Quotes, or it didn't happen. In fact, lets see the evidence that hate crime laws were initially intended to curb discrimination against blacks only, and that applying hate crime laws to crimes against other peoples (ie, say crimes with an anti-semitic character) is improper use, in light of the original intent of the laws.

    Not to mention, all the good arguments against hate-crime laws are not slippery slope arguments. There are real problematic issues with the core philosophies behind hate crime legislation.

    In either case, its still a losing proposition here to try and argue that because there was a valid slippery slope situation regarding hate crimes laws (allegedly), that the same must be true for same-sex marriage.
    Last edited by wilbur; 04-15-2009 at 04:46 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Senior Member AlmostThere's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    A Great Red State
    Posts
    1,920
    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.
    Only if there's a fridge within arm's reach and a porta-potty built into the recliner. And how many of us besides me have that, huh? :D
    Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Senior Member MrsSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,391
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    A slippery slope is always fallacious reasoning... it doesn't always mean its conclusions arent true, but the conclusion was arrived at improperly.


    Slippery slope...in the 50's, married people were portrayed on TV as sleeping in separate beds.

    One TV show began to show a married couple in a double bed...always completely covered, of course.

    Then they began to show married couples less covered.

    Then they showed unmarried couples actually kissing.

    ...
    ...
    ...

    Now we have the equivalent of the '50's XXX porn on television, available to children of all ages.

    The simple fact is that the slippery slope actually happens. Society "progresses" in the wrong direction, one step at a time, until the "unthinkable" becomes the norm.

    Your knowledge of recent history seems to be as lacking as your knowledge of theology.
    -
    -
    -

    In actual dollars, President Obama’s $4.4 trillion in deficit spending in just three years is 37 percent higher than the previous record of $3.2 trillion (held by President George W. Bush) in deficit spending for an entire presidency. It’s no small feat to demolish an 8-year record in just 3 years.

    Under Obama’s own projections, interest payments on the debt are on course to triple from 2010 (his first budgetary year) to 2018, climbing from $196 billion to $685 billion annually.
    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
  •