Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 44 of 44
  1. #41  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,306
    I used a definition supplied by UCLA Law, you used on supplied by Wikipedia...:eek:

    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  
     

  2. #42  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    I used a definition supplied by UCLA Law, you used on supplied by Wikipedia...:eek:
    Your fixation on the irrelevant does not salvage anything about your arguments.. and I have not attempted to hastily dismiss any argument presented here based solely on its classification as a slippery slope... I have supported all my positions.

    What do you hope to accomplish by belaboring on about definitions of slippery slopes? You cannot salvage your arguments regarding either hate crimes or same-sex marriage by doing so.
    Last edited by wilbur; 04-17-2009 at 04:06 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #43  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,306
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Your fixation on the irrelevant does not salvage anything about your arguments.. and I have not attempted to hastily dismiss any argument presented here based solely on its classification as a slippery slope... I have supported all my positions.

    What do you hope to accomplish by belaboring on about definitions of slippery slopes? You cannot salvage your arguments regarding either hate crimes or same-sex marriage by doing so.
    It amuses me to see you put so much in to an answer that not many at this site will accept. I agree with you up to a point put you stated that the slippery slope argument in and of itself is a fallacy and I just wanted to point out that it is not true. Legally it is a valid arguement. In regard to same sex marriage... I do see your point and I'll even concede it to you and publicly state that you are correct and I was wrong. But you seem to be so fearful of being wrong that you go to great lengths to prove a point when other than me you won't change anyones mind.

    Believe it or not, I do respect your opinion on things outside of Christianity and that is because you don't understand it as well as you would have some believe.

    Peace,
    Gary

    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  
     

  4. #44  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    To Ody and FlaGator, on slippery slopes:

    First, we arent talking about a shift from animist marriage to pedophilia.. we're talking about same-sex marriage to animist marriage.
    No, you're narrowing the field. The slope is the declining value and sanctity of marriage through redefinition. Same-sex marriage is one step on that continuum. As I pointed out later in my post, the erosion of traditional concepts of marriage creates precedents that encompass inanimate marriage and which can lead to other forms of "marriage" which are extremely destructive.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Second, it does not follow that if the legal status of some inanimate-object is elevated to a degree nearer to human beings, that a precedent is created that allows fundamental rights to be taken away from children. This is quite a puzzling tac for you to take when you say:

    "If inanimate objects cannot give consent, neither can children, and thus children cannot marry of their own accord".

    It makes it sound as if you think the philosophical underpinnings of the fundamental rights of minors flow from the legal status of inanimate every-day objects. But this is obviously faulty, and so are your conclusions that follow from it.
    No, my contention is that once we accept the idea that consent is not a requirement for marriage, then marriage can and will encompass people (and things) which cannot give consent. The rights of minors in western culture are part and parcel of natural law. They have basic rights to life and, to a lesser degree, liberty (within the context of their dependence on their parents), but in some cultures, children are considered the property of their parents, and thus, their consent is not necessary for arranged marriages. Many of these cultures are, in fact, animist, although many are found throughout the Moslem world. The critical factor, however, is that in each of these cultures, there is a tribal/clan dynamic rather than a culture of individual rights. When these concepts invade the west, we will find ourselves forced to accomodate practices which strike us as bizarre.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    In most of of your proposed steps, you cite the 14th amendment as the wedge that will be used to bring about further changes to marriage. Yet, in almost every single successive step, you talk about forms of marriage that cannot exist without gross violations of fundamental rights. Fundamental rights that are enshrined under mountains and mountains of legal precedent, including the 14th amendment itself. Same-sex marriage cannot even begin to set the stage for weakening these rights. To claim same-sex marriage can erode those rights in such a way is to claim you jumped to the moon from a trampoline. Precedent behind these rights goes light years beyond what could be possibly be affected, even in worse worst case, by redefining marriage to include same-sex partnerships.
    And yet, same-sex marriage cannot exist without overturning mountains and mountains of legal precedent, including state constitutions, legal codes and traditions. If the advocates of same-sex marriage can invalidate those constitutions, codes and traditions, why can't the advocates of object marriage, child marriage or polygamists?

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    The only wild-card in that whole lot is polygamy. I'll grant you, polygamy is the hardest out of all the examples, but this is precisely because it actually has such a long history all over the world (including strong roots in Judeo-Christian traditions). You also seem to forget that those who have fought hardest for polygamy in this country (for over a century), have been doing so on the grounds of religious freedom... Christian religious freedom. The objections and the counter-arguments are wide and varied, but the strongest objections to polygamy have always been about human trafficking, underage marriages, rights violations of women, and extreme burdens placed on state welfare systems.
    On the contrary, I am very much aware of the religious arguments for polygamy in Judaism and Christianity, but Judaism banned polygamy in the 11th century after Rabbenu Gershom's synod and Christianity has banned polygamy since the days of St. Augustine. Only one Christian sect has practiced polygamy in the last century, the LDS, and they've forbidden the practice. Globally, Hindus and Confucians practiced forms of polygamy into this century, but India and most other Asian nations have banned it, except those in which Sharia law is applied. The only major religious group that advocates polygamy today is Islam, although it is also common in sub-Saharan Africa.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    So at this point you really have to explain how the equal protection clause can be used to strip minors of their most protected fundamental rights by citing religious freedom, in a way never before seen or allowed in this country.
    The equal protection clause is constantly being interpreted in ways never before seen or allowed in this country, the most obvious example being the novel argument that it justifies same-sex marriage. Once you accept the premise that marriage is a "right," it will be used as a wedge to advance group rights, rather than individual rights, it can be used to demand that those who have a religious commandment to take multiple wives be allowed to do so, or at least that their marriages from overseas be recognized here (this, BTW, is Britain's official position on the subject), since those marriages are just as valid in the eyes of Allah as Christian or Jewish marriages are in the eyes of God. Thus, polygamous practices from Asia and Africa will eventually be accepted and recognized out of a desire to accord the religious practices of those peoples the same protection as those accorded to Christians and Jews.
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    But hey... why stop there, why not just come out and say same-sex marriage leads to slavery? You know you want to. I'm sure if we let your imagination run with it farther, it can be tied to terrorism in some way too.
    You've clearly never been to Kabul on a Thursday night. :D
    Once again, you confuse cause with effect. Same-sex marriage isn't the cause of the collapse of marriage, it's a symptom of it, but one which accelerates the collapse. By redefining marriage away from traditional norms, we lose sight of what marriage is and isn't. Consequently, we end up with all sorts of variants which may work individually, for a while, but which ultimately destroy the basic security of the institution. For example, same-sex marriages, like secular polygamous marriages and arranged marriages, treat marriage strictly as a contractual obligation, to be terminated when the partners find it unsatisfying to their needs. This ignores the most vulnerable parties to the casual dissolution of marriages, children, who are utterly dependent on their parents. Rather than treating marriage as a means to form stable families whose main purpose is to provide the necessary conditions to raise healthy, emotionally stable children, marriage becomes as casual as dating, which becomes a series of hookups. The lack of stability and structure makes raising children much more difficult, while exposing them to dangers not normally found in traditional marriages.
    In fact, the erosion of marriage norms, of which same-sex marriage is a symptom, does lead to chattel slavery, or wouldn't you consider a forced marriage involving a minor to be a form of sexual slavery?

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    To put the final nail in the coffin... several nations have had same sex marriage for over a decade, so we actually have means to corroborate these slippery slope claims. They arent playing out.
    Want to bet? The nations that have adopted full same-sex marriage are:
    • Belgium
    • Canada
    • Netherlands
    • Norway
    • South Africa
    • Spain
    • Sweden
    South Africa has a huge polygamous population. Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Sweden have de facto polygamy in their Moslem enclaves and recognize those marriages in their welfare and legal systems. In addition, these countries also have serious problems with arranged marriages involving child brides in those same quarters. The exception, so far, is Canada, but their legalization of same-sex marriage is extremely recent and the demographic fallout has yet to be observed. Amsterdam has a massive human trafficking problem, as does Norway and Belgium. Sexual crimes such as rape are epidemic in South Africa. Again, this is not a causal relationship between same-sex marriage and polygamy or underage marriage, but evidence that the same dissolution of traditional marriage mores that permits same-sex marriage also creates a more permissive attitude towards polygamy, underage marriage and the objectification and sexual abuse of all people.

    In short, you've put the final nail in the coffin, but you did it from the inside.
    --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  
     

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
  •