Gay Marriage Ruling

[Dukehorn]

Brutus,

Let’s flip the polygamy argument. I’ll give you the gay marriage point once we outlaw divorces, masturbation, anal sex and oral sex. I mean to a certain extent all of the above are considered deviant by our Moral Majority, right? So once you stop yanking your chain, I’ll start worrying about other people’s sex lives.

[Mark Holmes]

Marion and others; the argument you keep using is decribed in debate circles as “the slippery slope argument”. ie:

“Description of Slippery Slope

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This “argument” has the following form:

1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
Examples of Slippery Slope

1. “We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they’ll be charging $40,000 a semester!”

2. “The US shouldn’t get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die.”

3. “You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they’ll walk all over you.”

4. “We’ve got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!””

This argument is often used when someone cannot rely on logic or common sense to support their opinion.

Because gay marriage is legal in California it doesn’t mean that polygamy and bestiality is right around the corner.

Quote from:http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

[Mark Holmes]

Marion and others; the argument you keep using is decribed in debate circles as “the slippery slope argument”. ie:

“Description of Slippery Slope

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This “argument” has the following form:

1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
Examples of Slippery Slope

1. “We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they’ll be charging $40,000 a semester!”

2. “The US shouldn’t get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die.”

3. “You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they’ll walk all over you.”

4. “We’ve got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!””

This argument is often used when someone cannot rely on logic or common sense to support their opinion.

Because gay marriage is legal in California it doesn’t mean that polygamy and bestiality is right around the corner.

Quote from:http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

[Mark Holmes]

Marion and others; the argument you keep using is decribed in debate circles as “the slippery slope argument”. ie:

“Description of Slippery Slope

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This “argument” has the following form:

1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
Examples of Slippery Slope

1. “We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they’ll be charging $40,000 a semester!”

2. “The US shouldn’t get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die.”

3. “You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they’ll walk all over you.”

4. “We’ve got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!””

This argument is often used when someone cannot rely on logic or common sense to support their opinion.

Because gay marriage is legal in California it doesn’t mean that polygamy and bestiality is right around the corner.

Quote from:http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

[Mark Holmes]

Marion and others; the argument you keep using is decribed in debate circles as “the slippery slope argument”. ie:

“Description of Slippery Slope

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This “argument” has the following form:

1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
Examples of Slippery Slope

1. “We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they’ll be charging $40,000 a semester!”

2. “The US shouldn’t get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die.”

3. “You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they’ll walk all over you.”

4. “We’ve got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!””

This argument is often used when someone cannot rely on logic or common sense to support their opinion.

Because gay marriage is legal in California it doesn’t mean that polygamy and bestiality is right around the corner.

Quote from:http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

[Mark Holmes]

Marion and others; the argument you keep using is decribed in debate circles as “the slippery slope argument”. ie:

“Description of Slippery Slope

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This “argument” has the following form:

1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
Examples of Slippery Slope

1. “We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they’ll be charging $40,000 a semester!”

2. “The US shouldn’t get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die.”

3. “You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they’ll walk all over you.”

4. “We’ve got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!””

This argument is often used when someone cannot rely on logic or common sense to support their opinion.

Because gay marriage is legal in California it doesn’t mean that polygamy and bestiality is right around the corner.

Quote from:http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

[barnaby33]

Well, WTF!! Who’s business is it who and how many people that I marry!

I suppose that all you gay marriage supporters were outraged that the government raided the ‘polygamist’ compound–you know, the one where all the women were happy being there?

You can’t have it both ways. Either EVERYTHING is ok when it comes to marriage or society, as a whole, can determine what we condone as the social norm.

Come on meadandale, you’re a smart guy. You can do way better than that. The fundamental difference is that in those systems under most circumstances the partners aren’t. A 14 year old has no real ability to make clear decisions. Polygamy, well F*CK me, have you EVER seen a polyandrous society? Funny how its always one dude and a bunch of women (often just barely girls.) Your logic, was so sloppy on your rebuttal you really need to rethink that.

If you are against gay marriage, as you’ve stated, hey thats cool, but please have a cogent argument; that or just say, “Jeebus said it, I believe it, end of discussion!”

Suffice it to say, I’d say I’m on fairly solid ground when I say I support laws which tend to enfranchise people and don’t when laws are intended to disenfranchise. That is except when those enfranchisement laws incite one group to take advantage of another, say predatory lending, or polygamy.

Josh

[barnaby33]

Well, WTF!! Who’s business is it who and how many people that I marry!

I suppose that all you gay marriage supporters were outraged that the government raided the ‘polygamist’ compound–you know, the one where all the women were happy being there?

You can’t have it both ways. Either EVERYTHING is ok when it comes to marriage or society, as a whole, can determine what we condone as the social norm.

Come on meadandale, you’re a smart guy. You can do way better than that. The fundamental difference is that in those systems under most circumstances the partners aren’t. A 14 year old has no real ability to make clear decisions. Polygamy, well F*CK me, have you EVER seen a polyandrous society? Funny how its always one dude and a bunch of women (often just barely girls.) Your logic, was so sloppy on your rebuttal you really need to rethink that.

If you are against gay marriage, as you’ve stated, hey thats cool, but please have a cogent argument; that or just say, “Jeebus said it, I believe it, end of discussion!”

Suffice it to say, I’d say I’m on fairly solid ground when I say I support laws which tend to enfranchise people and don’t when laws are intended to disenfranchise. That is except when those enfranchisement laws incite one group to take advantage of another, say predatory lending, or polygamy.

Josh

[barnaby33]

Well, WTF!! Who’s business is it who and how many people that I marry!

I suppose that all you gay marriage supporters were outraged that the government raided the ‘polygamist’ compound–you know, the one where all the women were happy being there?

You can’t have it both ways. Either EVERYTHING is ok when it comes to marriage or society, as a whole, can determine what we condone as the social norm.

Come on meadandale, you’re a smart guy. You can do way better than that. The fundamental difference is that in those systems under most circumstances the partners aren’t. A 14 year old has no real ability to make clear decisions. Polygamy, well F*CK me, have you EVER seen a polyandrous society? Funny how its always one dude and a bunch of women (often just barely girls.) Your logic, was so sloppy on your rebuttal you really need to rethink that.

If you are against gay marriage, as you’ve stated, hey thats cool, but please have a cogent argument; that or just say, “Jeebus said it, I believe it, end of discussion!”

Suffice it to say, I’d say I’m on fairly solid ground when I say I support laws which tend to enfranchise people and don’t when laws are intended to disenfranchise. That is except when those enfranchisement laws incite one group to take advantage of another, say predatory lending, or polygamy.

Josh

[barnaby33]

Well, WTF!! Who’s business is it who and how many people that I marry!

I suppose that all you gay marriage supporters were outraged that the government raided the ‘polygamist’ compound–you know, the one where all the women were happy being there?

You can’t have it both ways. Either EVERYTHING is ok when it comes to marriage or society, as a whole, can determine what we condone as the social norm.

Come on meadandale, you’re a smart guy. You can do way better than that. The fundamental difference is that in those systems under most circumstances the partners aren’t. A 14 year old has no real ability to make clear decisions. Polygamy, well F*CK me, have you EVER seen a polyandrous society? Funny how its always one dude and a bunch of women (often just barely girls.) Your logic, was so sloppy on your rebuttal you really need to rethink that.

If you are against gay marriage, as you’ve stated, hey thats cool, but please have a cogent argument; that or just say, “Jeebus said it, I believe it, end of discussion!”

Suffice it to say, I’d say I’m on fairly solid ground when I say I support laws which tend to enfranchise people and don’t when laws are intended to disenfranchise. That is except when those enfranchisement laws incite one group to take advantage of another, say predatory lending, or polygamy.

Josh

[barnaby33]

Well, WTF!! Who’s business is it who and how many people that I marry!

I suppose that all you gay marriage supporters were outraged that the government raided the ‘polygamist’ compound–you know, the one where all the women were happy being there?

You can’t have it both ways. Either EVERYTHING is ok when it comes to marriage or society, as a whole, can determine what we condone as the social norm.

Come on meadandale, you’re a smart guy. You can do way better than that. The fundamental difference is that in those systems under most circumstances the partners aren’t. A 14 year old has no real ability to make clear decisions. Polygamy, well F*CK me, have you EVER seen a polyandrous society? Funny how its always one dude and a bunch of women (often just barely girls.) Your logic, was so sloppy on your rebuttal you really need to rethink that.

If you are against gay marriage, as you’ve stated, hey thats cool, but please have a cogent argument; that or just say, “Jeebus said it, I believe it, end of discussion!”

Suffice it to say, I’d say I’m on fairly solid ground when I say I support laws which tend to enfranchise people and don’t when laws are intended to disenfranchise. That is except when those enfranchisement laws incite one group to take advantage of another, say predatory lending, or polygamy.

Josh

[Anonymous]

Dukehorn, the Catholic church doesn’t recognize divorce. My father was raised Catholic, I wasn’t, but from what I understand if a couple gets divorced they can never remarry in the Catholic church. Someone correct me if I’m wrong.

I would think the government allows divorces because it would do more harm than good to force two people to remain financially and emotionally entangled who are now at odds with each other. I could see the murder and domestic violence rate increasing quite a bit if this were the case.

As far as masturbation, anal sex and oral sex, what moral majority are you talking about? I think that the moral majority only considers that deviant if it’s done by two people of the same sex (gay issue), done with animals, or done with children (pedophilia).

And I’m not worrying about anyone’s sex life. They can do whatever in private, just like they’ve always done. I just don’t want anyone asking or expecting me to support legislation for something I view as sacred and meant to be between a man and a woman.

[Anonymous]

Dukehorn, the Catholic church doesn’t recognize divorce. My father was raised Catholic, I wasn’t, but from what I understand if a couple gets divorced they can never remarry in the Catholic church. Someone correct me if I’m wrong.

I would think the government allows divorces because it would do more harm than good to force two people to remain financially and emotionally entangled who are now at odds with each other. I could see the murder and domestic violence rate increasing quite a bit if this were the case.

As far as masturbation, anal sex and oral sex, what moral majority are you talking about? I think that the moral majority only considers that deviant if it’s done by two people of the same sex (gay issue), done with animals, or done with children (pedophilia).

And I’m not worrying about anyone’s sex life. They can do whatever in private, just like they’ve always done. I just don’t want anyone asking or expecting me to support legislation for something I view as sacred and meant to be between a man and a woman.

[Anonymous]

Dukehorn, the Catholic church doesn’t recognize divorce. My father was raised Catholic, I wasn’t, but from what I understand if a couple gets divorced they can never remarry in the Catholic church. Someone correct me if I’m wrong.

I would think the government allows divorces because it would do more harm than good to force two people to remain financially and emotionally entangled who are now at odds with each other. I could see the murder and domestic violence rate increasing quite a bit if this were the case.

As far as masturbation, anal sex and oral sex, what moral majority are you talking about? I think that the moral majority only considers that deviant if it’s done by two people of the same sex (gay issue), done with animals, or done with children (pedophilia).

And I’m not worrying about anyone’s sex life. They can do whatever in private, just like they’ve always done. I just don’t want anyone asking or expecting me to support legislation for something I view as sacred and meant to be between a man and a woman.

[Anonymous]

Dukehorn, the Catholic church doesn’t recognize divorce. My father was raised Catholic, I wasn’t, but from what I understand if a couple gets divorced they can never remarry in the Catholic church. Someone correct me if I’m wrong.

I would think the government allows divorces because it would do more harm than good to force two people to remain financially and emotionally entangled who are now at odds with each other. I could see the murder and domestic violence rate increasing quite a bit if this were the case.

As far as masturbation, anal sex and oral sex, what moral majority are you talking about? I think that the moral majority only considers that deviant if it’s done by two people of the same sex (gay issue), done with animals, or done with children (pedophilia).

And I’m not worrying about anyone’s sex life. They can do whatever in private, just like they’ve always done. I just don’t want anyone asking or expecting me to support legislation for something I view as sacred and meant to be between a man and a woman.

[Author]

Posts