Main > Everything Else
election irony
shmokes:
It's like arguing
Hardly. It's more like talking to a wall.
with the Bush haters.
That's not even a complete sentence. How am I supposed to respond to that.
That's some election iron
An election iron? Is that supposed to get the wrinkles out of an election?
y
I don't speak spanish.
TA Pilot:
TA, nobody is answering your question because it is so inane.
It is?
ALL of the arguments that apply to a male-male marriage apply to a 5 male+6 female marriage.
Why isnt anyone supporting the idea of making such a thing legal?
I know that you are fully educated enough to know a slippery slope when you see one.
Indeed.
Do you suppose said slippery slope has something to do with the widespread opposition to gay marraige?
Marriage has held the same definition for centirues. The argument now is that it should be changed because consenting adults should be able to do what they want, so long as it doesnt hurt anyone else. This argument applies not just to gay marriages but multiple marriages as well.
Once you allow gay/multiple marriages, you completely undermine the long-held sanctity of same.
It would also be nice if you would respond to people's posts holistically instead of pulling out each of the parts so you can beat them down out of context.
Given much of the blather within many of those posts, I try to cull the chaff and respond to the wheat. The full quotes are available on this page for citation, if someone thinks I have taken them out of context.
shmokes:
Well....maybe they should be able to get married. Maybe if polygamists didn't have such a nasty habit of forcing girls into marriages or marrying 13 year old girls they wouldn't have such a bad stigma. Or maybe there are practical reasons to limit it such as the exponential complications of divorce and custody and inheritence, etc. that might be introduced. Who knows?
Either way, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the fact that the state currently has a law that allows two adults to merge into a single legal unit so they can share things like health insurance coverage and child raising and so on, but that the state is drawing restrictions along religious lines to exclude gays. Maybe people SHOULD be able to marry dogs. But gays aren't dogs. They're people. Maybe I should be able to marry 1000 people at the same time. But that's not what we're talking about. It's possible for someone to say, "Yeah....it makes sense to extend (or rather cease withholding if you prefer) that right to gays," without saying, "There should be no limits on how the institution of marriage can be used."
That's what makes a slippery slope so useful TA (as you are clearly aware). Instead of answering the question at hand you simply avoid it by asking a bunch of other barely related (if at all) questions. The next time someone asks you why gays should not be allowed to marry, try actually answering the question. Either you'll change your mind, or you'll develop some valid arguments. Either would be an improvement over your current position. Here are some answers that are not valid:
- Because they've never been allowed to get married.
- Because 70% of people say they shouldn't (Remember...the world isn't flat -- the operative words in the question are "should not")
- Because I don't want to have to see it.
- Because god hates a [gay person] :P (Damned autocensor).
- Because what's next? Pedophilia? Bestiality? Polygamy? We've got to draw a line somewhere so why not arbitrarily draw it at gays (rather than at pedophilia, bestiality or polygamy)?
saint:
I see nothing wrong with multiple adults getting married. It falls under the category of "What consenting adults do that doesn't hurt someone else is none of my business." In no way, shape, or form does it threaten my marriage or well being.
The reason no one is bringing it up is there (apparently) is no statistically significant group of people who wish those rights who are being denied them.
If such an issue did arise there would certainly be questions to answer (such as: do survivor benefits get split equally between all the spouses?) but I can't think of any show stoppers. It is likely that I would vote to approve such a measure.
--- saint
--- Quote from: TA Pilot on November 09, 2004, 03:23:44 pm ---
TA, nobody is answering your question because it is so inane.
It is?
ALL of the arguments that apply to a male-male marriage apply to a 5 male+6 female marriage.
Why isnt anyone supporting the idea of making such a thing legal?
I know that you are fully educated enough to know a slippery slope when you see one.
Indeed.
Do you suppose said slippery slope has something to do with the widespread opposition to gay marraige?
Marriage has held the same definition for centirues. The argument now is that it should be changed because consenting adults should be able to do what they want, so long as it doesnt hurt anyone else. This argument applies not just to gay marriages but multiple marriages as well.
Once you allow gay/multiple marriages, you completely undermine the long-held sanctity of same.
It would also be nice if you would respond to people's posts holistically instead of pulling out each of the parts so you can beat them down out of context.
Given much of the blather within many of those posts, I try to cull the chaff and respond to the wheat. The full quotes are available on this page for citation, if someone thinks I have taken them out of context.
--- End quote ---
TA Pilot:
Maybe if polygamists didn't have such a nasty habit of forcing girls into marriages or marrying 13 year old girls they wouldn't have such a bad stigma. Or maybe there are practical reasons to limit it such as the exponential complications of divorce and custody and inheritence, etc. that might be introduced. Who knows?
Interesting.
What would you say if I were to use these arguments, or those similar, against gay marriage?
We're talking about the fact that the state currently has a law that allows two adults to merge into a single legal unit so they can share things like health insurance coverage and child raising and so on, but that the state is drawing restrictions along religious lines to exclude gays.
Thats exactly right.
Because the state has determined that in order to receive the benefits of the privilege of marriage, you have to meet certain critera. One of those criteria is that one of the people be a man and the other a woman.
You can argue all you want that the state --should-- define marriage in some other way, but you have to convince the majority of the people that they want it that way.
Good luck.
Note too that the cruix of the biscuit is the right of a state to define marriage as it sees fit and not have the laws or courts of another state forcing them to accept an alternate definition. In specific, a state court in MA cannot carry more legal wright in the state of Ohio than the constiitution of the state of Ohio.
This is why states have amended their constitution to this end, and why there is a federal amendment in the works.
It's possible for someone to say, "Yeah....it makes sense to extend (or rather cease withholding if you prefer) that right to gays," without saying, "There should be no limits on how the institution of marriage can be used."
EXCEPT that the basis of the argument - that consenting adults should be allowed to marry, regardless - equally applies to the polygamist as to the gay. IF the argument is valid for the latter then it is valid for the former; if you accept one argument, there's no way to not accpet the other.
And at that point, marriage as an institution loses all meaning.
One has to wonder if -that- is the ultimate goal of the left.