Same-sex Marriage

[InfiniteNow]

Marriage is not defined by having children. This has been demonstrated amply. Children are of secondary and peripheral relation only to marriage itself, which this thread is clearly about... Marriage... not offspring or their rearing.

 

You've conceded this yourself already, so I will ask again... kindly... Please, stay on topic. Last time your off-topic venture was about god and love, now this time it's about children and the various parenting permutations impact on their rearing.

 

However, this thread is about same sex marriage, as directly evidenced by its title.

[Jway]

Marriage is not defined by having children. This has been demonstrated amply. Children are of secondary and peripheral relation only to marriage itself, which this thread is clearly about... Marriage... not offspring or their rearing.

 

And child rearing (nurturing) is a very common aspect of marriage as I have already stated.

 

From wikipeda entry on marriage:

 

People marry for many reasons, but usually one or more of the following: legal, social, emotional, and economic stability; the formation of a family unit; procreation and the education and nurturing of children; legitimizing sexual relations; public declaration of love.

 

I'm sorry, you were saying...

 

I will ask again... kindly... Please, stay on topic.

 

Are only the things InfiniteNow wishes to discuss "on topic?" Because I observe that my recent tangent IS on topic?

 

Last time your off-topic venture was about god and love, now this time it's about children and the various parenting permutations impact on their rearing.

 

Dude, you're the one that took things off topic before. In post #17 of this thread, Hasanuddin brought up: "Primarily marriage is about family, God, and society..."

 

You then came back with (in post #19): "I just want to comment briefly that (especially for people like me) god has nothing to do with it. I'm an atheist, through and through... as are many of my closest friends and relatives. However, we still marry, as that's the social convention."

 

And then I addressed your (off topic) commentary in post #23. But apparently, when you wish to make commentary on the "God" topic as it relates to marriage, it is on topic. But if someone else wishes to a) bring up their ideas that marriage for them is primarily about family, God, and society and/or B) address your comments; well suddenly things are off topic.

 

You can say I was the one to bring God into this and make that the discussion on this thread, but I believe I've demonstrated this is inaccurate.

 

this thread is about same sex marriage, as directly evidenced by its title.

 

And do same sex marriages participate in child rearing?

If yes, then I believe I am bringing up a very popular reason for why people marry, and I believe it has impact on the roles that humans participate while married. Impact on both each other (thus the marriage itself) and on the children (thus the family unit that is part of some (I would say a majority of all) marriages.

 

So, please try to address the topic.

Or forever hold your peace.

Thanks!

[Jway]

My primary point was not philosophical in nature, but instead Constitutional.

 

If you are, or anyone else is, aware of any constitutional secular reasons for prohibiting marriage between two humans of the same sex, then I'd welcome hearing it. Thus far in these debates, I've yet to hear a single one, and all opinions have tended to be motivated by bigotry, iron age fairy tales, or some combination of both.

 

 

From the Wikipedia entry on DOMA:

 

In a June 1996 interview in the gay and lesbian magazine The Advocate, Clinton said: "I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered."[8]

Until May 2009, President Barack Obama's political platform included full repeal of the DOMA.[9][10] As of May 2009, President Barack Obama no longer explicitly supported full repeal of the DOMA. [11][12] And on June 12, 2009 the Department of Justice issued a brief defending the constitutionality of DOMA in the case of Smelt v. United States of America, signaling a sharp reversal by the Obama administration.[13] This measure drew much anger from organizations in favor of gay marriage such as the Human Rights Campaign and the Empowering Spirits Foundation.[14][15]

Nothing in the Act prevents any level of government from granting equivalent rights to domestic partners; only the term "marriage" is protected.

 

Later on the same Wikipedia page:

 

On March 9, 2009, Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer filed a lawsuit, Smelt v. United States of America, which was filed in Orange County, California, and seeks to reverse DOMA and Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.[20] On June 12, 2009 the Department of Justice issued a brief defending the constitutionality of DOMA.

 

InfiniteNow wrote:

Marriage is not defined by the gender of those wed, but is instead defined as the union of two people (generally whom are in love). Marriage defines the relationship, not which genitals the partners in said relationship are required to have.

 

Again, I agree with this position. But at same time, we don't live in a world where the definition alone is what makes for marriage. If we did, would we not allow persons say of any age to be married? A 12 year old allowed to marry a 30 year old, based on decision of the two? I'm going to say we would not, due to laws around "age of consent." Perhaps I have exact reason on why that wouldn't be allowed mistaken, but if marriage is definition of the relationship, and say (in this example) not the age of the genitals, then based exclusively on the definition of marriage, why would we disallow this? In what cases, if any, could we disallow marriage? And thus disallow all the legal benefits that go with marriage?

 

I feel in this thread I cannot state enough that I am pro same-sex marriage. If someone is not convinced of this, feel free to keep testing me, and I believe I will remain consistent in saying, I am pro same-sex marriage. But at same time, I feel there are things that are beyond bigotry as to why people don't accept it like those of us who favor it. I personally believe I would allow anyone to marry anyone. I do not see how it would harm anyone outside of that relationship. I'd even like to make the case that individuals can marry their own self. What harm could come from that to anyone else in society? If sticking solely to idea that marriage is defined as relationship, then that very broad definition seems to neglect what I'd call the sensibilities of some, and what appears to me still as the majority. Is there anyone else who is pro same-sex marriage that would draw a line and rule out other types of relationships as not open to state or federally approved marriages? If yes, I'm very interested in how that might me justified, without it coming off as bigoted to some of us who are pro all relationship marriage(s).

 

When we begin with the correct definition of marriage, as a word defining the state recognized union of two people... a union which confers a multitude of privileges and benefits from the state... a state bound by the secular guarantees of our constitution... then we realize that there is no issue... no "special groups," no "parsing" required.

 

Why (only) the union of two people? Whose definition is that, and what makes that definition alone, secular?

 

Again, please provide an example of any human relationship that would not constitute secular marriage and likewise, that the relationship, if brought to marriage, would be of actual harm to the persons outside of the relationship? You may think of this as slippery slope, but please address the question as well.

[InfiniteNow]

I feel there are things that are beyond bigotry as to why people don't accept it like those of us who favor it.

Then name ONE.

 

 

And btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act#Constitutionality

[Jway]

In your "btw" comes the quote:

 

On June 12, 2009 the Department of Justice issued a brief defending the constitutionality of DOMA

 

Name reasons why people might say same-sex marriages ought not to be allowed to happen, which are not bigoted. Okay, I will. But when you go on to rip me a new one as if I actually support these reasons, could you at least pause somewhere so as to maybe, just maybe, say that that the reasons I cite are not bigoted? I'm saying, just maybe, will you consider it, your highness?

 

1 - Same-sex marriages if allowed would drain the system of funds and resources. If not these particular unions as the added burden that drained the system, then perhaps another form of civil union that was deemed equal in terms of secular law. For this reason, same-sex marriages cannot be allowed to happen.

 

2 - If we allow same-sex marriages as equal to heterosexual marriages, because the key word is marriage, and not the (type of) people involved, then we could live in a society where everyone is allowed to marry anyone. We could live in a society where individuals could have more than one marriage, as there would not seem to be reason, based solely on very loose definition of marriage, (union of individuals), as to why everyone and anyone couldn't be married. If this is tied in with benefits, again, it could drain the system, unless we change the system such that no legal entitlements are awarded to married individuals. But even if no legal entitlements are allowed, do you wish to live in a society where everyone can marry anyone? If not, why? Are you bigoted?

 

3 - If schools were to teach about marriage in society, would they be required to give equal time to same-sex marriages as legitimate (legal) type of human union? Would there be option in public school districts to either not teach about same-sex marriages, or to do so based on the proportion of gay marriages to heterosexual marriages? If it is deemed, in advance, that it must be equal time, then this would seem to be disproportionate, and perhaps it's just best we not allow for same-sex marriages.

(Note: That's a tough case to make for one who is pro same-sex marriage, but the logic of it strikes me as not bigoted.)

 

4 - Special love can be treacherous and marriage just magnifies that. Would you really want to subject our homosexual brothers and sisters to the woes of marriage? Have you no mercy?

 

5 - If same-sex marriage is permitted under national law in a free country such as the US, then the Apocalypse will occur in a matter of hours, not days. As said 2000 years ago, the end is near, but with the advent of same-sex marriage, the end would really be near. Do you really want to bring about the Apocalypse of humankind? And end all this beautiful bigotry we've got going?

[InfiniteNow]

Name reasons why people might say same-sex marriages ought not to be allowed to happen, which are not bigoted. Okay, I will.

 

<...>

 

1 - Same-sex marriages if allowed would drain the system of funds and resources.

This one IS bigoted because the same argument is not being used to argue against opposite sex marriages.

 

 

2 - If we allow same-sex marriages as equal to heterosexual marriages, because the key word is marriage, and not the (type of) people involved, then we could live in a society where everyone is allowed to marry anyone.

This one is ALSO bigoted because it inherently implies that there is something wrong with polygamous relationships, or relationships "different from their own/from the norm."

 

 

 

3 - If schools were to teach about marriage in society, would they be required to give equal time to same-sex marriages as legitimate (legal) type of human union?

This TOO is bigoted because it continues to imply that something is wrong with same sex marriage, something SO wrong that it should not be taught openly to our young. The premise is that children should be "protected" from knowing that there is such a thing as same sex marriage, thus it logically follows that this, too, is a bigoted reason to be against same sex marriage.

 

 

 

4 - Special love can be treacherous and marriage just magnifies that. Would you really want to subject our homosexual brothers and sisters to the woes of marriage? Have you no mercy?

Also bigoted, since it's not being applied equally to opposite sex marriages.

 

 

5 - If same-sex marriage is permitted under national law in a free country such as the US, then the Apocalypse will occur in a matter of hours, not days.

Okay, this one's just stupid. :hihi:

 

 

I know those weren't your reasons, so I'm not attacking you by any means. The issue here is... you said you could think of reasons to be against same sex marriage which are not bigoted, and I find that the reasons you supplied when asked do NOT meet that criteria. They were each bigoted reasons, except for that last one which was just silly.

 

Care to take another whack at it?

 

 

 

 

 

Bigotry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term to describe a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices, especially when these views are either challenged, or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable.

 

 

http://www.publiceye.org/glossary/glossary_big.html#b

Bigotry: The rigid intolerance of ideas or persons seen as different.

 

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

 

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

 

 

 

 

could you at least pause somewhere so as to maybe, just maybe, say that that the reasons I cite are not bigoted? I'm saying, just maybe, will you consider it, your highness?

See... of course... I'm not some monster... I paused at #5 for you. B)

[Jway]

This one IS bigoted because the same argument is not being used to argue against opposite sex marriages.

 

So, because it is not consistent, despite historical context, it is automatically bigoted. The system was originally set up with idea of man and woman. Now, a new form of marriage is added to that. Could just as well be polygamy, or could be people are now allowed to marry themselves and receive added tax benefits for this. The historical context is that by adding a new type of union, it could drain the system.

 

If same-sex marriage came first historically, and system was set up to provide benefits for those unions, and then heterosexual unions were being advocated for, with equal access to same benefits, I think one could make the case that it is the additional in-flow, rather than type of couple. Thus not bigoted.

 

 

This one is ALSO bigoted because it inherently implies that there is something wrong with polygamous relationships, or relationships "different from their own/from the norm."

 

How is it implying what you say? It is asking, do we want to live in a society where everyone is allowed to marry anyone, for any reason? If the answer is yes, then let it be yes. If it is no, then I agree that it could be seen as bigoted. The question still stands for anyone who cares to respond, would you allow marriage (and legal entitlements that go with marriage) based on individuals who wish to form such an union without any parameters or limits? If not, why? And do you feel your response is representative of you being a bigot?

 

This TOO is bigoted because it continues to imply that something is wrong with same sex marriage, something SO wrong that it should not be taught openly to our young. The premise is that children should be "protected" from knowing that there is such a thing as same sex marriage, thus it logically follows that this, too, is a bigoted reason to be against same sex marriage.

 

I agree that it could be implying that. But given nature of politics, I think people could go with the proportionate argument and thus not come off as unwilling to teach it due to personal bias, while willing to teach it based on criteria of how many of society's marriages are this way. If the amount were equal, they may say we will teach it equally. If 10%, then 90% of the time we reference marriage, it will be on heterosexual unions.

 

Your "so wrong" claims are based on what you are reading into and not what I presented. Again, I do side with you on this issue, and believe that given the political realities we have, people will find loopholes that are not based on blatant bigotry (emotional response), but based on the logic and numbers within the situation.

 

Bigotry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term to describe a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices, especially when these views are either challenged, or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable.

 

I feel I am presenting data that is factual in the 3 that I've chosen to stick with. But even with that said, the Wikipedia spin on bigot is saying; "a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices." It has the "especially" part added on, but I find that there are many people who could be bigots on this type of definition, minus the especially part. Atheists strike me as obstinately devoted to prejudices. Not all atheists, but for sure some. Some of those who believe in evolution theory as what to teach offspring, are obstinately devoted to prejudices (corresponding mindset that may not be universally accepted).

 

I'm bringing up two that I believe you'll try to have a field day with, but IMO, you are using bigot in a very general way. As is perhaps Wikipedia. I'm okay with that, but as a very general term, with the connotations that come with the term, it seems to be ad hominem. I could see the bigotry claim going both ways on this particular issue, if going with loose definition.

 

 

PublicEye.org - Glossary

Bigotry: The rigid intolerance of ideas or persons seen as different.

 

The examples I provided wouldn't be intolerant of the idea or people who are involved in gay marriages. I believe they are addressing practical concerns.

 

 

bigot definition | Dictionary.com

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

 

I could see a future, say 50 years from now, where a homosexual practicing attorney is taking up the case of how much should homosexual marriages be presented in our schools, "now" that all 50 states (54 states if including the added territories we will have 50 years from now) have legalized gay marriage. And I could this hypothetical attorney arguing for what I was saying earlier - not equal time, but proportional time. Would this homosexual attorney be a bigot who is intolerant of those who differ from him on this? Say his sexual orientation is not known publicly, and gay groups at that time present it as he is just bigoted and has no tolerance of gays. He must hate us unless he agrees with our position that is deserves equal time as the law has said homosexual marriage is now legal in the eyes of the state and national jurisdiction.

 

 

bigot - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

 

Same as above. Hatred and intolerance is not presented in what I came up with. IMO, it is not implied, since I am the one who wrote the items and do not have hatred nor intolerance toward gays and gay marriage.

[InfiniteNow]

So, because it is not consistent, despite historical context, it is automatically bigoted.

No, that was not my point at all. Please try again.

 

 

The system was originally set up with idea of man and woman. Now, a new form of marriage is added to that. Could just as well be polygamy, or could be people are now allowed to marry themselves and receive added tax benefits for this. The historical context is that by adding a new type of union, it could drain the system.

If you disagree with the bigotry assertion, then let's just call that a ridiculous reason, since that's what it is. From a purely constitutional standpoint, an argument regarding "stress on the system" is hardly enough to overturn the mandate our system has for equal protections and non-discrimination in our laws.

 

The system confers benefits and privileges to one group of people. If they are going to deny those same privileges and benefits to another group, then there MUST be a constitutional and secular reason for doing so.

 

"It's possible that it's gonna cost too much" doesn't satisfy that requirement, no matter how logical it may seem.

 

 

If same-sex marriage came first historically, and system was set up to provide benefits for those unions, and then heterosexual unions were being advocated for, with equal access to same benefits, I think one could make the case that it is the additional in-flow, rather than type of couple. Thus not bigoted.

But, that's not how it is, so what do you say we stick with the reality before us instead of venturing forward with all of these loose hypotheticals, shall we?

 

 

 

How is it implying what you say? It is asking, do we want to live in a society where everyone is allowed to marry anyone, for any reason? If the answer is yes, then let it be yes. If it is no, then I agree that it could be seen as bigoted. The question still stands for anyone who cares to respond, would you allow marriage (and legal entitlements that go with marriage) based on individuals who wish to form such an union without any parameters or limits? If not, why? And do you feel your response is representative of you being a bigot?

WTF? Slippery slope argument again? That's crap.

And who is talking about letting people form unions "without any parameters or limits?" Ever met a strawman you didn't like?

 

Let me say this again. That's not what we are discussing here, so let's stick with the reality before us instead of making up all of these hypothetical scenarios which simply aren't representative of the circumstances being discussed.

 

 

I agree that it could be implying that. But given nature of politics, I think people could go with the proportionate argument and thus not come off as unwilling to teach it due to personal bias, while willing to teach it based on criteria of how many of society's marriages are this way.

Well, that's just not a good enough reason to be against allowing same sex marriage... how teachers MIGHT talk about it in school with their students. Come on, if that's all you've got, you should really just stop now.

 

Comments like these give me the impression that you don't take this seriously. Our laws and their equal application are not based on conjectures about how school teachers will present information to their students. Again, I know this was not YOUR reason, but... even so... it's simply not a reason at all.

 

 

Atheists strike me as obstinately devoted to prejudices. Not all atheists, but for sure some. Some of those who believe in evolution theory as what to teach offspring, are obstinately devoted to prejudices (corresponding mindset that may not be universally accepted).

And this relates to same sex marriage and whether or not it should be allowed or if there are any non-discriminatory/non-bigoted reasons to be against it, how exactly?

 

 

I'm bringing up two that I believe you'll try to have a field day with, but IMO, you are using bigot in a very general way. As is perhaps Wikipedia. I'm okay with that, but as a very general term, with the connotations that come with the term, it seems to be ad hominem.

Well, that's rather silly. I asked if there were any non-bigoted reasons for being against gay marriage, and you made a sincere attempt to provide some, but they were all based on bigotry of various magnitudes. I never called any person or poster bigoted, just the reasons which you described.

 

I suggest you go look up what an ad hom fallacy is before you try using it to describe anything else. It simply doesn't apply in this situation.

 

 

The examples I provided wouldn't be intolerant of the idea or people who are involved in gay marriages. I believe they are addressing practical concerns.

And you are free to believe anything you want, but that makes it neither true nor an accurate representation of reality.

 

 

I could see a future, say 50 years from now, where a homosexual practicing attorney is taking up the case of how much should homosexual marriages be presented in our schools, "now" that all 50 states (54 states if including the added territories we will have 50 years from now) have legalized gay marriage. And I could this hypothetical attorney arguing for what I was saying earlier - not equal time, but proportional time. Would this homosexual attorney be a bigot who is intolerant of those who differ from him on this?

Again, how about we stick with what's actually happening here instead of spinning off on all of these hypothetical "if this, then maybe that" questions of yours.

 

 

IMO, it is not implied, since I am the one who wrote the items and do not have hatred nor intolerance toward gays and gay marriage.

Completely irrelevant. The reasons were never presented as your own, so there's no relation to your own feelings on the topic. You tried to present "reasons to be against same sex marriage which are not based on bigotry." The reasons you presented quite simply do not meet the standards of that request (unless, perhaps, we allow you to use reasons based on logical fallacies and hypothetical scenarios which are non-representative of reality).

[lemit]

Jway,

 

I think I'm talking to the right person this time.

 

Look at

 

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument

 

and

 

Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument

 

If you notice the short time between the two cases, I think you might come to the conclusion that we're already on the slippery slope. If you look at the court that decided to interfere with the state of Texas in Lawrence and its reluctance to overturn state laws, you might think we're in a freefall.

 

I would guess the slope will level out at consenting adults. If you can find a way around that divide, then you might have a reason for fear.

 

So, where does the slope lead? Polygamy? Yes, possibly. A lot of tradition and fear would need to be overcome. Anything beyond that? No. The age of consent might change, but it's not going to disappear. Bestiality is out of the question for the same consent reason.

 

Am I forgetting some variety of grease for the slope?

 

--lemit

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by lemit View Post

I think the idea that homosexuality is unnatural (which has been forgotten here) has merit, since sex is nature's way of preserving and promulgating the species, and all the actions once referred to variously as sodomy do not further that cause.

These two assumptions are not necessarily true in all times and places.

Sex may have a more important social bonding role, as evidenced by the number of times the sex-act is performed compared to the number of pregnancies.

 

Life is probably to short to study this in depth-- but for those keen enough:-

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm

SSM has split the U.S. by:

Age: Youth and young adults are generally for SSM; the elderly are against.

 

Political affiliation: Democrats in are favor, Independents less so, Republicans opposed.

 

Religion: Conservatives opposed; religious liberals and secularists for.

 

Geography: The northeast and west coast for; the rest against.

 

Most American adults currently oppose SSM, but the trend is towards increasing acceptance. If current trends continue, most American adults will be supportive of SSM sometime in the early to middle 2010's.

[Jway]

I would guess the slope will level out at consenting adults. If you can find a way around that divide, then you might have a reason for fear.

 

I believe your assessment on this is correct. I think, mainly for political reasons, masked as morality, that consent will be what levels out the free for all.

 

The way around the divide is to ask people under the age of consent if they would vote for themselves to not be subject to this law. The law strikes me as discriminatory.

 

If marriage is the union of two individuals, as is stated in this thread, then age of the spouses ought not to matter in defining a relationship, unless it does.

 

So, where does the slope lead? Polygamy? Yes, possibly. A lot of tradition and fear would need to be overcome. Anything beyond that? No. The age of consent might change, but it's not going to disappear. Bestiality is out of the question for the same consent reason.

 

Am I forgetting some variety of grease for the slope?

 

For the most part, not really. Polygamy covers most of what I can come up with. Possible additions and comments on your variety:

- marriages with transgender individuals, I don't think that has been brought up

- marriage to one's own self. I may be only person making this case, and I'm not adamant about it, but it essentially takes away discrimination from those who are single, and unable to receive marriage benefits, i.e. tax credits.

- I can see a day when bestiality could be allowed because consent is somehow known to exist. If I knew how that was going to happen, it would exist today. I don't think I care if it ever does, and is, for me, tangential to the slippery slope case. My question remains, do we wish to live in a society where everyone can marry anyone? Since we live in a society where we say some people can marry some people, and are looking to add to that (more of some people can marry more of some people), I feel very okay about the idea that we ought to allow everyone to marry anyone, and consent seems like a good place to draw a line in the sand, even while that seems, at least a little bit, added to the (broadest) definition of marriage.

 

I am curious how other people would respond to the question I have raised.

 

-Jway

[InfiniteNow]

My question remains, do we wish to live in a society where everyone can marry anyone?

Why don't you open a new thread if you wish to explore that? This thread is about same sex marriage, as evidenced directly in its title.

 

Nobody here is talking about marriage without limits.

 

We are talking about whether or not two same sex partners should be granted the same rights, benefits, and privileges as opposite sex partners.

 

If you wish to talk about marriage without limits, and how readers feel about that, then do so in another thread, since it's off-topic here.

[Jway]

It pertains to the slippery slope argument that could refute why same-sex marriages may not be allowed. It is based partially on broad definition of marriage, that I believe you put forth and/or support. You have addressed the slippery slope claim as "ridiculous" I believe. Lemit posted something that was asking me about this and/or addressing me. Discussion is occurring on this thread.

 

If you feel strongly that it is off topic, I would suggest you "report a post" and let admin team do the sorting out.

 

I don't feel stubborn about this, but will choose to keep that discussion here for now.

 

You seem to demonstrate a routine behavior that says unless the topic is in the vein of how you wish to discuss things, then a) you call others out as off topic or :hihi: you resort to ad hominem attacks as way to intimidate.

 

I have high faith that the admin team can work through these issues, rather than us debating what is and what is not on topic. But if for some reason you'd rather do this publicly, and on this thread, and admin team wishes to allow that, I'm game.

[modest]

It pertains to the slippery slope argument that could refute why same-sex marriages may not be allowed.

 

Slippery slope is an argument fallacy. I think INow already pointed that out. Does that not kill the issue?

 

~modest

[Zythryn]

Jway, besides being a fallicious arugument, if you are going to argue slippery slope, why not back up and suggest inter-racial marraige should be illegal, since if you make it legal, the next step would be...

Heck, may as well make it illegal for couples that don't plan to have children, as that defeats the purpose of marraige. We can't have that.

We should also stop selling butter knives to people. They will just get sharper and sharper knives;-)

[modest]

O'Reilly slipped and fell into his own slippery slope fallacy and bumped his head :confused:

 

The Anonymous Liberal: Is Polygamy Really Legal in the Netherlands?

 

~modest

[InfiniteNow]

It pertains to the slippery slope argument that could refute why same-sex marriages may not be allowed.

Slippery slope is not an argument, it is a fallacy, and hence has no validity in a logical discussion or debate.

Fallacy: Slippery Slope

 

 

You seem to demonstrate a routine behavior that says unless the topic is in the vein of how you wish to discuss things, then a) you call others out as off topic or you resort to ad hominem attacks as way to intimidate.

I call it as I see it, and I usually have pretty good vision. Further, if you feel I have used an ad hominem attack, then I advise that you report it to the staff so it can be handled properly.

 

However, with that said, you really don't seem to have an accurate understanding of what an ad hom is. IIRC, I never focused my arguments on you, but instead on your points and arguments themselves. Let me help you to better learn what an ad hom is:

 

Fallacy: Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

 

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

 

1. Person A makes claim X.

2. Person B makes an attack on person A.

3. Therefore A's claim is false.

 

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

 

Example of Ad Hominem

 

Bill

: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."

Dave

: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."

Bill

: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"

Dave

: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

 

 

 

 

I say again... I have remained focused on your arguments, not on your character or you as a person. I have never once suggested that your arguments were wrong because of who you are, what you do, or what you believe. I have focused on your arguments themselves.

 

If you disagree, then you disagree. Report it if you wish, or (at the very least) be specific and quote my exact text where you think I engaged in this fallacy so I have the opportunity to clarify or retract my statements.

 

 

If you feel strongly that it is off topic, I would suggest you "report a post" and let admin team do the sorting out.

 

I believe that Modest has already provided you with an answer to this question.

 

Now, can we please... for the love of Thor... return to posting on topic? :confused: