When would slavery in the Southern States have ended...

Page 14 of 18 [ 276 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next


When would Slavery have ended, had Lincoln not intervened?
By 1875 10%  10%  [ 5 ]
By 1900 14%  14%  [ 7 ]
By 1925 14%  14%  [ 7 ]
By 1950 4%  4%  [ 2 ]
By 1975 12%  12%  [ 6 ]
By 2000 2%  2%  [ 1 ]
By 2025 2%  2%  [ 1 ]
Never 26%  26%  [ 13 ]
Just show the results 16%  16%  [ 8 ]
Total votes : 50

Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 65,512
Location: Over there

19 Jun 2012, 4:48 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
No, the courts actually denied people their Constitutional Rights. Marriage is a religious issue, not simply a state issue. Furthermore, where does this end, do we allow polygamy next? How about bestilly (or however you spell it), or worse, where does it end.
Wow, that takes me back to those happy, happy days of that thread... what was it now? The slippery slope fallacy or something like that?
Ah yes: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt172439.html

I'm surprised that drum of yours hasn't fallen apart yet.
Also, we appear to have entered a time warp.


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

19 Jun 2012, 5:00 pm

Cornflake wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
No, the courts actually denied people their Constitutional Rights. Marriage is a religious issue, not simply a state issue. Furthermore, where does this end, do we allow polygamy next? How about bestilly (or however you spell it), or worse, where does it end.
Wow, that takes me back to those happy, happy days of that thread... what was it now? The slippery slope fallacy or something like that?
Ah yes: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt172439.html

I'm surprised that drum of yours hasn't fallen apart yet.
Also, we appear to have entered a time warp.


Got news for you Cornflake, that slippery slope argument isn't always a fallacy, in fact there have frequently been times when it is a completely accurate assessment of a given situation.


Other situation here that a lot of people are missing is that marriage has been tied to religion long before the United States even existed.

So, I'm going to throw this back in everyone's face. What right do you have to order the Catholic Church to marry people of the same gender in violation of their religious doctrine? Fact is, you don't because it violates the 1st Amendment.

Again Marriage isn't simply a state issue, it is a religious issue and to be quite blunt polygamy actually has a better argument for being allowed than homosexuality, because there are actual religions that recognize polygamy.

There is a genetic argument that can be used against polygamy, similarly the lack of ability to have offspring similarly is a valid argument against gay marriage.

Also, Cornflake are you trying to imply that I'm a bigot, I just want to be sure I'm understanding you correctly...



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

19 Jun 2012, 5:05 pm

SpiritBlooms wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
In regard to Longshanks last point regarding how "liberal" judges defy the will of the majority by extending rights to a certain group of Americans - - the simple fact of the matter is, civil rights are sacrosanct, and can not be left up to a majority to decide if an unpopular group can be cast in the role of second class citizens. It must be remembered, civil rights for black Americans and other minorities had come about only through legislation and court rulings - not by popular vote. Civil rights are much too important to leave to the majority, who will often vote out of blind prejudice rather than out of a realization that the rule of law must provide liberty for all Americans.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Besides, I don't think rights have ever been extended to one group that weren't already available to others. This was the argument the California courts had against the ban of gay marriage, that it was denying a right others already had to just one group, rather than to everyone, and that the purpose of the Constitution was to guarantee rights rather than to deny them. (If memory serves.)

But that's just it... All people, including gays, already have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Nobody that I'm aware of ever tried to deny any group of that right.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

19 Jun 2012, 5:07 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
So, I'm going to throw this back in everyone's face. What right do you have to order the Catholic Church to marry people of the same gender in violation of their religious doctrine? Fact is, you don't because it violates the 1st Amendment.

The Catholic Church won't be required to marry people of the same gender. Although, for the benefit of many of their priests, it wouldn't be a bad idea.

Inuyasha wrote:
Again Marriage isn't simply a state issue,
Yes it is.

Inuyasha wrote:
it is a religious issue and to be quite blunt polygamy actually has a better argument for being allowed that homosexuality, because there are actual religions that recognize polygamy.
There are religions that recognize homosexual marriages. Most recognize at least serial polygamy.



Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 65,512
Location: Over there

19 Jun 2012, 5:08 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
that slippery slope argument isn't always a fallacy
It's as much of a non sequitur now as it was back then.
Like I said, we appear to have entered a time warp.


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

19 Jun 2012, 5:08 pm

AngelRho wrote:
But that's just it... All people, including gays, already have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Nobody that I'm aware of ever tried to deny any group of that right.


The right to marry against one's will is hardly a right.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

19 Jun 2012, 5:09 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
No, the courts actually denied people their Constitutional Rights. Marriage is a religious issue, not simply a state issue. Furthermore, where does this end, do we allow polygamy next? How about bestilly (or however you spell it), or worse, where does it end.


Since when is marriage a religious issue?

The state authorizes religious institutions to perform marriages, to be sure. But the legal rights and responsibilities that flow from that state are wholly and entirely defined by the law.

A priest can marry two people, but a rabbi cannot divorce two people. An imam cannot make a child custody order over the objection of one of the parents. A church cannot determine the devolution of property upon the intestacy of a deceased person.

Marriage is wholly and entirely a legal institution which religious officers have been given the privilege of creating. A privilege, incidentally that is conferred by statute.

As for polygamy and bestiality, as far as I am aware these remain matters that are prohibited to everyone, regardless of their religion or sexual orientation. Muslims and LDS members whose faiths sanction polygamy have been wholly unsuccessful is obtaining legal recognition for it. So I don't see the floodgates argument succeeding anytime soon.

Quote:
If you looked at Greek culture, Homosexual behavior was practiced in a manner that we see Sandusky currently on trial for. That behavior was accepted in Ancient Greece.

The Romans thought it was okay to amuse themselves using their slaves, even when Christianity had taken hold, this kind of behavior continued in the dark.

So if we want to be like the Greeks or the Romans, should pedophillia be legalized? How about slavery?

Just because something is seen in the past, doesn't mean it should be practiced, some things should not be seen ever again.


And no one is suggesting that non-consensual sexual behaviour is remotely acceptable. So that's all well and good, then.

In the United States, same-sex marriage between two consenting adults, neither of whom are under a legal disability, neither of whom are already married to another living person and who are not consanguinous is a benefit of law that ought properly to be extended on the same basis as any other benefit of law--within the equal protection doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The availability of divorce and remarriage has not harmed the Catholic church, the availability of same-sex marriage will not harm any other church. End of story.


_________________
--James


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

19 Jun 2012, 5:16 pm

Cornflake wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
that slippery slope argument isn't always a fallacy
It's as much of a non sequitur now as it was back then.
Like I said, we appear to have entered a time warp.


Quit trying to dodge and actually answer my question.

@ visagrunt

Actually polygamy is rather prominent in the religion of Islam.

Saying that homosexuality must be legal, means that you must also recognize polygamy, otherwise you are discriminating against Muslims.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

19 Jun 2012, 5:18 pm

Republicans support Mitt Romney which implies the acceptance of polygamy.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

19 Jun 2012, 5:19 pm

Cornflake wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
that slippery slope argument isn't always a fallacy
It's as much of a non sequitur now as it was back then.
Like I said, we appear to have entered a time warp.


I suppose that we could offer a counter-slippery-slope argument that would be equally valid.

Requiring homosexuals to marry someone of the opposite gender would lead to epidemics of nymphomania, with God raining fire and brimstone upon churches and schools. Men would start wearing neckties and even shaving their beards, and the entire world would go higgledy-piggledy.

We can't allow these tragedies to happen. Therefore, people need to marry others of their own gender exclusively (of any mammalian or reptilian species--no frogs or sparrows!), and divorce is no option!



Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 65,512
Location: Over there

19 Jun 2012, 5:20 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
that slippery slope argument isn't always a fallacy
It's as much of a non sequitur now as it was back then.
Like I said, we appear to have entered a time warp.
Quit trying to dodge and actually answer my question.
I rather thought I was successful.


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

19 Jun 2012, 5:21 pm

If the slippery slope argument is true people might start marrying their cousins so they can get on the Jerry Springer show.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

19 Jun 2012, 5:23 pm

Cornflake wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
that slippery slope argument isn't always a fallacy
It's as much of a non sequitur now as it was back then.
Like I said, we appear to have entered a time warp.
Quit trying to dodge and actually answer my question.
I rather thought I was successful.


So you are admitting that you are calling me a bigot, just so we have this quite clear...



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

19 Jun 2012, 5:42 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
that slippery slope argument isn't always a fallacy
It's as much of a non sequitur now as it was back then.
Like I said, we appear to have entered a time warp.
Quit trying to dodge and actually answer my question.
I rather thought I was successful.


So you are admitting that you are calling me a bigot, just so we have this quite clear...


Oh-oh. He caught you out, Snowflake. The next step is for Inuyasha to report you.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

19 Jun 2012, 5:47 pm

AngelRho wrote:
But that's just it... All people, including gays, already have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Nobody that I'm aware of ever tried to deny any group of that right.


Image


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Jun 2012, 6:33 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
No, the courts actually denied people their Constitutional Rights. Marriage is a religious issue, not simply a state issue. Furthermore, where does this end, do we allow polygamy next? How about bestilly (or however you spell it), or worse, where does it end.


Since when is marriage a religious issue?

The state authorizes religious institutions to perform marriages, to be sure. But the legal rights and responsibilities that flow from that state are wholly and entirely defined by the law.

A priest can marry two people, but a rabbi cannot divorce two people. An imam cannot make a child custody order over the objection of one of the parents. A church cannot determine the devolution of property upon the intestacy of a deceased person.

Marriage is wholly and entirely a legal institution which religious officers have been given the privilege of creating. A privilege, incidentally that is conferred by statute.

As for polygamy and bestiality, as far as I am aware these remain matters that are prohibited to everyone, regardless of their religion or sexual orientation. Muslims and LDS members whose faiths sanction polygamy have been wholly unsuccessful is obtaining legal recognition for it. So I don't see the floodgates argument succeeding anytime soon.

Quote:
If you looked at Greek culture, Homosexual behavior was practiced in a manner that we see Sandusky currently on trial for. That behavior was accepted in Ancient Greece.

The Romans thought it was okay to amuse themselves using their slaves, even when Christianity had taken hold, this kind of behavior continued in the dark.

So if we want to be like the Greeks or the Romans, should pedophillia be legalized? How about slavery?

Just because something is seen in the past, doesn't mean it should be practiced, some things should not be seen ever again.


And no one is suggesting that non-consensual sexual behaviour is remotely acceptable. So that's all well and good, then.

In the United States, same-sex marriage between two consenting adults, neither of whom are under a legal disability, neither of whom are already married to another living person and who are not consanguinous is a benefit of law that ought properly to be extended on the same basis as any other benefit of law--within the equal protection doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The availability of divorce and remarriage has not harmed the Catholic church, the availability of same-sex marriage will not harm any other church. End of story.


As a married individual, I still recall how my pastor had told my wife and I how that the actual legal marriage contract was the signing of the birth certificate - which is a civil matter.

And in regard to equating pedophilia to homosexuality - it just doesn't wash. Pedophiles have unconsensual sex with children, whereas homosexuals have consensual sex with other adults of the same gender. Just because male pedophiles may have a preference for boys hardly means that all pedophiles are gay, or that all gays are pedophiles. In fact, the two usually don't overlap. Just remember, Sandusky is married to a woman.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer