Same sex marriage and the slippery slope.

Post Reply New Topic

Requiring consent is a measure to prevent abuse. You cannot cause trauma to objects or fictional characters.

a fridge can't love you. Another LIVING human being can.

Don't be a nazi. Accept two people can love each other and want to get married. Because that's what you'be being. You might not speak German or anything but your attitude if just like that of a nazi. Sleep well.

How do you define abuse? It could be argued that it is abusive due to the culture people are brought up in, change the culture and it wouldn't be traumatic.


Seriously, this is why the slippery slope argument is valid, it is also why moral relativism has serious problems.

Since when is marriage about love?



who is this directed to?

.

The culture has nothing to say about anything. At the end of the day, it is up to the consenting people deciding on marriage. But you'll be happy because cultural issues usually define to whom to give the power of consent.

You are only allowed to marry fictional characters you create (you own the copyright), so you design them so that their culture gives them the ability to consent.

You claim "this" is the reason slippery slope "is valid" and that "moral relativism" is wrong. you don't specify what is "this" and to be honest you have not gotten near even showing why those claims are true.

Everyone should be allowed to marry everyone as long as nobody is getting forced.



I could see them too, that wouldnt' mean they are not wrong. though. Nobody is forcing Christians to marry same-sex partners. Nobody is forcing them to marry multiple people either. Allowing other people of other 'cultures' to marry in the way they would prefer, seems to me as a way to prevent religious discrimination. If my religion allowed me to marry 4 women, then isn't the US government making me unable to a form of discrimination against my religion?




That sounds like poisoning the well, an even worse fallacy than the slippery slope.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 17 Jan 2011, 7:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

anyone who wants to keep others from their rights.

I could argue that there are times one is infringing on other people's rights in the process. This isn't as cut and dry of an issue as some people would argue.

Another thing, the slippery slope argument is a fallacy. It does not mean it is false, and in fact it may be true some times. It just means that it is a very lazy way of argumentation.

For example, I bet you that when interracial marriage was in discussion, someone said "What are we going to allow next? Same-sex marriage!?" as a form of slippery slope. And we are now discussing that very same thing. The problem with the fallacy is that it adds an extra load to the thing that is being discussed. What people attempt when using a slippery slope is for the discussion to stop being about "interracial marriage" and it becomes a full blown fight about "interracial marriage" AND "same-sex marriage", which would of course have more opponents than just "interracial marriage".

But the reality is that these discussions are more civilized and realistic when each thing is discussed separately. Today, we will be discussing "interracial marriage". We will later discuss "same-sex" marriage, and later polygamy and stuff. If you oppose "same-sex" marriage, don't worry, you can still approve of interracial marriage because we are treating them separately. Great?

Another issue is that sometimes, the events used in a slippery slope are not really as connected as they appear. If interracial marriage was not approved, it wouldn't have prevented us from currently discussing same-sex marriage. And successfully stopping same-sex marriage now, won't stop me from starting the polygamy discussion later.

Last I checked inter-racial marriage was still marriage between a man and a woman. Offspring can result of such union naturally without any birth defects. So I fail to see how it can be used to justify Gay-Marriage.

Consensitive topic

I remember reading a while back bout some woman in South Korea who married herself.

So she and herself got hitched, but i am not sure who was who and was it she or herself who gave consent.

And then there was the woman who married a bridge, the german guy who married his cat, and do not forget child marriage. The sister wives of Bobby McFee is some sort of reality series. I suppose alien and human marriage will crop up next. Gadzooks.

I must remember that the planet on which we all live is just awesome. And yet not too slippery!

It is a refreshing and sane breath of fresh air when two adult humans who love each other want to make it legal and public.

It can't. Ergo slippery slopes are dumb.

I'm looking forward to the day when they outlaw all marriage - including heterosexual marriage.

Well in the case of inter-racial marriage the argument is stupid because it is between one man whom is an adult and one woman whom is also an adult. Essentially the interracial marriage argument doesn't work because it is still between two human beings of opposite gender. Children can be born from the marriage still without getting any donors of sperm or someone being a womb for the offspring outside of the marriage.

Same sex marriage cannot sire children without some other party. Polygamy tends to run into there not being enough diversity in the gene pool after several generations. Adult child relationships tend to be abusive and put the child in serious jeopardy if the child is female, and will also traumatize a male child as well. Incestuous relationships will eventually lead to serious genetic defects and even insanity in the offspring which is why it is taboo.

There are legitimate reasons that you can support marriage between one man and one woman outside of religion. You invalidate that argument if you allow gay marriage and it can thus be used to justify children being put into situations that would traumatize them and cause lasting psychological damage. There is an argument that exists that the age of consent is entirely due to religion instead of actual legit concerns. The slippery slope argument works from that standpoint, because you would be allowing homosexuals special privledges that the other groups would not have.

None of the arguments you used are slippery slopes. They have other issues like prejudice and bias. But they are not slippery slopes , thus agreeing with those arguments does not mean the slippery slope is valid...

Normal male-female marriages may also put children into situations that lead them to trauma. There are probably millions of documented cases of heterosexual parents that had abused their daughters. The thing is that abusing children, putting them to trauma will stay illegal after the legalization of marriage.

Not all heterosexual marriages can reproduce without a third party. Or do you think that heterosexual marriage between infertile adults must be prohibited?

Me too.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 17 Jan 2011, 8:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.

F*** Yeh.

I agree with gay marriage or whatever you wanna call it as a legal contract, but I'm not sure about homosexual couples raising kids. I think there needs to be a mother and father figure. Blacks are known to be raised by single mothers more so than other races in North America, and I believe this is responsible for exacerbating the machismo in the ghetto subculture.

I don't care how much people want to believe in gender roles being nothing more than social construction, there's something called estrogen and testosterone. It's a can of s**t worms to separate nature from social construction, but I believe it's nature for the most part and that males and females aren't dead equal, but are more like apples and oranges.

Males are known for having better spatial perception which makes the claim about women being worse drivers on average true. Likewise, women have better communication between both hemispheres of their brain, which means they think more holistically and are better at grasping the big picture.

So, black kids are only raised by a motherly figure and they turn more macho? How so?

Theories are nice. But it is not about what you believe, but about what you can prove.