Same sex marriage and the slippery slope.

Post Reply New Topic

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that lacking a father figure, they aren't exposed to a mature concept of masculinity so they're more vulnerable to buying the juvenile hormonal BS. I do believe gender roles have a basis in nature for the most part, but social construction definitely exacerbates em by inspiring neurosis.

I have the facts to prove that fatherless households, poverty, and crime are associated, but that's not what the issue is about. My theory is about interpreting and attributing the facts to causes rather than being the facts itself. Even if there is a longitudinal study of blacks raised by a single mother compared to blacks raised by both parents, you have the numbers and facts and they must be interpreted and attributed to some sort of cause.

Do both parents being present mean they have more time to supervise and guide the kids which leads to a better outcome, or is it that having a father figure means they are more likely to internalize a mature concept of manhood? Numbers don't lie, but they can sure as hell imply and that's where it becomes a matter of interpretation.

I have come to the conclusion that it has something to do with the lack of a father figure since a juvenile concept of machismo is rampant in ghettos and is the cause of most of the problems.

Legal choice topic

For two consenting adult humans to marry each other is a choice. And not to marry is also a choice. I was common law with my ex husband before we married, and marriage was decided because we owned property and I did not want my house possibly ending up with the greedy members of ex-husband's family, and then my children would have had nothing if we had died when they were young. I saw marriage as a necessity to safguard their rights to property that were theres. We had a will, but sneaky lawyers can work against the wishes of parents if they both die at the same time--at least this was the problem about twenty years ago.

A year after we married certain parts of property law were amended (where I live) so that this abuse of inheritance was no longer a loophole. Oh, well.

Marriage shouldn't be a government issue regardless. Two(or more) consenting adults should be able to enter any contract that they want with each other. Who is the government to regulate such a thing? Why do they have to be intimate? Why can't just two friends that live together get the same rights as a married couple?

"Marriage" is a legal construct. As such, it can only be entered into by those capable of legally signing a contract. This lets out minors, animals, household appliances, fictional characters, and celestial bodies. Given this basic fact, there appears to be little rational reason to oppose marriage between any partners, or any number of partners, who may legally contract.

In practice, we forbid certain types of marriage due to societal strictures; some have a certain degree of reason behind them (close relations who marry may feel encouraged to have children, with the attendant increase in genetic risk), others are due to ancient prejudices (such as the ban on gay marriage in the States, or the ban on "interracial" marriage which existed in 17 states until 1967 [aside: I personally hold this "race" nonsense to be exactly that; humans are too similar genetically to establish anything that might be referred to as a "race". Proper interracial marriage would involve, say, a white man and a bottlenose dolphin]). One hopes that we will soon outgrow such silly prejudices; we as a species have done admirably at putting the spectre of "interracial marriage" behind us, to the extent that anyone who speaks against it (at least in the western world - we take our progress where we find it) is met in public with mockery or hostility.

As it happens, I'm old enough to remember the arguments about interracial marriage. No, nobody ever claimed it would lead to gay marriage - that was still not even science fiction back then. Instead, the claim was that interracial marriage would inevitably lead to people marrying animals (monkeys and dogs were frequently mentioned in this context). In the event, you may have noticed a dearth of humans marrying outside their species here in the real world...

@Vex

Umm..... Did you the info I placed in the post before yours. You must have skipped it, since it was disproving the exact same argument that you are making here.

In general

Marriage is also not just a legal construct. It is the legal recognition of a mostly religious construct. This is why I have little issue with equal rights under the law for same sex partners, I have in fact demonstrated in favor of such recognition in relation to taxation, inheritance and the designation of next-of-kin. I also do not oppose a civil union style legal arrangement. I do, oppose same-sex marriage, adoption and reproductive medicine access. This is due to the fact that I believe the law should support the family as a unit and not take any actions that would undermine it's place in society. Enough damage has been done to this social unit already.

I also do not know why many progressives have an issue with laws that favor the family, it seems to be the only form of positive discrimination that they oppose.

Umm..... Did you the info I placed in the post before yours. You must have skipped it, since it was disproving the exact same argument that you are making here.[/quote]
91, there can be no sensible "slippery slope" argument as regards Roe v. Wade, as it would require comparison of accurate statistics before and after - and, as abortion had been an outlawed procedure in many jurisdictions prior to Roe, and as few criminals, even medical criminals, care to keep accurate statistics concerning their crimes, well, let's just say it'd be about as useful as trying to compare drinking statistics during and after Prohibition, or comparing murder rates in medieval France (where the term was defined somewhat differently) with murder rates in modern-day New York City. The data simply are not there on one end.

And as regards the idea that legal marriage is the recognition of a "mostly religious" institution - if it is, then the laws governing it must be removed posthaste, as being in violation of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution! Marriage as constituted in the US today, if taken as "mostly religious", shows a marked preference for the JudeoChristian code - making illegal marriage forms that are endorsed under Islam, pre-Utah-statehood Mormon, and certain Native American tribal codes (which permitted both multiple marriage and same-sex marriage). This is clearly and plainly unconstitutional - it's a matter of what attorneys like to call "black-letter law", already clearly defined by precedent.

The 2nd Amendment has to do with the right to own a firearm.

^^^^

So the more than 100% increase since the 1970's is just proof that people were still using hundreds of thousands of backyard abortions. What about the 166% increase in repeat abortions over the same period. Based on the numerous studies into the number before Roe it has been firmly established that less abortions took place when it was prohibited.

As to marriage. I am not sure how it would violate the second amendment, unless you consider same sex relationships to be a form of militia. I think you should look at the text of the first amendment, it states something about 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof', you might find this interesting in relation to black letter law. The prior section of that amendment relates to the establishment of government sanctioned religious practice. Legal recognition of marriage, may actually violate that part, but I doubt the supremes would enforce that sort of decision. The legal recognition of marriage is quite necessary in relation to divorce, inheritance etc.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

42 Million dead babies per year and people regarding it as a lifestyle choice. Yes, I do consider it a bad thing.

Slippery slope is not always a fallacy, but in this case, it is.

To confuse potentials with actualities is at minimum a neurosis and perhaps a mild psychosis. Almost any cell in the body has the potential to develop into a complete creature with the proper nurture system. A few cells is not a baby any more that an acorn is an oak tree.

In my view you have exactly backwards. Pro-abortion activists are right when they say human beings and persons are necessarily the same thing. However they state that some human beings are not persons. This is totally backward, a person may not be a human being, aliens, angels or even advanced ai may be persons but are not human beings. All human beings however are persons.

The functional difference that you are drawing is so arbitrary as to fit allow the destruction of all but newborns. Your attempting to define the term person in such a way as to dehumanize the unborn so that it can be destroyed.

Except most of these really are not justifiable as babies. They lack almost every trait of a human being, and/or person.


First of all, that is just an assertion.
Second of all, I get the feeling that we're approaching a semantic tangle. I'm going to call fetuses fetuses.


Look, even if we tried to draw a distinction, it would justify the vast majority of abortions. These fetuses do not really have any "person properties" until later development, partially because their nervous systems are not really developed for a very long time. I mean, I'll be very clear, I think the case is stronger that newborns aren't persons than that fetuses are.

Stop trying to get in the way of our love!! !! *kisses fridge*

Such as the way we dehumanize the Taliban so we have no conscience in destroying by robot aircraft them or their children or wives or any local people in the vicinity who are considered somehow involved. The point I am making is that humans throughout history have had no difficulty eliminating other born thinking complete humans because the situation demanded it. And Christians are no exception to this behavior. To put a few cells in the category of the regular destruction of complete humans is beyond idiocy, it is pure insanity and your attempt to justify that is contemptible.