Same sex marriage and the slippery slope.

Post Reply New Topic

When did Gay marriage ever cause birth defects? How is that even related? You strange, strange little person...

Except his logic was entirely around psychological properties, it can't actually support killing Jews or other races of any sort.


And here a prediction comes true:
"anything you'll give will be a clear instance of a post-hoc rationalization"

There are so many problems with your stand:
1) Incoherence, as there is no one to one correspondence between conception and personhood, so to say that personhood begins at conception results in so many problems because we have this person that SPLITS to create two persons or even MERGES to create one person. This kind of wizardry MAKES NO SENSE from a personhood standpoint though, because if a person SPLITS into two people, then where did the original person go? If a person merges with another person, then what do we have there? How can people literally merge? (Splitting is more common than merging, as merging is what happens for identical twins, and splitting is what happens for the rare chimeras)
2) A very very vast number of conceived beings DIE. http://publish.uwo.ca/~kennedyt/t108.pdf It is between 30% and 70%, but the problem is that if we were to really treat these like human beings, we would have to do something like ban unprotected sex, or spend billions of dollars trying to save these conceptuses or prevent this from occurring, as the number of conceptuses that die would make abortion seem like a very very small evil.
3) Logical conclusion? You are pulling this out of your hind-end. If we don't have any "real objective definition" that does not mean that your cut-off is now the "real objective one" or even anything close to the best one. It's the one that arbitrarily comes to your conclusions, but really, if we start examining developmental psychology, we can come up with a much much better cut-off, or at least recognize that certain stages definitely aren't persons. Most abortions happen in the first trimester, which is a point in time where it is definitely NOT a person. (scientists generally think that pain only begins in the third trimester http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9053416/ , and pain is really a very basic thing , and Michael Shermer, in the book the Science of Good and Evil, has pointed out that brain-waves resembling those of a person only begin in that third trimester as well) We can quibble about where the line really ought to be, but there is no real reason given by you that the first trimester has persons. Without real justification to think it does, then 88.2% of abortions are absolutely fine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#B ... and_method Now, if the overwhelming majority of abortions occur during a time period where we have very solid reason to think that there are no persons, then abortion, as we have it, is generally acceptable. Pro-life is only a case on the margins, not at the heart of the situation.


Yeah.... right. Now, are you going to get past your Catholic brainwashing and actually engage a real issue here?


Ok, great for you, but the problem is that marriage continues despite weak adherence to religious beliefs and even among people who are relatively non-religious and acting in non-religious contexts. Even further, I somehow doubt that only the "Godly individuals" have good marriages. There are many married atheists, for instance, and married atheists actually have a low incidence of divorce compared to Christians. http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistfami ... ivorce.htm

As for the "breakdown of the family", it is hard to say that this is all the fault of godlessness and so on and so forth. Really, the "breakdown of the family" is likely a good deal more complex than that. Certainly it has a lot to do with the currently greater social capabilities of women compared to the past, as well as the improved ease of divorce. It also undoubtedly has a lot to do with financial concerns and the age of marriage, as divorces are more common in the Bible belt where people marry young. It possibly has to do with a greater amount of ability for individuals to explore their role in society, as I know of a few couples who have split up because one person undergoes major changes, changes that might have never been tolerated in the first place in a more conservative society.

However, the thesis "divorce exists because of godlessness" is not very thoughtful, and I see no reason to privilege it in this discussion. Marriage has a definite social role, and given this social role, there is no secular ground for excluding people on the basis of sexual orientation. Trying to exclude on religious grounds though ends up with a lot of political issues and political mess though, and these political issues are of the sort that generally, I think things like the US Constitution have wanted to exclude from society.


How about the need for adoption? Regardless of what you think of homosexuals as an experiment, no parent is worse than the government. Children need parents who care for them above and beyond ANY other consideration. Even further, without solid evidence that this doesn't work, I have no reason to think that homosexual parents would be worse than single parents, and we certainly haven't outlawed being a single parent.

(Just a note: I am not offended by aceofspades use of "blacks" as I think he was just trying to use the term in a sense that is demographic, and "blacks" makes more sense than half of the other words we have for stating the name of the race)

NO it doesn't. Did you even read your own "facts"?

straight from your text.

Which is EXACTLY my point. Nobody knows how many abortions took place before legalisation therefore nobody can definitively state anything about the number of abortions AFTER legalisation. It could have been TWO. It could have been 6 MILLION. If nobody was counting, you don't know. Its guesswork.

In the United States of America, when they are 18 years old.


So... mandatory fertility tests before you can get married? What about married couples that don't want children?


Now that is a legitimate concern that needed to be addressed. Studies have failed to find any detrimental impact to children being raised by a same-sex couple.


Um... no, it doesn't, any more than all human reproduction ends up with inbreeding after a time. An argument against polygamy could be made in regards to the extra legal messes it creates with a multi-party contract.


See above about childless heterosexual couples. Additionally, we do not have the problem of a population that is too small. Besides, gay people aren't having babies, whether you let them marry or not, so this argument is moot.


Irrelevant, as there is no link between homosexuality and likelihood of being a child abuser.


Nope. The legal standard is still consent. Children cannot give consent, thus sex with them is abuse.

That is absolutely true, and some churches are completely fine with this. Unitarian Universalists wouldn't even begin to see an issue.

This. Emphatically this.

Why is it that? It could just be argued that it is just some arbitrary number.



I was saying it is the possibility of viable offspring from a natural standpoint if they choose not to have kids fine, if they happen to be infertile fine you don't have fertility tests in nature.



How will that child be able to socialize with someone of the opposite gender or understand how to act as an adult of their own gender depending of gender of homosexual couple and the child they are raising.



Salt Lake City -- A rare, severe birth defect is on the rise in an inbred polygamous community on the Utah-Arizona border, according to a doctor who has treated many of the children.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/polyg ... my417.html

Across the Arab world today an average of 45 percent of married couples are related, according to Dr. Nadia Sakati, a pediatrician and senior consultant for the genetics research center at King Faisal Specialist Hospital in Riyadh.

In some parts of Saudi Arabia, particularly in the south, where Mrs. Hefthi was raised, the rate of marriage among blood relatives ranges from 55 to 70 percent, among the highest rates in the world, according to the Saudi government.

Widespread inbreeding in Saudi Arabia has produced several genetic disorders, Saudi public health officials said, including the blood diseases of thalassemia, a potentially fatal hemoglobin deficiency, and sickle cell anemia. Spinal muscular atrophy and diabetes are also common, especially in the regions with the longest traditions of marriage between relatives. Dr. Sakati said she had also found links between inbreeding and deafness and muteness.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/01/world ... eding.html



I was making the point about secular argument for marriage between one man and one woman.



I'm not saying there is a link, I'm talking about how it could end up being used.



But it can be argued that age 18 is arbitrary with no foundation behind it other than what so and so said. Orwell you're not considering how a lawyer or some Judges and politicians would view the argument.

It is an arbitrary number. It is very clear that a 30-year-old is an adult and a 9-year-old is a child. For legal purposes, it is necessary to define a cut-off point. Our society has placed that line in the sand at 18 years of age. What problem is there with that?


Totally irrelevant to gay marriage then, if procreation is not a necessary condition for a valid marriage.


By actually interacting with other children of the opposite gender. You do not propose to ban single-parent households? For all your right-wing talk about government getting in people's lives, that would be a huge government intrusion.


Those were communities that were both inbred and polygamous, in the case in Utah because it was a small community, and in Saudi Arabia because their culture is different and tends to accept incest. You have not given any evidence for a causal relationship between polygamy and incest, much less proved it.


OK. You are still wrong.


The age could end up being shifted about roughly in the range from 16-21. No court is going to define 12-year-olds as adults.

I'm not saying there is a link, I'm talking about how it could end up being used.

1) Surprisingly enough, children will learn to socialise and act like whatever they act like the same way that children from single parent families do. By interacting with society in general. Gay don't keep children in Gay Camps where they indoctrinate them with Gayness. Two straight parents have been birthing and raising children which turned out to be gay for ever. Why is there any reason to believe that two Gays can't or won't raise a straight one, intentionally or otherwise?

2) Children get abused in STRAIGHT marriages all the time. If anything there is even MORE evidence for that than gay couples abusing children. Your own personal belief that the parent/child relationship is an abusive one is not only entirely subjective, its massively inaccurate and frankly incredibly insulting to parents everywhere.

This is not a problem exclusive to homosexual couples.

It is always a fallacy.

Fallacy is a implication that may be true or false but not definitely true or false even when proponents of the fallacy do so assuming it is true.

You claim this as if it was fact, but I cannot for the love of God think of a mechanism that would even make that have sense.

To prove your assertion, you provide a link of a polygamy group that were already inbreeding...

I guess that polygamy may lead to inbreeding when it happens inside societies that are completely opposed to it so families that are into the polygamy culture have to rely on their own to continue so. But that's not different than claiming that not liking state schooling leads to inbreeding...

I may as well challenge it. If people have multiple partners, wouldn't that extend the gene pool?

I think the idea of the slippery slope comes from fear that we are allready on it anyway. People try to single out their own ideas of what would lead us down the slope. The slope started, according to some writers, when we became civilised. Up to then humans worked less for greater returns. Then with civilisations humans had to work harder for less returns.

But people who talk about the slippery slope must also explain where they think we are sliding from. And most dont state it. The slippery slope argument is used as a way of airing prejudice.

You just gave the reason why they could argue to do away with it. Some cultures albiet the average lifespan is a lot shorter consider it appropriate for children (particularly males) to be active at 7 or 8 or even younger. While this isn't encouraged as often for girls, someone could argue that it is the natural state of things.



Do you have a laboratory where you can test for fertility that is built into your body to test for fertility short of actually getting someone pregnent? The point is in nature we have no way of knowing on fertility, but it takes a male and a female in nature to sire offspring.



That is not what I am saying.



It is the fact that you end up with the offspring down through generations all having the same father but several different mothers. That means a lot of half-brothers, half-sisters, etc. there ends up a point where genetic diversity is severely curtailed.



Actually, unless you can see the future, you can't say that with any certainty.



I'm not saying that 12 year olds would be considered adults, I'm saying that they could argue that it is a religious or cultural based law and the 1st Amendment prohibits the endorsement of any particular religion. It also prohibits the discrimination of a religion. It's unintended consequences Orwell.

Pretty sure that's called a fertility clinic. It's full of fertility experts, you know.

My apologies for breaking this up into two posts.

On the matter of abortion. It is my view that people can pick all kinds of subjective criteria to decide at what point human life begins. Under AGs definition, it would be perfectly acceptable to abort just about any time before the third trimester. Under Ruveyen's definition, even a child is still not a full human being, despite being delivered. This sort of discussion might seem quite facile, however it is also mirrored in by medical and ethical experts, none of which have really, despite large amounts of time and an ever increasing acceptance of abortion as contraception, reached what could be called an objective definition. Some features are more important to one onlookers than others. Look at the posts here and you will see a great many. Along with some subtle ad homeniem about my being a Catholic.

Some other factors not included by AG are the fact that the heart beat begins at Around 21 days, most abortions occur on subject with a heartbeat. Brain waves begin to emerge around week six, most abortions occur after this time. So basically one can pick when it satisfies them that a person exists and development occurs at different rates. We are talking law, no objective standard should be presupposes that would allow people to be killed. It therefor follows that the only objective point is conception.

I was saying that without some artificial means to test fertility, there is no way of knowing. However, you can only naturally sire offspring when it is a man and a woman. Not two women, not two men.