Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I want to sign my name to the Galactic Declaration of Felix's Awesomeness.

Just moments before we discover life beyond our galaxy.

David Beckham is trying to prove there is life beyond the LA Galaxy.

Related thought to the original topic: since when did states regain the right to define rights within their borders? It hasn't always been a right; otherwise, I'd have never seen a black person in my schools growing up.

If you go by the standard of segregation (the last time "separate but equal" was tried), Prop 8 and its ilk are illegal. It will be interesting to see when this comes up in court.

You know, I just don't see why anyone would support Prop 8, I really don't.

So, you believe that rather than being a genetic anomaly, that being homosexual is in fact a choice someone makes, so what? I utterly fail to see how the choice they have made in who they love impacts in any way shape or form on another person who made a different choice (surely, if it's a choice to be homosexual, it is likewise a choice to be Heterosexual. And if we follow this line of reasoning to one conclusion, we would all, by default, be Bisexual).

Isn't this just a case of bullying against a minority?

No. In summary, the other side of the argument is that it is a 10,000 year old tradition which shouldn't be messed with. Second, that to change it undermines the family which is already under siege. Third, to permit it will open the door to a host of other nastiness. To paraphrase Lewis Black-one of my favorite comics- 'the Ten Commandments were put in place to keep us from marrying...GOATS.'

While I disagree with everything but the third argument I can understand where they are coming from.

OT but its interesting that the Mormons are being attacked despite the defeat coming from voters from every major group including minorities and hispanics (but don't attack them, they're Democrats). Fun to watch.

I'm just going with the best covered objections my friend! And anyways, when it comes to this, my opinion means nowt as I don't live in the US, let alone California!

But will it really open a door to other nastiness? I'm not convinced it would. Marriage, like sex, as long as it is between two consenting adults, whats the problem? Like many things, I feel the correct stand point a Government should take is one of impartiality. Legalese it, but do not criminalise places of marriage that decide not to do same-sex ceremonies. Then everyone is surely happy?

Well, the Nambla crowd piped up when one state ruled it legal. Thats the GREAT BUGABOO with me. Unless its a clever ploy to find them prior to extermination of course...

Difference being Children do not have the same understanding of such things as Adults.

What Same-Sex Marriage is addressing is something which is largely a great injustice. Nambla however, are genuine perverts who prey on the young. Big difference!

Agreed on both counts. However, the same argument can be about homosexual marriage. In fact that was the Nambla argument-that this was a stepping stone in greater understanding of "their cause."

Other slippery slope arguments I've heard:
-What about multiple husbands/wives?

-What about more communal relationships?

Again I expect to get plastered shortly, which will be especially upsetting as I'm trying to play Devil's Advocate here.

Frazzled wrote:No. In summary, the other side of the argument is that it is a 10,000 year old tradition which shouldn't be messed with. Second, that to change it undermines the family which is already under siege.

How does having more marriages undermine families though ? I thought the argument was that married family units are the bedrock of a stable society ?

It's not really a 10,000 year old tradition either is it ? At least in the accepted modern sense of the word marriage.

Frazzled wrote:No. In summary, the other side of the argument is that it is a 10,000 year old tradition which shouldn't be messed with. Second, that to change it undermines the family which is already under siege. Third, to permit it will open the door to a host of other nastiness. To paraphrase Lewis Black-one of my favorite comics- 'the Ten Commandments were put in place to keep us from marrying...GOATS.'

While I disagree with everything but the third argument I can understand where they are coming from.

OT but its interesting that the Mormons are being attacked despite the defeat coming from voters from every major group including minorities and hispanics (but don't attack them, they're Democrats). Fun to watch.

They're all bad arguments, not just dubious but really very awful.

Defending something as tradition means you end up arguing that we can't ever be more tolerant than people that have been dead for 100 years.

The idea of the family under siege is a non-sequitur. A marriage survives on the commitment of the two people involved, if the two guys down the road get married it doesn't affect that marriage one bit.

And a slippery slope argument is probably the weakest of the lot. Don't do something innocuous because then something vaguely related might also happen? Please. There is no chance of legalised paedophilia, and this will not change one bit by allowing consenting adults to marry. Anyone that argues such really has to have a sit down and figure out to themselves why they'd believe anything so silly.

I just don't see the same slippery slope, and I think it's a bogus idea to campaign under.

Multiple Spouse Marriage is not a good idea, because at the point it becomes a matter of male dominance etc. This is also not tolerated by either side of the Prop 8 debate I'd imagine (well, barring the Mormons who allegedly like that sort of thing. Please note the allegedly there).

Please define communal relationship. Is that when two people share a place? I'd agree that needs legal representation, though in a different way.

People are monkeys. WE might pretend we live in a nation etc etc. But the reality is;
Happy family = happy you.
Unhappy family = unhappy you.

Frazzled wrote:Agreed on both counts. However, the same argument can be about homosexual marriage. In fact that was the Nambla argument-that this was a stepping stone in greater understanding of "their cause."

Other slippery slope arguments I've heard:
-What about multiple husbands/wives?

-What about more communal relationships?

Again I expect to get plastered shortly, which will be especially upsetting as I'm trying to play Devil's Advocate here.

Keep in mind I'm not attacking you, Frazz, but the arguments.

Slippery slope arguments are intrinsically invalid. Always, anywhere, and in all cases. Now, I do understand why people make these arguments, but that still doesn't change the fact that they are horrendous abominations of 'rational' thought.

I respectfully disagree-not in this instance but in general. Often, slippery slope arguments come out to be very true.

Frazzled wrote:I respectfully disagree-not in this instance but in general. Often, slippery slope arguments come out to be very true.

That just makes your next argument more likely to occur.

/cough

malfred wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I respectfully disagree-not in this instance but in general. Often, slippery slope arguments come out to be very true.

That just makes your next argument more likely to occur.

/cough

I think its time for some random attachments

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:You know, I just don't see why anyone would support Prop 8, I really don't.

Isn't this just a case of bullying against a minority?

And there are at least 50% of the people on California who don't see why anyone wouldn't support Prop 8 to the extent of modifying the State Constitution.

No. It's the case of a lone Mayor saying that he will not enforce the law in the state, but that he will encourage people to break that law. It's a case of Judicial Activism by less than a handful of men overridding the will of millions of people (recall that California passed a law banning Gay Marriage over a decade ago by a overwhelming majority). It's a case of a very small minority forcing their views on a majority.

Now, let's be very clear about what "bullying" would be. Bullying would mean that Gays cannot buy homes in nice neighborhoods (which is a total LIE if you've ever been to Silver Lake, and FYI, my grandfather had to deal with racial covenants when he moved to California). Bullying would mean that there'd be a legally-mandated pink triangle on their driver's licenses and official identification (when I visited the South in my youth, people were actually ID'd as "black" or "white"). Bullying would mean that Gays can't sit in certain sections of buildings, or user certain facilities (BTW, "whites-only" restrooms aren't a joke - I remember very vividly my mom having to ask whether we were black or white). And there's a lot more official and unofficial "bullying" from that time.

So, maybe, to you white folks, never having experienced any such "bullying", meh, it's no big deal.

But when you guys say, "Oh, it's the same", I'm going to tell you in no uncertain terms that gender and "race" are NOT the same. There is no fething way you'll get me, or anybody else of a certain color and certain age to agree with that statement. That's total bs.

So none of that "bullying" applies. Instead, Gays are held to the same standard as any other man (or woman) before the law in terms of who marries whom. A Gay man can marry any other woman, just like a non-Gay man. A Gay woman can marry any other man, just like a non-Gay woman. Whether those result in sexless marriages, childless marriages, loveless marriages, marriages of convenience, or even (gasp!) extramarital sex, is the same choice that non-Gays have to deal with.

Similarly, Gays can have wedding ceremonies and Civil Unions. But redefining "marriage" and "civil union" isn't the way to do it, as it simply defines a particular relationship, just as "heterosexual" and "homosexual" define a particular sexual orientation.


I say, if the Gays want Gay Marriage to be accepted, let them earn it.

If they want to claim this to be a civil rights issue, let them lay down their lives and dreams for the cause.

From my POV, the Gays haven't done that. Not even close.

dogma wrote:Slippery slope arguments are intrinsically invalid. Always, anywhere, and in all cases. Now, I do understand why people make these arguments, but that still doesn't change the fact that they are horrendous abominations of 'rational' thought.

What's most amusing is that, in the social sphere, every single one of them comes true.

So why you may not like the argument, the history of society proves that they actually *are* always valid, and always proven to be so. It just takes time.

Back when Welfare was concieved, guys like you would argue "oh, no, nobody would actually *stay* on welfare". When unlimited per-child increases were proposed, guys like you argued "oh, no, nobody on welfare would actually have *more* children". And so on.

But people did this. Not a huge number, but enough to make Welfare far larger and more expensive than what anyone would ever expect.


So on the basis of historical fact, you cannot dismiss any slippery slope argument.

You are therefore obligated to address every single slippery slope argument.

John, sorry, but what a load of bollocks. Black people had to fight and die for their rights so everyone else does? Haven't we learnt anything from those struggles? Shouldn't it be that no-one has to suffer those indignities again? We live in modern democratic nations, and denying around a tenth of the population the right to marry just because of staid old traditions and homophobia is crap, it's an act of dehumanising, saying that these people are abnormal, and lower class citezens than straight people.

As for the arguments saying this is one step away from letting paedophiles and bestiaphiles marry is just utterly offensive, as it places gay people into the same category as these practises and perversions. Being gay is not perverted or wrong, it's love and sex between two consenting adults.

If gay people want to marry, let them, why hurt people because we feel a bit uncomfortable about it?

10%-thats a substantial overstatment.

playing devil's advocate here:

As for the arguments saying this is one step away from letting paedophiles and bestiaphiles marry is just utterly offensive, as it places gay people into the same category as these practises and perversions. Being gay is not perverted or wrong, it's love and sex between two consenting adults.

I can make one change and thats the next step:
"Loving two people at the same time is not perverted or wrong, it's love and sex between consenting adults."

I say, if the Gays want Gay Marriage to be accepted, let them earn it.

.. err..... how ? Live together ? Marry... oh, right.

Most bizarre.

2008/12/03 17:17:35 Subject: Your views on marriage..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

dogma wrote:
Slippery slope arguments are intrinsically invalid. Always, anywhere, and in all cases. Now, I do understand why people make these arguments, but that still doesn't change the fact that they are horrendous abominations of 'rational' thought.

What's most amusing is that, in the social sphere, every single one of them comes true.

So why you may not like the argument, the history of society proves that they actually *are* always valid, and always proven to be so. It just takes time.

Back when Welfare was concieved, guys like you would argue "oh, no, nobody would actually *stay* on welfare". When unlimited per-child increases were proposed, guys like you argued "oh, no, nobody on welfare would actually have *more* children". And so on.

But people did this. Not a huge number, but enough to make Welfare far larger and more expensive than what anyone would ever expect.


So on the basis of historical fact, you cannot dismiss any slippery slope argument.

You are therefore obligated to address every single slippery slope argument.

Every single one has come true ?

I sure as hell don't see "Rivers of Blood" or " the Black man having the whip hand over the white man", or indeed the collapse of American civilisation after racial equality laws were passed.

WE best keep women back in the home too, in case they get uppity or something too right ? They'll be wanting to vote next !

WE best keep women back in the home too, in case they get uppity or something too right ? They'll be wanting to vote next !

My Wife's pretty uppity...

JohnHwangDD wrote:
What's most amusing is that, in the social sphere, every single one of them comes true.

So why you may not like the argument, the history of society proves that they actually *are* always valid, and always proven to be so. It just takes time.

Yes, that would be the operative component of the clause, 'it takes time'. Time, and a separate decision, which makes the premise of a slippery slope wholly fallacious as there is nothing 'necessary' about making another decision.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Back when Welfare was concieved, guys like you would argue "oh, no, nobody would actually *stay* on welfare". When unlimited per-child increases were proposed, guys like you argued "oh, no, nobody on welfare would actually have *more* children". And so on.

But people did this. Not a huge number, but enough to make Welfare far larger and more expensive than what anyone would ever expect.

That isn't a slippery slope John, that is a direct consequence of the Federal dole.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
So on the basis of historical fact, you cannot dismiss any slippery slope argument.

You are therefore obligated to address every single slippery slope argument.

Not really, because the example you cited wasn't even a slippery slope argument.

My Wife's pretty uppity...

Yeah, but we've been told her husbands a real jerk and he.. HEY WAIT A MINUTE ! IT'S A TRAP!

Frazzled wrote:
I can make one change and thats the next step:
"Loving two people at the same time is not perverted or wrong, it's love and sex between consenting adults."

See, but there isn't anything wrong with that insofar as it isn't a binding social agreement. Modern polyamorous relationships are founded on the freedom of partners involved. Something which the property rights of marriage necessarily impede by turning what is essentially an open social arrangement into a contractual obligation, and a highly complicated one at that. Something which would be better handled with either a Will, or open judicial arbitration.

Frazzled wrote:I respectfully disagree-not in this instance but in general. Often, slippery slope arguments come out to be very true.

They never do because slippery slope arguments imply that if 'x' happens 'y' MUST happen. Not that it might happen, but that it must happen. Nothing, ever, must happen in a particular way.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:You know, I just don't see why anyone would support Prop 8, I really don't.

Isn't this just a case of bullying against a minority?

And there are at least 50% of the people on California who don't see why anyone wouldn't support Prop 8 to the extent of modifying the State Constitution.

No. It's the case of a lone Mayor saying that he will not enforce the law in the state, but that he will encourage people to break that law. It's a case of Judicial Activism by less than a handful of men overridding the will of millions of people (recall that California passed a law banning Gay Marriage over a decade ago by a overwhelming majority). It's a case of a very small minority forcing their views on a majority.

Now, let's be very clear about what "bullying" would be. Bullying would mean that Gays cannot buy homes in nice neighborhoods (which is a total LIE if you've ever been to Silver Lake, and FYI, my grandfather had to deal with racial covenants when he moved to California). Bullying would mean that there'd be a legally-mandated pink triangle on their driver's licenses and official identification (when I visited the South in my youth, people were actually ID'd as "black" or "white"). Bullying would mean that Gays can't sit in certain sections of buildings, or user certain facilities (BTW, "whites-only" restrooms aren't a joke - I remember very vividly my mom having to ask whether we were black or white). And there's a lot more official and unofficial "bullying" from that time.

So, maybe, to you white folks, never having experienced any such "bullying", meh, it's no big deal.

But when you guys say, "Oh, it's the same", I'm going to tell you in no uncertain terms that gender and "race" are NOT the same. There is no fething way you'll get me, or anybody else of a certain color and certain age to agree with that statement. That's total bs.

So none of that "bullying" applies. Instead, Gays are held to the same standard as any other man (or woman) before the law in terms of who marries whom. A Gay man can marry any other woman, just like a non-Gay man. A Gay woman can marry any other man, just like a non-Gay woman. Whether those result in sexless marriages, childless marriages, loveless marriages, marriages of convenience, or even (gasp!) extramarital sex, is the same choice that non-Gays have to deal with.

Similarly, Gays can have wedding ceremonies and Civil Unions. But redefining "marriage" and "civil union" isn't the way to do it, as it simply defines a particular relationship, just as "heterosexual" and "homosexual" define a particular sexual orientation.


I say, if the Gays want Gay Marriage to be accepted, let them earn it.

If they want to claim this to be a civil rights issue, let them lay down their lives and dreams for the cause.

From my POV, the Gays haven't done that. Not even close.

So, because the Black population of America had an unjust* struggle for basic human rights, the same must happen for all minorities, be they ethnic or sexual?

You say race and sexuality are two different issues, I respectfully disagree. Those fighting for their civil rights had no choice in being born with non-white skin. A homosexual has no choice in who they happen to fancy. As I said earlier, it stands to reason that if Homosexuality is a choice, then so is Heterosexuality, making the entire population Bisexual by default.

I honestly cannot believe that a person who's family had suffered horrendous civil rights abuses could possibly declare that another group has to earn it.

The Black populace should never have had to earn the vote and equal rights. That is something you should just have.

John's argument (correct me if I am wrong) is that they already have all these rights.

Except for Marriage.

And the 'well, they can go and marry a member of the opposite sex' arguement is just incredibly, unbeliveably lame, and already covered earlier I believe.

But hey, if he wants to keep to his own ideas, then fair enough. Just don't push them on people you don't know and whose behaviour doesn't affect you.