Jump to content
Science Forums

Same-sex Marriage


Larv
 Share

Recommended Posts

Slippery slope is not an argument, it is a fallacy, and hence has no validity in a logical discussion or debate.

Fallacy: Slippery Slope

 

Then I stand corrected. What I put forth was not strictly slippery slope. I'm not saying free for all is inevitable, without any argument. I am providing an argument. I'm saying the allowance of same-sex marriages could lead to such a profound change in the way that society defines marriage, that it makes sense to ask, "do you wish to support a definition of marriage whereby everyone can marry anyone?"

 

You could respond to that question, and perhaps that will be the end of this tangent.

 

if you feel I have used an ad hominem attack, then I advise that you report it to the staff so it can be handled properly.

 

I have been, thanks for the friendly reminder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I stand corrected. What I put forth was not strictly slippery slope. I'm not saying free for all is inevitable, without any argument. I am providing an argument. I'm saying the allowance of same-sex marriages could lead to such a profound change in the way that society defines marriage, that it makes sense to ask, "do you wish to support a definition of marriage whereby everyone can marry anyone?"

 

Same-sex marriage could lead to cannibalism. I'm not saying it's inevitable, without any argument. I'm saying it could lead to such a thing. So, does anyone want to support a definition of marriage that includes cannibalism?

 

It's a fallacy, Jway. Unless you provide an argument for how "same-sex marriage" can, must, could, should, or would lead to bigamous or polygamous marriage then you have no cause to make the argument *in any form* (including: begging the question).

 

~modest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hence, attempts to prevent same sex partners from marrying via the law are unconstitutional, and anyone who supports such attempts is a bigot who would be better off in the middle ages, as their views are anything but modern and enlightened on this matter.

 

In post #53, I presented this:

On March 9, 2009, Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer filed a lawsuit, Smelt v. United States of America, which was filed in Orange County, California, and seeks to reverse DOMA and Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.[20] On June 12, 2009 the Department of Justice issued a brief defending the constitutionality of DOMA.

 

I haven't been able to find much online regarding the opinions from June 12th brief.

 

I'm curious how we might reconcile first quote above (esp. part underlined) with 2nd quote (esp. part underlined)?

 

Is it fair to say that as DOMA is an attempt to block same-sex marriages, and as the DoJ has issued a brief defending the constitutionality of DOMA, that the DoJ is bigoted? And would be better off in the middle ages, as their views are anything but modern and enlightened on this matter?

 

That smells a little like ad hom, but surely that isn't an attack on character as a way to discredit any countering opinions, is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it fair to say that as DOMA is an attempt to block same-sex marriages

No, it's not fair to say that at all. That's actually a strawman.

 

DOMA says the following:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

2. The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

 

Describing this as an attempt to block same sex marriage is inaccurate. What DOMA says is that states (in the context of conferring benefits and privileges) aren't forced to recognize same sex marriages coming to them from other states, and that for the purpose of distributing federal benefits a marriage is currently being defined as between one man and one woman.

 

While I think DOMA should be repealed for the tripe it is, and while I feel there are constitutional grounds on which to do so, I would never make a silly claim such as "the US Department of Justice is bigoted."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same-sex marriage could lead to cannibalism. I'm not saying it's inevitable, without any argument. I'm saying it could lead to such a thing. So, does anyone want to support a definition of marriage that includes cannibalism?

 

I do not wish to support that definition. It's an interesting question. I am curious what definition of marriage you are using to arrive at the idea that marriage could lead to cannibalism? Could you provide that? Is it mentioned on Wikipedia or any other source online other than the "Same-Sex Marriage" thread on hypography.com?

 

It's a fallacy, Jway. Unless you provide an argument for how "same-sex marriage" can, must, could, should, or would lead to bigamous or polygamous marriage then you have no cause to make the argument *in any form* (including: begging the question).

 

I'm saying the introduction of "same-sex marriage" brings to light in our society that marriage isn't based on anything to do with type of people, but is defining the relationship between the individuals involved. This argument could've theoretically came up during debates around interracial marriages, though if it did not, I can imagine why. Mainly, it was still exclusionary, perhaps not intentionally, of the idea of same-sex marriages.

 

But with same-sex marriage, comes notion that is derived on idea that union and marriage are essentially synonymous. Except, with marriage, it carries legal benefits that we do not accord to "just any union." But if we allow for same-sex marriage, how could we reasonably disallow for polygamous, incestuous, transgender, and perhaps other forms of unions among humans who desire marriage in name and legal status? I think age of consent is perhaps one way, other than that, I struggle to find a secular reason why everyone couldn't marry anyone within the same society that now condones heterosexual and homosexual marriages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Describing this as an attempt to block same sex marriage is inaccurate. What DOMA says is that states (in the context of conferring benefits and privileges) aren't forced to recognize same sex marriages coming to them from other states, and that for the purpose of distributing federal benefits a marriage is currently being defined as between one man and one woman.

 

So DOMA does not block same-sex marriages? And is not to be seen as an attempt to do so? Furthermore, like the DoJ, do you agree that DOMA is constitutional?

 

while I feel there are constitutional grounds on which to do so, I would never make a silly claim such as "the US Department of Justice is bigoted."

 

Hmmmm, perhaps you could clarify what you meant by earlier quote. How might an individual citizen (support an) attempt to block same-sex marriages via the law? Or perhaps you meant a group. How would a group of citizens (support an) attempt to block same-sex marriages via the law? To be honest, I'm not sure what you meant, and I hope you could clarify, what would make someone "a bigot who would be better off in the middle ages?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the idea that homosexuality is unnatural (which has been forgotten here) has merit, since sex is nature's way of preserving and promulgating the species, and all the actions once referred to variously as sodomy do not further that cause.

 

--lemit

 

These two assumptions are not necessarily true in all times and places.

Sex may have a more important social bonding role, as evidenced by the number of times the sex-act is performed compared to the number of pregnancies.

 

Life is probably to short to study this in depth-- but for those keen enough:-

HOMOSEXUAL (SAME-SEX) MARRIAGES - All sides to the issue

 

Oops! I guess I forgot to apologize to you. I did apologize in general for the post you quoted, since it doesn't reflect my thinking and was done mainly to keep Larv from giving up his fight against seemingly everybody.

 

Anybody else I've forgotten to apologize to?

 

--lemit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oops! I guess I forgot to apologize to you. I did apologize in general for the post you quoted, since it doesn't reflect my thinking and was done mainly to keep Larv from giving up his fight against seemingly everybody.

Well, not exactly everybody. But I do enjoy pointing out the embarrassing occasions when InfiniteNow contradicts himself, such as claiming that same-sex marriage is the same thing as opposite-sex marriage, which is equivalent to saying that sex has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage. If that were true then why are we discussing the differences on this thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do enjoy pointing out the embarrassing occasions when InfiniteNow contradicts himself, such as claiming that same-sex marriage is the same thing as opposite-sex marriage

That's not quite what I'm saying, so I can see why you're confused since you are misunderstanding me. I am saying that the relationships are the same in every way except genitals, not that they are the exact same thing. This is especially apparent since opposite sex couples are not required to prove either fertility or fecundity prior to being allowed to wed. Hope that helps.

 

which is equivalent to saying that sex has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage.

Well, I don't think the two statements are equivalent, but you're right that marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with sex (by which, I presume you are referring to coitus/fornication). A couple is not required to engage in coitus in order to be considered married. Hell... most couples tend to stop the fornication altogether after getting married. :soapbox:

 

Now, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, and you mean to imply that genitals have nothing whatsoever to do with marriage. If that's the case, then I could not agree more. A marriage describes the relationship, not the private parts which the partners in that relationship must have.

 

 

If that were true then why are we discussing the differences on this thread?

Because one group is currently being disallowed from having the same benefits and privileges which are allowed to another group... another group which is equivalent in every conceivable way except for genitals/sexual preference... because it's discriminatory and it's unconstitutional... because so many people on our planet still find the idea of two same sex partners being married to be distasteful... because it's important to stand up and fight for equality... because if I don't stand up for the rights of others, who will stand up for mine when someone tries to strip them from me? ...because ad infinitum.

 

I have not contradicted my own argument in this thread. If you wish to suggest otherwise, then please be man enough to use the quote feature and demonstrate precisely where I did. This would be the honorable thing of you to do, and would show great integrity, further allowing me to clarify, retract, and or apologize for my statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I don't think the two statements are equivalent, but you're right that sex has nothing whatsoever to do with sex...

Would you please stop with this, I'm spilling my morning coffee.

 

...(by which, I presume you are referring to coitus/fornication). A couple is not required to engage in coitus in order to be considered married. Hell... most couples tend to stop the fornication altogether after getting married.

Maybe that's because one of them regards love making as fornication. "Honey, let's get married so we can fornicate legally. I'll even pay you for it."

 

:soapbox:

How incredibly literate of you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you please stop with this, I'm spilling my morning coffee.

I edited my post. The intended sentence was "marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with sex." Thanks for reminding me to stop multi-tasking while I post, as that was a silly sentence as originally typed.

 

 

Maybe that's because one of them regards love making as fornication. "Honey, let's get married so we can fornicate legally. I'll even pay you for it."

I'm not sure how your point relates to mine, nor the thread. Would you care to elaborate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe that's because one of them regards love making as fornication. "Honey, let's get married so we can fornicate legally. I'll even pay you for it."

I'm not sure how your point relates to mine, nor the thread. Would you care to elaborate?

From wiki: fornication:

 

The origin of the word derives from Latin. The word fornix means "an archway" or "vault" and it became a common euphemism for a brothel as prostitutes could be solicited in the vaults beneath Rome.

 

Depending upon how much you waffle over the term, I don’t think same-sex couples can fornicate. So, since you brought it up, it is you who needs to explain how fornication relates to this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depending upon how much you waffle over the term, I don’t think same-sex couples can fornicate. So, since you brought it up, it is you who needs to explain how fornication relates to this thread.

Interesting request, considering that the context in which that post was made was my suggesting that coitus/fornication does NOT relate to our allowance of marriage to couples, since opposite sex partners are neither required to prove they will be sexually active nor that they will not commit adultery prior to being allowed to marry.

 

Hence, my entire point is that it's NOT related to this thread, nor to the allowance of marriage between two same sex partners.

 

Even though I find your request to be wholly silly... the answer is, yes... homosexuals can fornicate, regardless of which definition you choose.

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+fornicate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting notion that gay-men don’t fornicate… I’d beg to differ.

 

But whether or not fornication occurs and the merits of fornication are not really on topic to the question of same-sex marriage. Believe it or not, Jway did encapsulate most of the arguments used to denounce same sex marriage in Post 55. I know that was a bit back there, but there are folks who have convinced each other of the merit of each of these points. When Massachusetts’ State House was involved in deciding how the commonwealth would weigh in on this subject, busload of demonstrators were bused in from places far away from New England. Police tried to keep demonstrators away from each other, but it is a public building and nothing was cordoned. Many of them were chanting in Southern drawls or blessing the walls of the State House in a Kansas-twang. One old bitty was especially amusing, she kept swaying and wildly caressing stone marble walls while saying over and over, “Jesus is Lord.” But in her thick Appalachian accents it sounded like “Cheez-its is Lard,” I couldn’t stop giggling; and she gave me the meanest face, while pumping up the volume, “Its-its is Lard!”

 

Anyways, some of the demonstrators did try to “argue” their points. Essentially they are very similar to Jway’s post. I’ve boiled down his arguments “non-bigoted” arguments against gay marriage (from Post #55.) They’re actually quite funny:

1. “Same-sex marriages if allowed would drain the system of funds and resources”

2. Anarchy: everyone would be marrying everything.

3. Requiring schools to teach gay-marriage

4. Marriage sucks so spare the queers – lol

5. Apocalypse.

 

Rebuttals addressed to Jway:

1. Sorry dude. Massachusetts and most of Europe have proven you wrong many times over. Marriages bring money into a community as a form of tourism, where each out-of-state guest brings in outside money. Gay Marriage Rights - Where Is Gay Marriage Legal? - States That Allow Same Sex Marriage

2. Ditto. Gay-marriage is not a fabled thing any more to which we can make projections of doom. There is real data. None of the state and countries to legalize gay marriage have become even slightly destabilized because of the trauma of legalizing gay-marriage. In fact the converse appears to be true, after being clobbered hardest in the economic clashed, Iceland is now being stabilized (not destabilized) by the world’s first openly lesbian world leader.

3. Schools once tried to conduct curricula of abstinence. Despite the well-engineered plans of the evil educators, teen pregnancy was actually highest among kids taught this way. Kids taught the standard program of all the different realities had the lowest incident. And the control, was the group receiving no education ended up producing stats between the other two. Face it, kids don’t listen to adults with full attention—they never have—especially about anything personal.

4. I understand you were attempting humor. Don’t. Don’t even joke about curtailing my liberty or freedom. Too many pathetic people waste too much time devising ways to control others, when the truth is, they should be working on controlling one’s self.

5. Apocalypse. Hmm. Here I will not disagree with you. Though I disagree that gay-marriage would be the cause—a harbinger perhaps—but not the cause. The end of the Earth is inevitable. It could happen any time, potentially. Perhaps LHC at CERN will produce a stable sample of black-hole material… that’d do it,

Scientific Concerns: Safety, Ethics, and Issues Board. • View topic - Quizzical/deductive analysis of Dominium premise

but not gay-marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rebuttals addressed to Jway:

1. Sorry dude. Massachusetts and most of Europe have proven you wrong many times over. Marriages bring money into a community as a form of tourism, where each out-of-state guest brings in outside money. Gay Marriage Rights - Where Is Gay Marriage Legal? - States That Allow Same Sex Marriage

 

Not sure I follow the tourism claim. But I don't need to. I was referring to marriage after the ceremony, year to year. I already think it won't drain the system, even if it were free for all. In fact, I think economy would see a boost like never before experienced.

 

2. Ditto. Gay-marriage is not a fabled thing any more to which we can make projections of doom. There is real data. None of the state and countries to legalize gay marriage have become even slightly destabilized because of the trauma of legalizing gay-marriage. In fact the converse appears to be true, after being clobbered hardest in the economic clashed, Iceland is now being stabilized (not destabilized) by the world’s first openly lesbian world leader.

 

Destabilizing is possible interpretation of what I was saying, but is not what I feel I was getting across. My question still remains. And in my book, being pro same-sex marriage, I think it a very good thing, that we own up to the idea that everyone can marry anyone. But alas, I think even same-sex couples, and advocates for same-sex marriage may disagree with me on this. I think it is inevitable, but I would argue (for now) that it is plausible since we are, with allowance of gay marriage, arguably not excluding anyone from marrying anyone.

 

3. Schools once tried to conduct curricula of abstinence. Despite the well-engineered plans of the evil educators, teen pregnancy was actually highest among kids taught this way. Kids taught the standard program of all the different realities had the lowest incident. And the control, was the group receiving no education ended up producing stats between the other two. Face it, kids don’t listen to adults with full attention—they

never have—especially about anything personal.

 

IMO, this issue I was raising wasn't about the kids. It would be argued that way, but it is more about the teachers. It's the one that I think could be considered bigoted, but not if taught proportionally, as reflective of stats. Based on my experience in education, I don't know how much it would matter. What kind of classes even bring up marriage? Maybe if we had classes on it, and prep courses, we might have better chance at, ahem, survival.

 

4. I understand you were attempting humor. Don’t. Don’t even joke about curtailing my liberty or freedom. Too many pathetic people waste too much time devising ways to control others, when the truth is, they should be working on controlling one’s self.

 

I was only half joking.

 

5. Apocalypse. Hmm. Here I will not disagree with you. Though I disagree that gay-marriage would be the cause—a harbinger perhaps—but not the cause. The end of the Earth is inevitable. It could happen any time, potentially.

 

On this one, I was mostly joking.

 

Btw, congratulations Hasanuddin to you and your loved one on your blessed union. I am happy you were allowed to marry, as mutually desired.

 

-Jway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...