Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
As is the fallacy of believing that it is possible to have an intelligent conversation on the internet, much less a structured debate. Because IMO only an idiot would try to apply the rules of structured debate to ATPN, as though anything even remotely resembling a structured debate has ever taken place here. Why not just admit you can't counter the argument?
Regardless of logical fallacies, slippery slope is real. It exists, and it happens. Why don't we just call it what it is, eh? An agenda. I have an agenda too. Less government. But whiners have to make sure that their every whim is legislated, always at someone else's cost and expense.
Just a quick point to your last comment. When refering to less government in social policy, that generally means less government intrusion in the private affaris of its citizens. In other words the government would not say whether a certain action can or cannot be since it doesn't involove itself in the lives of its private citizens. So, with respect to your social agenda, you're not really for "less government".
"Regardless of logical fallacies, slippery slope is real. It exists, and it happens. Why don't we just call it what it is, eh? An agenda. "
a) no evidence
b) no evidence
c) admitted a logical fallacy
d) justification by "it happens"
You're really digging yourself deeper into a hole here. People will respond to you when you make a rational argument. But making logically fallacious arguments clearly is not a rational argument.
I can help you. First, tell me why legalizing gay marriage will lead to the legalization of polygamy. Second, prove to me that gays and lesbians have polygamy next on their agenda.
Michael
Elite member
- Nov 19, 1999
- 5,435
- 234
- 106
dmcowen674,
I'm not sure the Fedaral Constitution says that all men are equal. I think the way it works is that rights granted under the Constitution should be equally available.
However, that is moot because marriage is a state matter.
I'm not sure I follow the judges reasoning - I see no reason why the State has to prove anything about marriage being between men and women only, I want to know what clause and reasoning in the actual document says that the law is unconstitutional. His views on he not thinking that there is a good reason for it is worthless as he doesn't write laws. It'll go to the State Supreme court and then they'll argue the legality of the law. I'm somewhat torn. I support the right for gays to get married but the California law was passed after going directly to the people. Is it right that I oppose my minority views on the majority when many of the majority feel that my opinion is immoral and wrong?
Michael
I'm not sure the Fedaral Constitution says that all men are equal. I think the way it works is that rights granted under the Constitution should be equally available.
However, that is moot because marriage is a state matter.
I'm not sure I follow the judges reasoning - I see no reason why the State has to prove anything about marriage being between men and women only, I want to know what clause and reasoning in the actual document says that the law is unconstitutional. His views on he not thinking that there is a good reason for it is worthless as he doesn't write laws. It'll go to the State Supreme court and then they'll argue the legality of the law. I'm somewhat torn. I support the right for gays to get married but the California law was passed after going directly to the people. Is it right that I oppose my minority views on the majority when many of the majority feel that my opinion is immoral and wrong?
Michael
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
To quickly answer both your questions --
First, if I were to bring up every example of slippery slope, it would take an eternity. Think gun control. Think of the fact that we're having this discussion at all when homosexuality was illegal in California less than 40 years ago. If that doesn't prove slippery slope for you, I don't know what could.
Second, what bothers me is that polygamy and polyandry are NOT on the agenda. They should be. But they're not because the current gay marriage issue is not about civil rights. It is about money. Insurance, government benefits, Social Security, military benefits, etc. This is an attempt to expand every government right that is given to married couples (that IMO should not be so given). And that means more government, not less.
And the biggest question of all... will non-gay same-sex couples be allowed to marry? They better be, but I have a strong feeling that there will be strong sentiment among the gay communities that such a thing should not be allowed. Which will only prove that this fight was never about civil rights...
First, if I were to bring up every example of slippery slope, it would take an eternity. Think gun control. Think of the fact that we're having this discussion at all when homosexuality was illegal in California less than 40 years ago. If that doesn't prove slippery slope for you, I don't know what could.
Second, what bothers me is that polygamy and polyandry are NOT on the agenda. They should be. But they're not because the current gay marriage issue is not about civil rights. It is about money. Insurance, government benefits, Social Security, military benefits, etc. This is an attempt to expand every government right that is given to married couples (that IMO should not be so given). And that means more government, not less.
And the biggest question of all... will non-gay same-sex couples be allowed to marry? They better be, but I have a strong feeling that there will be strong sentiment among the gay communities that such a thing should not be allowed. Which will only prove that this fight was never about civil rights...
Michael
Elite member
- Nov 19, 1999
- 5,435
- 234
- 106
Just for the record, I have more friends that are poly than I have friends who are gay (just my sister-in-law, and I went to her wedding ceremony). So Vic's point is not just slippery slope. Is the law going to be marriage is between and 2 people so more than 2 is out? Why is that fair to the poly minority?
Personally, I think being poly is a poor lifestyle choice, but why shouldn't they get the same rights as everyone else?
Michael
Personally, I think being poly is a poor lifestyle choice, but why shouldn't they get the same rights as everyone else?
Michael
If you call the progression of giving people freedom a slippery slope, I suggest you move to another country. Your same slippery slope arguments were the one's used to try to prevent black people from marrying white people. Let me ask you point blank: do you support interracial marriage? Because according to slippery slope arguments it can lead to thing like: gay marriage and polygamy.
Slippery slope cannot be proven. It is by definition a logical fallacy. There is a different circumstance in each case as I'm sure you'll find out if you ask the question above.
Umm, this is a pretty rediculous thought. Of course they would. Why are gay people allowed to be in heterosexual marriages?
Really, do you know any gay people???
If you want to read arguments about polygamy, go here: http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...&STARTPAGE=1&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear
Well, first of all, there's no doubt in my mind that same sex non gay couples would be allowed to marry. Non straight male/ female couples are allowed to marry witthout any problems. I sympathize with your desire to limit the expansion of government benefits, but if you think this is really about benefits you are mistaken. I have several gay freinds and for them this is about acceptance in to the community and not feeling life they are unwanted burdens on society. For them, the cry for benefits is just part of the arguement to obtain thier goal.
Originally posted by: conjur
No. It means the group that put that measure on the ballot needs to go back to law school and try to write a proposal that's not unconstitutional. Although, I think they'll all be dead before they find a way to do that.
Bingo. And several posters in this thread should join them in hopes of picking up some fundamentals re the role of the judiciary and the system of checks and balances.
Personally, it is a hard pill for me to swallow as I feel that homosexuality is a perversion but more important to me is the battle in governmental supression of personal rights. My study of the law has involved reading many 1st amendment cases, and from that perspective, I have to give a William O. Douglas "hell, NO!" to the California law struck down today. Is it too much to hope that California voters will soon begin to see that their recall spectacular has taken them from the frying pan to the fire?
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Well, I'm not poly. My argument is that I see the current pro-gay marriage fight as exclusive and hypocritical. Let's add to the roles of those allowed by the government to marry one new minority group and only this minority group, call it a civil rights movement, and do it in such a way as to spit in the church's eye. I can't agree with that.
Text
Well, I can sympathize completely with that, except for the need for societal approval of their intimate relationships. But bear in mind that I am a hetero who has lived with my SO for 7 years without marrying (no common law in my state). I do not need nor want institutional or societal approval for who I can or cannot love.
Maybe and maybe not. You and I do not have to deal with the majority of people thinking that we are sick perverted individuals. So how do we know how we'd react under that pressure?
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Unlikely. Gay marriage is spectacularly unpopular among the common folk. Even liberal Oregon voted to ban it by a 57% margin last November, and that was the closest margin of all the states to vote on the issue thus far.
Of major concern to me is that I see the fight itself as being of great assistance to the government in the suppression of personal rights (which is huge to me as well), and I blame it squarely for re-electing GW, something that will take me quite some time to forgive the pro-gay marriage crowd for (nice timing guys!).
Are you saying that you are pissed because gay marriage became a wedge issue that may have tilted the balance of the election? If so I am in agreement, as I may have mentioned before. Like last summer when I mentioned that I never saw where this was coming from, as in I never saw the grassroots support or the years of marches like we saw with civil rights or even going back to womens' suffrge. And of the gays I know not many give a hoot.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Yes. Pissed me off to no end. Scared of gay marriage, the fundies rallied the troops to the polls in droves while the kiddies stayed home, again. And, in large part because of the gay marriage issue, I predict that we will see even more Republican domination in 2006. Call it backlash.
And yeah, you're right. It seems to me that more straights I know care about this issue than gays I know, especially anti-religious and/or socialist straights, which is why I question the motives of the movement. Well... religions are well-organized. You fsck with them, they tend to fsck back and hard. As we already saw in November and will continue to see more of. And I greatly fear the backlash against personal liberties.
I apologize if my first couple of posts in this thread were emotional (and possibly illogical), but I'm still pretty pissed off about all this. As a libertarian, I tend to side with liberals on social issues (particularly civil liberties, although I am very much an economic conservative), and I would love be on the pro-gay marriage side, but use your fscking brains, people! Because you (and 9/11) woke up the sleeping monster that is fundamentalism in the country, and God help us now.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
Slippery slope isn't always a fallacy, but I explained why you failed to meet the criteria for such an argument - there simply isn't a 'slippery slope' between homosexual marriages and any other kind of marriage you want to talk about; it's called 'relevent dissimilarity'.
I'm quite wiling to continue having a structured debate, but you claim that is impossible on the internet, and then proove your point with 'even though what I said isn't supportable, it's still right, end of story'. Now I don't see why I would admit that I can't 'counter' your argument, when I did exactly that, and your argument was flawed to begin with.
where do you get that from? on average gay americans make slightly less money than heterosexual americans.
Haha, nice try buddy. That wasn't a personal attack. Really, do you know any gay people? Because you made the claim that gay people would probably not allow non-gay's to enter into a same sex marriage.
It'd be kewl if you could answer my other questions also....
Peace.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
It is a personal attack and a logical fallacy -- to hold your own argument against you. It seeks to quantify my authority to hold an opinion on this topic on something that I cannot prove on the internet, and is completely irrelevant.
Really, how about you? Do YOU know any gay people? :roll:
To appease your illogical mind and answer your question, my mother's only brother was gay, and died of AIDS. I've posted this more than once here, over the course of several years. Is that enough? Several very good friends of mine are gay. One of my aunts is gay. Good enough yet? Somehow I doubt it.
I've posted my final argument in full in this thread. Read above. And I warned of the same last summer. I was supportive of gay marriage until the current pro-gay marriage group decided to made a political mistake of enormous proportions -- an effort to win a single battle that would cost the war. And still can't seem to realize where they fscked up when it's so obvious.... So hey, go ahead and call every person who so much as cautions your judgement a bigot -- see what it gets you.
edit: btw, the irony of your claiming logical fallacies, moral high ground, etc. is pretty amusing in light of your junior high school level grammar and spelling, btw
The question was asked to see if you have any evidence. It is completely relevent since you do not provide evidence for your conclusions.
Now, that is a personal attack. I do know many gay people.
another personal attack dude.
yes, that's good.
another personal attack...
Good, I agree, bad timing
You're assuming too much. I support gay marriage. I thought the ruling in Massachusetts was horrible timing (in fact, the timing was influenced by conservatives!).
Yet, now that it has happened, I can't still be bitter about it. I've moved on. The only way for gay marriage to be legalized now is for a couple states to legalize it, like Cali and Mass., and for the rest of the country to see that nothing has changed, people aren't becoming corrupt as a result.
edit: whoops, almost missed that personal attack.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
It is entirely relevant. The gay rights groups pushing for gay marriage are claiming civil rights, remember? How can a civil rights group push for the rights of one minority while blatantly ignoring the same rights of another?
The black civil rights group initially failed because it was headed by racists like Malcolm X. It succeeded when MLK Jr. began advocating the civil rights of ALL people. In much the same way, the people will accept gay marriage when they see it as an affirmation of their own rights, and not an attack on their rights as it is being presented now.
edit: totalcommand, your hypocracy is hilarious and yes, this is an attack. I love how a question asked to me is not ad hominem while the same question to you is. You only prove my point that people who start bringing up the rules of debate on an internet forum should just admit they lost the argument, pack it up, and leave the thread.
Hmm, let's see, I asked it to see if you had evidence. You asked it to attack me. Simple as that buddy.
If you could spare a few moments from your personal attacks (<---yes this is me with a personal attack now), you'd see that you still haven't gotten any evidence of why gays wouldn't let non gays into same sex marriages.
Until you do, you've lost. Admit it dude. I can throw out tons of conclusions too, without any evidence.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter