The New Slippery Slope Argument for Same-Sex Marriage

You lost me. Sorry. Can you explain further?

 

Its a reality suggested and adopted in 6 states. You dwell in a reality of your own mind.

 

By using identity politics to frame the debate, you’ve already loaded the issue before you’ve even begun. You cannot have an honest and thorough discussion about something when you insist on starting at point B and refuse to start at point A. You guys do this with marriage, you do it with abortion, you do it with race issues. You do it with everything. Until you guys are willing to remove your emotions from the topic and start at the beginning with a completely open-minded and unbiased attitude, we will never be able to have a productive discussion about this topic. It will just continue to be an unnecessary fight.

Effective communication requires two things; talking and listening. You guys have expressed your willingness to talk quite clearly. Now are you willing to listen? I hope that you are. It’s the only way we are ever going to come to a resolution on this that works for both of us.

 

Your mistake is assuming that procreation is the only way to have a child...There is also adoption.

 

The “slippery slope” argument is not a valid debating technique for reason that (1) it begs the question, and (2) mischaracterizes the issue. Continuing with the same-sex marriage examples, supra, consider the following sentence: “The sanctioning of same-sex unions is the start down the slippery slope to the loss of sanctity of marriage and immorality.” This statement, petitio principii, begs the question (viz. the conclusion that same-sex unions are illegal or illegitimate is assumed in the premise), while mischaracterizing gays and lesbians (without mentioning them) by labeling them as immoral. Such circular reasoning is illogical for it is premised upon a presupposed bias or prejudice rather than facts susceptible of proof; and it is inherently unfair because it at once postures the opponent as against the sanctity of marriage and in favor of immorality. Thus framed, the argument goes round and round and gets nowhere, while the framer paints the opposition in a bad light. Sadly, in political debate, there has been a great deal of this of late.

 

Marriage. Marriage isnt available to "everyone else". It is limited to heterosexual couples, because only heterosexuals procreate. If you want to make it available to homosexual couples, you realy have no justification for NOT making it available to "everyone else".

 

It remains in your head. It has yet to be narrowly and sufficiently executed in law. Marriage is over-inclusive of these ends.

 

With respect, the point of the OP wasn't designed to have an honest and thorough discussion. Rather it was to point out just what you're saying... That slippery slope arguments do not promote honest and thorough discussion. They start, as you say, at point B - not point A.

And that's the practical problem with slippery slope arguments. Consider the case of Civil Rights for women, arguing for the right to vote:

So you want civil rights for women?
Well what about criminals?
Children?
Rocks?
Aliens?
Dead people?

By starting at point B, women, who may have little in common with criminals, children, rocks, aliens and dead people, suddenly have the burden of proof shifted on them to prove that they are not like criminals, children, rocks, aliens and dead people. This expands the discussion dramatically, and puts an undue burden on women to prove their case.

In the process for arguing why THEY (women) should have the right to vote, why should they ALSO have to PROVE why criminals, children, rocks, aliens and dead people should not? What if the women are not educated enough about children and criminals, to know why they should or should not have the right to vote? Does that lessen their own case for why they should have the right to vote?

It's a convenient copout for opponents of rights for women. It requires no proof on their own end, while at the same time requiring that women be familiar with all of the statistics, studies and arguments against criminals, children, rocks and aliens having the same right. And if they are not, then the opposition accuses the women of being selfish and unworthy for pushing forward for their own rights if they can't prove why they're different from children or criminals. It's an unfair argument style by design, begs the question and shifts the burden of proof.

And that was the point of the OP... if you'd like to have a more appropriate discourse, I'm more than happy to.

 

Thank you! At least someone understands the point of the OP.

 

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!! The requirements of procreation are dictated by biology, not the law.

 

Marriage has nothing to do with procreation.

 

I wasn't aware that biology dictated law. As evidence by the over-inclusion in legal marriage, apparently it doesn't.

 

Your point is invalid.

Many people marry after a spouse passes away, and they are beyond the age of having children.

Many people marry who are unable to have children.

So by your logic, these people shouldn't be allowed to get married either, since they can not fulfill your notion of what marriage should be for.

 

You know little of actual slippery slopes, and those who seek real harm on ciitzens and the citizen children.

Back in 2008, my rather exceptional Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, changed the age of consent in Canada to 16 from 14.

The opposition to this was the GLBT, at first on the obvious age of consent argument, wanting it to remain at 14 year olds. Later, wanting the sodomy laws changed from 18 to 16, for anal sex. It was rumoured Mr. Harper told them to bugger off.

And who championed this shoulder to shoulder with the GLBT...why, none other than The Canadian Federation of Sexual Health (formerly known as Planned Parenthood).

Imagine that. Planned Parenthood not wanting to lose those precisous 2 years loss of various product sales to the nations youth.

False and mocking slippery slopes are not funny in the least, not to me anyways.

 

Um... nope.

Procreation is not required for marriage.

Do you happen to have any other arguments?

 

While I disagree with your premise here, I do appreciate your openness. And I would be interested in taking you up on your offer for a more thorough discussion if you'd be interested in starting from point A.

 

I'm sure there will be plenty of opportunities in the multitude of threads on the topic .

Although I'm curious your reason for disagreeing with the premise... and by that I assume you mean disagreeing with the idea that slippery slopes are un-fair arguments by default. That seems to be exactly what you were saying with the "starting form B instead of A", although I may have just been reading into it.

 

This is the part where he will talk in circles and contradict himself.

Marriage is for procreation, yet infertile couples are married.
Marriage is for procreation, yet elderly couples are married.
Marriage is for procreation, yet people who have no desire for kids are married.
Marriage is for procreation, procreation is not required for marriage. Period.

See, procreation is only a requirement if you are homosexual, procreative marriage are not required if you are heterosexual. That is the essence of the procreation argument, self-contradiction.

 

???? I QUITE CLEARLY stated "The requirements of procreation are dictated by biology". Not that biology dictated law. And laws are intended to operate in the real world where biology dictates that only women give birth to children and only men father them. The laws reflect this reality.

§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient

 

No, this is the part where I would answer NO.

 

　
Actually if you look at it's historical beginnings, marriage is about rightful ownership, and the female as a piece of property to be bartered with from one families claim to another. But why muddy the waters with silly things like facts.

 

"Reflects this reality" and "has only to do with this reality" is a very different things.

Laws can certainly have something to do with biological processes, but that doesn't mean they're the only thing they're about. Marriage is a social institution that supports a variety of personal and religious values. People can marry with or without any ability, willingness or suitability to procreate. Your attempts to suggest marriage has only to do with procreation and presumption of paternity are not reflected in practice.

 

It's a false dichotomy he likes to put put forward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

He presents the argument as if it's one choice or the other... marriage is about the presumption of paternity, or it's not. This is a false dichotomy, ignoring the variety of purposes bring to the table. This is not a case of one or the other - legal marriage is a highly inclusive institution that supports a variety of religious, personal, and even business relationships. Procreation is a part of, but not the only defining factor in marriage.