The New Slippery Slope Argument for Same-Sex Marriage

Thus my use of the phrase "Reflects this reality" as opposed to "has only to do with this reality"

?????? You fabricated that quote. Didnt come from me

 

You have correctly grasped the meaning of "no". Congratulations.

 

It didn't come from you directly, but that seems to be what you're implying when you continually put forward "can procreate" and "presumption of paternity" as the only purpose for marriage. If this is not what you meand, then apparently you agree that marriage has other purposes. And that the fact that even those who can't, won't, or shouldn't procreate exemplify that society recognizes these other purposes by allowing them to gain, and retain, marriage rights.

 

You mean as long as they happen to be homosexuals.

 

Now there is a subject for a slippery slope argument. Did you just articulate a justification for population control?

 

Gays are not what marriage is. That has not changed. It does not matter how the issue is defined, framed, couched, contorted, firm slope, or slppery slope, or paradim shifting. Gays are not what marriage is. It is that simple.

 

Hey look guys!

Someone who's so worried about slippery slopes, that they're complaining about slipping UP the slope!!!

 

You can't address that problem with your logic, so you again resort to this strawman instead that has nothing to do with your case.

 

Fallacy of equivocation and begging the question, combined, into one meaningless argument.

 

No. .........

 

Are you saying an infertile couple shouldn't be allowed to marry?

 

You will not receive a straight yes or no answer.

 

No.

Just don't ask for a good reason.

Owned.

 

And your point is moot because you misused the word "mute."

But to humor you, marriage clearly isn't based on procreation otherwise seniors and people who can't/won't have kids wouldn't be allowed to marry.

 

Any evidence for this today? Not hunches, but proper evidence?

 

I think there are good arguments that put polygamy into a different class. For example I'm not comfortable allowing a man to marry 15 foreign women, all of whom then get immediate green cards. But barring these kinds of administrative issues I don't care if someone wants to marry multiple people.

 

Who else is there? Polygamy is sufficiently different to require a separate argument to be accepted. As you know because I clearly explained it to you in another thread. Cousins, brothers and sisters? Do you really think they should be allowed to marry?

You do understand that no other class of people is going to suddenly be able to get married because gay people are soon going to be able to? First of all I don't know of any other group who has been fighting for over 30 years for such recognition. And secondly if they materialize they'll have to make their own arguments and succeed or fail based on how well they argue them.

Why don't you just admit you're a bigot? It's clear that you are and your attempts to scramble logic and the constitution just seem desperate, sad, and kind of gay, in a violently closeted way. Come out, own up, or shut up.

 

Well, now you're talking immigration policy which is a separate issue. Since you mentioned it though, there is no such thing as an "immediate green card". They still have to wait in line and pass all of the requirements, one of which is that the sponsor has to have enough income to support them. I have no problem with someone having multiple partners that just happened to be born on the other side of a line on the map, particularly if they have the means to support themselves. As it currently stands those 15 foreign women can enter and live in the US without a citizen husband today, so it more or less a moot point.

 

Speaking as a holder of an "immediate green card" I disagree. I married a US citizen and after filling out a few forms had a green card within a couple of months. There is no "getting in line." Immigration policy isn't a separate issue because marriage currently bestows this kind of "get to the head of the line" privilege to each foreign spouse. Allowing this for multiple wives would be problematic (and 15 wives with green cards is very different than 15 women here illegally.)

 

This IS the conservative agenda, basically. It's about shouving religion down everyones throats and using it as a way to keep the population messed up and in control. By control, I mean the elite rule and the poor serve as slaves, because they are too arogant to fear over population.

 

Homosexuality is not a choice. Marrying your sister, having 2 spouses or marrying a goat is a choice. There is no slippery slope.

 

That makes no sense. Homosexuality may not be a choice but choosing to marry someone of the same sex certainly is. Your comparison is faulty.