LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThere is no good reason to deny consenting adults from joining a group calling it marriage and living their own lives.Originally Posted by Taxpayer
There is no good reason to deny consenting adults from joining a group calling it marriage and living their own lives.
There is no Allah.
Mohammed, like Joseph Smith, invented a religion so they could legitimize their sexual appetites.
Guru
They aren't a fallacy per say, but what they are is claims that provide no evidence that one event MUST follow from the other, and instead expect their opposition to disprove them. The fallacy comes in only if they think a slippery slope automatically proves that one event will follow from the other without providing any warrant or reason for why this must be the case. And, as you say, given that this slippery slope has not happened anywhere else the claim does seem to be completely without warrant. Best case scenario, an un-warranted slippery slope are just last-resort arguments made by people who can't come up with any direct objections to the case at hand.
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.
Charmed, I'm Sure
There are reasons to oppose polygamy - such as if the husband becomes ill in hospital, who makes the decision to turn off life support? If one wife wishes to turn it off, but two others want to keep him alive, who gets to make the decision? If only one can make the decision, this proves that in the marriage, the other wives are not equal to the first wife. That could pose problems.
Farewell my beautiful Gracie Baby, beloved pet:
15th Jan 1997- 18 Jul 2009
"The Futures Not Set; There Is No Fate But What We Make For Ourselves" - John Connor: Terminator 2.
http://mywinterstorm83.livejournal.com/
Guru
Because just because a number of people could care less, doesn't mean there is any movement, support or legal necessity for the changes you fear to actually be pursued. The fear seems largely contrived and opportunistic, without any basis in any of the other countries or states that have legalized same-sex marriage.
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.
So the bible is more like god trying to prevent food poisening, that helping people get to heaven?
Perhaps the gay thing was to help prevent STD's, but now we have condomns, so butt sex is as OK as eating pork?
Who decides what to follow and what not to follow?
If god is omnipotent and omnipresent, shouldn't we just let him deal with the gays? He seems more equiped to deal with his own business.
You might be right; you might be wrong. I suggest you share that opinion not with me -- but with folks interested in keeping polygamy illegal. For example:
Whatever the outcome of your discussion, it is irrelevant to the question of whether there is a good reason or not to keep a same sex couple from marrying.
Henry George's theories were based on land ownership and how far a business was from a public resource like a mill or waterway. The man lived and died a decade before the model T was produced much less modern transportation and communication. Not only did Henry George never hear of the Internet, he barely lived long enough to see the electric light. Applying the theories of Henry George to modern nations is about as risky as letting the most brilliant caveman design your next airport.
Guru
So the principle is, if it's inconvenient for society to develop the legal structures to deal with those issues, than their rights are forfeit.
But incest marriage, brother-brother, father-daughter or whatever, doesn't have that legal issue. So you would approve of their right to marry yes?
Why do folks assume there is only one reason to prohibit or limit something?
There are two considerable concerns with allowing folks to marry children or siblings. Marrying your own children is a way to bypass inheritance laws. That would place considerable pressure on children to marry for the purpose of inheritance evasion. Also, parents and siblings have recognized influence over their children. No, those might not be the only reasons but they are independent ones of considering a couples sex.
They're also well precedented concerns and limits. For similar reasons we do not allow parents to operate on their children, children to sit as a judge on a siblings case, and the IRS disallows certain business transactions between family members.
Do I agree with them? Doesn't matter. It's a separate argument from why marriage should or should not be exclusive or why we should or should not keep a couple from marrying based on their sex.
Henry George's theories were based on land ownership and how far a business was from a public resource like a mill or waterway. The man lived and died a decade before the model T was produced much less modern transportation and communication. Not only did Henry George never hear of the Internet, he barely lived long enough to see the electric light. Applying the theories of Henry George to modern nations is about as risky as letting the most brilliant caveman design your next airport.
Guru
So there are reasons for two consenting adults to not be allowed to legally marry?
Does it violate their rights?
Of course. We suspend a mans right to life when he's executed. We limit the right to free speech with slander laws and the right vote for felons and children. No one is arguing that laws don't limit or violate peoples rights. We need a darn good reason to do so, but there are often compelling reasons why it's necessary.
There is no compelling reason to deny a same sex couple the right to marry. At least I haven't heard anyone express why it's necessary.
Henry George's theories were based on land ownership and how far a business was from a public resource like a mill or waterway. The man lived and died a decade before the model T was produced much less modern transportation and communication. Not only did Henry George never hear of the Internet, he barely lived long enough to see the electric light. Applying the theories of Henry George to modern nations is about as risky as letting the most brilliant caveman design your next airport.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks