The New Slippery Slope Argument for Same-Sex Marriage

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by JeffLV, Mar 15, 2012.

  1. JeffLV

    JeffLV Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    4,883
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Every year, more and more of the world shifts to supporting rights for gays, lesbians and same-sex couples. The question is shifting further and further from "why we should recognize same-sex marriage?", to "why shouldn't we?"

    The slippery slope argument is often a favorite for opponents of same-sex marriage, but what will the discussion look like when the tables are turned?

    If you make same-sex marriage illegal, what's next?
    Should we leave it to the churches to decide who can and can't marry?
    Should we ban interracial marriage, just because people morally object?
    How about make marriage illegal between people 20+ years appart in age?
    Or nullify marriages that don't produce children?



    If the state can limit marriage based on any moral standard they like, or what they see as "unnatural", what's the limit? What right's CAN'T the government limit?

    How about we make tattoos, piercings and makeup illegal also?
    Contraception? Illegal.
    Screw it, if the role of government is to enforce morality, then how about we just make the Pope monarch of the USA?


    So you want to support "tradition"?
    So you believe women should be the property of their husbands?
    And you believe divorce should be illegal?
    And you believe Polygamy should be re-instated? I mean polygamy was traditional and supported even within the bible.
    How about traditions of slavery?


    The paradigm is shifting. These, and probably some other far more creative slippery slopes will be the type of arguments the anti-same sex marriage crowed will have to deal with.

    Good luck!

    :juggle:
     
  2. kenrichaed

    kenrichaed Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    8,539
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually marriage is based in procreation. Once you procreate it benefits the child in its raising to have a stable family.

    All of your points are mute unless a gay couple can have babies.
     
  3. Awryly

    Awryly New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Messages:
    15,259
    Likes Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There comes a point when procreation adds to the evils that plague the planet.

    Gays and lesbians should be applauded if they don't have sprogs.

    But it turns out that, through artificial processes, many do.

    There you have an argument for banning gay marriage. It leads to heterosexual behaviours.
     
  4. JeffLV

    JeffLV Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    4,883
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Which means you believe in restricting marriage from infertile, as well as those that society doesn't believe should reproduce (i.e. like child rapists, axe murderers, and maybe even the poor that can't afford them?) How about we do some "parental testing" to determine what families are OK to reproduce, and then only allow them to marry... marriage is just about supporting procreation, right? Or how about some forced parental-training? Apparently the government gets to decide what's the best situation for children, so they should be well within their rights to restrict things like interracial marriage and other forms of marriage that are known to provide challenges to the child. Since it's all about the children, right? And then we should annul any marriages that fail to produce children, since it's a waste of resources and failed to fulfill its purpose. The couple should probably even pay the government back for any support given when they failed to produce.

    You're talking as though it's already accepted that marriage is based on procreation, hence you're begging the question. Your points are moot in countries where same-sex marriage is legal. In this case, marriage is no longer strictly based on procreation.
     
  5. kilgram

    kilgram New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    9,179
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Where in what civilized country is based in the principle of procreation? Seriously.
     
  6. kenrichaed

    kenrichaed Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    8,539
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not any country. Its human nature to want to nurture children. You do this best with a woman taking care of the child where the man hunts. That was the basis in the paleolithic period for marriage.

    There is no evidence of gay rights from ancient history.
     
  7. JeffLV

    JeffLV Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    4,883
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The appeal to tradition?


    -How about we bring back arranged marriages more common in the time?
    -And you support eliminating all of the special legal structures and rights marriage creates nowadays, in favor of what it looked like in the paleolithic period?
    -And so you believe women should be the property of their husbands?
    -Women should be required to stay home and take care of the children, while men go "hunt"?
    -And you believe divorce should be illegal?
    -And you believe Polygamy should be re-instated? I mean polygamy was traditional and supported even within the bible.
    -And that marriage should be regulated by the church?


    Marriage is but a shadow the form it has taken throughout history, and is involved in a vastly more complicated legal system than existed in the paleolithic period. An appeal to tradition is near meaningless and amounts to cherry picking.
     
  8. tomfoo13ry

    tomfoo13ry Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    15,962
    Likes Received:
    279
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You lost me on the polygamy angle. Are you saying that polygamists shouldn't have the right to marry whomever they choose?
     
  9. JeffLV

    JeffLV Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    4,883
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No, I'm saying an appeal to tradition supports the legal institution of polygamous marriages.
     
  10. tomfoo13ry

    tomfoo13ry Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    15,962
    Likes Received:
    279
    Trophy Points:
    83
    An appeal to liberty also supports it. Maybe you shouldn't use that as an example since it makes it look like you're willing to throw other groups' rights under the bus in the fight for your own?
     
  11. kilgram

    kilgram New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    9,179
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well the Espartans in battle field practice homosexual relations also in the Roman Empire there is evidence of homosexual relations and that are not seen as wrong.

    Is with the Abrahamic religions that the persecution of the homosexuality is persecuted and punished.

    And? Tradition change, tradition, tradition and tradition conservative are obsessed with tradition. The society changes, the tradition changes.
     
  12. JeffLV

    JeffLV Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    4,883
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Again, I never said it should or should not be legal in its own right. Just pointing out the irony that when someone uses polygamy as a slippery slope consequence of same-sex marriage, tradition does the same. That's not a judgment against polygamy, unless someone does not wish this conclusion to happen. Sometimes accepting the slippery slope is the answer, as in the appeal to liberty. The assumption I made, of course, is that the anti-same sex marriage person would also be anti-polygamy, and would be caught in a contradiction.
     
  13. Daybreaker

    Daybreaker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    17,158
    Likes Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    63
    There are too many couples that don't procreate, and they're still married.

    Marriage is a union at its base. Procreation is only a common byproduct.

    And a gay couple can have babies.
     
  14. Daybreaker

    Daybreaker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    17,158
    Likes Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    63
    That's an assumption. I think it's entirely likely that primitive humans had a lot of different ways of organizing their societies, given that they had less history to work with and had to invent everything all over again more often.

    And the fact of the matter is, the whole male=hunter, woman=gatherer paradigm doesn't work best for everyone. It might work best for some people, maybe even most people, but there will always be exceptions and there's absolutely no value in punishing those exceptions just for being exceptional.

    I think some cultures probably had gay rights and others didn't. Every culture has its taboos. Most of them are stupid.
     
    OKgrannie and (deleted member) like this.
  15. Johnny-C

    Johnny-C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    34,039
    Likes Received:
    429
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Not always or for everyone.

    That is what YOU believe or think; it is NOT necessarily so.

    it is 2012; step into the reality of things today. Things don't have to remain as they once were; we already know that.

    There is no need to be relegated to the idea, notions or values of ancient history. It is good to know the lessons of history, if we learn the proper ones (those which build upon knowledge that will take us more wisely into the future).

    Dehumanizing, persecuting and discriminating against people just because they are "homosexual"... is in no way a good or wise thing (history shows that truth very clearly).
     
    OKgrannie and (deleted member) like this.
  16. Johnny-C

    Johnny-C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    34,039
    Likes Received:
    429
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Yep; stupid and superstitious too.
     
  17. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Any couple made up of two consenting people can have babies using those methods. Nothing special about those who happen to be gay that would warrant such special treatment.
     
  18. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The paradigm of only women giving birth to children in need of care and the paradigm of a father being the only other one who brought that about and legally responsible, remains.
     
  19. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Neither is discriminating IN favor of them because they are homosexual.
     
  20. stekim

    stekim New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    22,819
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    0

    No doubt. No matter how hard I try I cannot pretend to care who someone else marries.
     
  21. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The other poster isnt talking about homosexuality being right or wrong. The ancient Romans celebrated homosexuality. But STILL,

    "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

    Spartan soldier returning from battle and diddling his boy in the butt, would still marry, only a woman. Boys are for sexual gratification. Women are for marrying and fathering children with.

    Every Sambia boy about age 10 is taken from his mother and forced to perform oral sex on the warriors of the tribe, but when he becomes a man, he still marrys a woman to be the mother of their child.
     
  22. stekim

    stekim New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    22,819
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Glad I am not a Sambia boy.
     
  23. Johnny-C

    Johnny-C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    34,039
    Likes Received:
    429
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    And ONLY YOU have suggested that is reality. You should be intellectually ignored for projecting such a notion.
     
  24. Johnny-C

    Johnny-C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    34,039
    Likes Received:
    429
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    __Me too.__
     
  25. Daybreaker

    Daybreaker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    17,158
    Likes Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Such special treatment as what? Being able to do what everyone else does and have it legally recognized exactly the same? That's not special treatment, that's just not being singled out for special punishment.
     

Share This Page