|
So it's 6:00AM, I've got two problem sets due in 3 hours that I haven't finished, and I've got three midterms next week all in the same 24-hour period.
And yet, on my sleep deprivation and work overload, I feel the need to post a blog about a random musing I just had.
So I want to talk to you guys about gay marriage. Actually, that's a lie. I want to talk to you guys about arguments about gay marriage.
So a pretty common argument that opponents of gay marriage use is the "slippery slope," which isn't even the right application of the term "slippery slope," but I get what they're trying to say. They claim that if you legalize gay marriage, then you both violate the sanctity of marriage and open the gates to legalize other forms of marriage, each one of which will further violate the sanctity of marriage.
Now I was just thinking: doesn't that lead to a logical paradox?
The way I see it is like this: go back a few decades to the previous argument about marriage, interracial marriage. It was pretty taboo back before advancements in civil rights, and one can only imagine that people felt the same way about interracial marriage back then as they do about gay marriage now. Now if they used similar arguments in the past, then that means people would have considered interracial marriage a "gateway marriage" that would create a "slippery slope" for new types of marriage in the future, such as gay marriage.
Now consider two possibilities for this incorrectly named slippery slope: either the momentum of the slope is so great that legalization of all sorts of ridiculous marriage is inevitable, or the momentum of the slope is insufficient, and legalizing gay marriage does not in fact lead to a bunch of other marriages being legalized.
Now if the momentum of the slope is so great, why are people fighting against gay marriage? By their own words, IT'S INEVITABLE!!!!! They themselves are saying that gay marriage is the inevitable result of interracial marriage becoming acceptable decades ago, a result which was guaranteed once people started getting interracial marriages. In other words, this snowballing chain of progressively ridiculous marriages has already been started, even before gay marriage becomes legalized everywhere. Arguments against it are therefore moot.
Consider the other possibility - that gay marriage will not lead to other types of marriage being legalized in the future. This is the possibility that is true if opponents of gay marriage actually manage to stop gay marriage. Gay marriage is the result of the "slippery slope" of interracial marriage, but if it never gets legalized because of the actions of those who are fighting against it, then the slippery slope is harmless anyway! We could have legalized gay marriage WITHOUT worrying about interspecies marriage and whatnot in the future, as evidenced by the failure to legalize gay marriage!
TL;DR - either the slippery slope is there and there's no point arguing against gay marriage, or it's not there, and you can't actually use it as an argument. Either way, the "slippery slope" is a stupid argument.
Also, on a completely unrelated note, I would just like to leave this here and say that Taeyeon is beautiful:
+ Show Spoiler +
 
|
The slippery slope argument is actually one of the most offensive things people who use it can say.
And people that support civil unions instead are also assholes as there are many rights civil unions do not grant to couples that marriage does.
|
On February 10 2011 20:23 Bosu wrote:
The slippery slope argument is actually one of the most offensive things people who use it can say.
And people that support civil unions instead are also assholes as there are many rights civil unions do not grant to couples that marriage does.
Yeah, I think it's generally accepted that the "slippery slope" is pretty offensive. I'm just pointing out why it's logically invalid as well.
|
Marriage has sanctity in the US only because of its ties to Christianity.
+
Establishment clause discourages (or to use a stronger word, prohibits) lawmaking that favors one religion over others.
=
The word 'marriage' shouldn't be in law, the word should be replaced entirely by 'civil union' to deal with the legal aspects of it. M+M = F+F = "civil union" in many states right now, but M+F = "marriage"? I'm pretty sure we've been done with that separate but equal crap for like 40+ years now. Let everybody be legally bound by civil unions; marriage should be an issue outside of the hands of law.
|
i like the "i am not gay" at the end :D
and yeah it's stupid to argue that way. i don't care if there is marriage for gay people or not. and i don't know why anyone does (even why gay people would care). only thing may be some financial advantages you get from marriage (get rid of those or let everyone merrily marry who the F they want).
|
On February 10 2011 20:48 green.at wrote:
i like the "i am not gay" at the end :D
Haha, didn't even realize it could be interpreted that way. Doesn't work, though. Gay people also think Taeyeon is beautiful, because Taeyeon is beautiful regardless of your sexual preference.
|
I still strongly believe that EVERYONE, gay and straight, should get civil unions and leave what "marriage" is to everybody's personal interpretation.
Then everybody wins. The government becomes neutral and the churches can do whatever they want since marriage is no longer a legally recognized institution. Plus, the next time some group wants to have the rights of marriage (for example, polyamorists wanting group marriages) it can be strictly a legal question and the religious rhetoric can stay out of it...
Ahh, in my fantasy world anyway.
|
I do not agree with "gay marriage". Marriage has been in our culture for hundreds of years, it's a bond between a man and women. I am not religious whatsoever but I still believe that the bond that is marriage deserves and should be kept "sacred" as much as possible. Does this mean I have something against gay people? No, not at all. I am very liberal and fact is that for example here in Sweden gay people can just do a partnership which gives them exactly the same thing as a marriage.
The big paradox when it comes to gay marriage is this: Christianity does not agree with people being gay. According to the bible it's a sin to live a gay lifestyle and it should be and has been throughout history - punished by death. So why would gay people ever want to marriage in a church who thinks about them as lesser people?
|
I'd like to know some more about that "slippery slope" argument, what is down that slope anyway? Is it marriage between kids? Marriage between humans and pets? Marriage between humans and robots? Between kitchen appliances and cars?
I don't see way how the "slippery slope" argument could be used without implying that interracial marriage and gay marriage twist the concept of marriage. I wouldn't expect a person holding that belief to come up with a reasonable and sensible explanation for it.
In general the slippery slope argument can be a sound one, even if it doesn't seem to make much sense here. Slippery slope is not the same as inevitability, it just means it gets harder to stop the longer you keep going. Stopping is still possible, unless the slope turns into free fall.. but then we get another analogy.
Edit: Just want to point out that I'm using "marriage" in the practical sense rather than the religious sense. The concept of marriage is used all over the world,
|
On February 10 2011 21:40 NotSupporting wrote:
I do not agree with "gay marriage". Marriage has been in our culture for hundreds of years, it's a bond between a man and women. I am not religious whatsoever but I still believe that the bond that is marriage deserves and should be kept "sacred" as much as possible. Does this mean I have something against gay people? No, not at all. I am very liberal and fact is that for example here in Sweden gay people can just do a partnership which gives them exactly the same thing as a marriage.
The big paradox when it comes to gay marriage is this: Christianity does not agree with people being gay. According to the bible it's a sin to live a gay lifestyle and it should be and has been throughout history - punished by death. So why would gay people ever want to marriage in a church who thinks about them as lesser people?
Anything "sacred" about marriage was dissolved when the government decided to treat married couples differently and better.
If people want marriage to be a holy bond between just a man and just a woman, there has to be a separation between marriage and state, or you are GROSSLY violating homosexuals rights as citizens.
|
Despite me being an atheist, I do not believe that same sex marriage should be allowed. Call me a hater, i'm just old fashioned. There are plenty of straight couples who choose to not get married. Why fight for something that has persecuted homosexuality for thousands of years. should be above that by now.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
Either way, the "slippery slope" is a stupid argument.
Correct. You will also find that people who use 'slippery slope' as an argument for anything are generally stupid.
|
On February 10 2011 21:57 Phayze wrote:
Why fight for something that has persecuted homosexuality for thousands of years. should be above that by now.
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits
A lot simply just want to be treated equally, even if not in marriage, a domestic partnership of sorts...
|
On February 10 2011 21:40 NotSupporting wrote:
I do not agree with "gay marriage". Marriage has been in our culture for hundreds of years, it's a bond between a man and women. I am not religious whatsoever but I still believe that the bond that is marriage deserves and should be kept "sacred" as much as possible. Does this mean I have something against gay people? No, not at all. I am very liberal and fact is that for example here in Sweden gay people can just do a partnership which gives them exactly the same thing as a marriage.
The big paradox when it comes to gay marriage is this: Christianity does not agree with people being gay. According to the bible it's a sin to live a gay lifestyle and it should be and has been throughout history - punished by death. So why would gay people ever want to marriage in a church who thinks about them as lesser people?
You completely misunderstand the issue. I'll just make a list:
A) There can be no "sacred" institute in government, at the very least in the USA's government, which seems to be the topic of the conversation. It has been fiercely stated time and time again since the government's inception that there can be no religious involvement in government institute, and anything being referred to as "sacred," clearly violates that.
B) Gay marriage is not so gays can get married in churches. I don't know why you think that's the issue -- it's about being seen as equal to heterosexual couples in the eyes of the goverment. There's no blessed ceremony, there's no inclination of necessary tradition. It's purely equality.
C) A "parternship" is not the same as a "marriage," -- even if in paper it seems exact. We USA folk have, in recent memory, had an issue of two institutions that were separated, but considered "equal," and it was one of the gravest travesties of inequality since slavery was abolished. You cannot call two things equal and give them different titles, the different titles imply something inequal about the two, and this will ALWAYS lead to discrimination. Giving it a different title is quite clearly giving ground to bigotry, which leads me to--
D) Saying you're quite liberal in your ways does not justify what you're saying when you oppose the rights of homosexuals to marry. It's almost identical to the argument of, "I've got a lot of black friends so I'm not racist!" -- you may be the most liberal, rights supporting person of all time in every other subject, but if you oppose the rights of homosexuals to be seen as completely and genuinely equal, then you are erring on the side of bigotry.
You pointed out that things are different and, presumably, less hostile in Sweden. I do not have the context of how Sweden has been as a society and how relevant the separate but equal thing is, but as I clearly don't understand Sweden's context, you clearly don't understand America's context. What you suggest has been done before and was disgustingly criminal, and it is almost entirely because of that that you can't cede ground at let the bigots force you to define your partnership as something separate from theirs. You don't give ground to bigots because all it does is encourage more bigotry.
|
On February 10 2011 21:59 heyoka wrote:Correct. You will also find that people who use 'slippery slope' as an argument for anything are generally stupid.
Yeah, basically. I mean, I kept on calling it the "incorrectly named slippery slope argument," because the actual definition of a slippery slope is a logical fallacy. It is effectively making a long chain of tenuous connections to arrive at an unlikely result, and using it in an argument.
In addition to Fa1nT's list, add immigration rights (i.e. a non-US citizen can marry a US citizen and guarantee immigration to the US).
|
Gay marriage wouldn't even be an issue in the US if marriage didn't have so many legal benefits. At it stands right now, if you don't get married you miss out on a pretty big tax break, among other things. The issue is easily solved by replacing marriage with civil unions as a legal entity. Then churches can just marry whoever they feel is right based on their faith.
|
Trying to figure out what else after gay marriage could be next.. I mean, there isn't anything is there?
Animals (pretty sure that has happened somewhere) , children (Happens a lot in some cultures) , themselves (Hey Dennis Rodman did it..)..?
I don't see what else is left for people to worry about..
(well someone in Japan married their dating game girlfriend, so yeah ok.. maybe your correct)
|
On February 10 2011 21:40 NotSupporting wrote:
Christianity does not agree with people being gay. According to the bible it's a sin to live a gay lifestyle and it should be and has been throughout history - punished by death.
It is also a big sin to have sex outside of marriage. How many people do that?
Love the post OP. Yet another fun thing to talk to JVs about.
|
A) There can be no "sacred" institute in government, at the very least in the USA's government, which seems to be the topic of the conversation. It has been fiercely stated time and time again since the government's inception that there can be no religious involvement in government institute, and anything being referred to as "sacred," clearly violates that.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Congressional sessions open with the swearing of the Pledge, as do government meetings at local levels, meetings held by the Knights of Columbus, Royal Rangers, Boy Scouts of America, Girl Scouts of the USA, Fraternal Order of Eagles, Freemasons, Toastmasters International and their concordant bodies, as well as other organizations.
hmm....
liberty and justice for all do in my opinion say that all citizens are equal - why treat 2 people who want to have their relationship become official and sealed for a lifetime different than 2 other people?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On February 10 2011 21:40 NotSupporting wrote:
According to the bible it's a sin to live a gay lifestyle and it should be and has been throughout history - punished by death. So why would gay people ever want to marriage in a church who thinks about them as lesser people?
They don't, necessarily, they just don't want a legal code that separates them from straight couples. I.e., see my above post (and the post two below mine) about how all legal unions should be the same "civil unions" and marriage shouldn't be in law.
Like seriously, what's the harm in that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/1503/viewimageqo.jpg)
