|
On August 08 2010 14:43 StarMasterX wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 14:33 Myles wrote:On August 08 2010 14:27 StarMasterX wrote:On August 08 2010 13:30 Myles wrote:On August 08 2010 13:15 StarMasterX wrote:
@Myles It isn't a logical fallacy because if we are looking at it logically there is only 1 real step that has to be made (remove the man+woman requirement) and that causes marriage to change (no more need for man+woman).
I also fail to see how there are "logical reasons" to make this change. Whos logic are you going by? If you are claiming ethical reasons then be my guest, but that is an opinion. You have no factual or logical evidence to support the need for change.
@neohero There is nothing wrong with changing the rules in itself...but your claim is we should change them for ethical improvement. Whos ethics? The majority of people in the country think it is ethically wrong to change marriage.
And also please stop with the nonsense comparing this to blacks+whites+slavery etc. That is nothing more than a sweeping comparison statement to make those against gay marriage look like bigots. It does nothing to support your argument. It's a logical fallacy because there's a difference between advocating change for no reason(consent, ect) and advocating change for liberty and equality. There's no reason to hold homosexual relationships as less real than heterosexual ones. They should be provided the same benefits that heterosexual couples receive. I guess you can say ethics is certainly an opinion, but I think most people can agree equality is certainly something everyone deserves(as long as it doesn't directly harm someone else). "Advocating change for liberty and equality"....again...why stop at gay marriage? I'm being serious. What about liberty for polygamists? There are so many examples I can't even type them all right now. Are you saying you want to let gays marry and then you are done with liberty and equality? Sure homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual. But marriage...well I am not particularly religious myself, but I can see where those types of people are coming from. There is a strong belief out there that marriage is a religious right or sacrament. But if you believe that it should be a civil right instead and have nothing to do with religion, than why shouldn't it be labeled a civil union? (Meh I know bringing up religion generally causes a shitfit but I'll throw it out there). Labeling it as civil unions goes back to the separate but equal thing that we tried with segregation. TBH, it would probably be better if all marriage was considered a 'civil union' under the law and calling things a marriage was up to religion. And I'm not against consensual polygamy, but it would have to be handled differently than marriage/civil unions since it would be a contract between multiple people. Fair enough. To be honest your idea of calling it all a civil union and calling marriage a religious thing would probably please everybody lol. Well it might...but then you would still get gay couples wanting to be married. As for polygamy, it isn't that I consider it the evil end to my slippery slope argument (as others seem to be implying). I'm just saying where do we stop if we change the rules? Everybody has a different opinion on that, just like everybody has a different opinion on what we do now. I didn't mean to get this deep into the thread heh....I'm just saying I can understand where the other side is coming from.
What if the drinking age in the US were changed from 21 to 18 like it is here in Alberta, Canada. Changing those rules! What's to stop it go from 18 to 14, to 10, to 1?
Recently here the age of consent for sex was changed from 14 to 16. What if the age of consent becomes 18, then 25, then 40? There's going to be a lot of statutory rape, horrible!
|
On August 08 2010 13:15 StarMasterX wrote:
And also please stop with the nonsense comparing this to blacks+whites+slavery etc. That is nothing more than a sweeping comparison statement to make those against gay marriage look like bigots. It does nothing to support your argument.
The reason they are making the comparison is because those against gay marriage are bigots.
copy paste wikipedia:
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.
The term has evolved to refer to persons hostile to people of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation and religion in modern English usage.
|
lol @ black people being against gay marriage.
Duh.
The majority of black people in the US are Christian and theres quite a bit of Baptists/Pentecostals who would be vehemently against gay marriage.
Being gay in the black community is probably worse than in most other ethnic groups. (In the US anyway)
It doesnt make them any less wrong, just hypocritical.
|
On August 08 2010 14:52 GogoKodo wrote:
What if the drinking age in the US were changed from 21 to 18 like it is here in Alberta, Canada. Changing those rules! What's to stop it go from 18 to 14, to 10, to 1?
Recently here the age of consent for sex was changed from 14 to 16. What if the age of consent becomes 18, then 25, then 40? There's going to be a lot of statutory rape, horrible!
If you change the age limit, you are not changing the application of law based or race, sex, creed, orientation, disability, or whatever...
|
On August 05 2010 07:09 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:06 RivetHead wrote:On August 05 2010 06:36 Diuqil wrote:On August 05 2010 06:19 synapse wrote:On August 05 2010 06:14 Diuqil wrote:On August 05 2010 06:10 D10 wrote:On August 05 2010 06:08 Gatsbi wrote:On August 05 2010 06:03 Diuqil wrote:On August 05 2010 05:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Prop 8 overturned. - CNN EDIT: Proposition 8 has been overturned by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, reports CNN.
The decision is expected to be appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court, and could reach the Supreme Court if the high court justices agree to review it. Aw man.. I'm a strong supporter of Prop 8  ...Why? He believes in the dictatorship of the majority, and think that the minorities desires should be crushed under popular vote, even if they dont directly affect anyones life but theirs Yes I do. Yes, that too. What is the problem here though? They're just my beliefs, you act like yours are something better, its all an opinion. The problem is that legal gay marriage can be beneficial to many couples for [reason reason reason] and would have no effect on your life, yet you choose to support the banning of gay marriage. Don't you see something wrong here? Again, its an OPINION Ya and you really need to take a look at your opinion. If you believe that if a majority of people in a community/state/nation agree on what is right, than that IS right, then you really need think long and hard what that means in the context of history and the nature of morality. If right and wrong is purely defined by majority rule, than morality becomes irrelevant because we already have laws to do that. Something maybe wrong one year and right the next. Ethically, where does that leave us? With jack shit, that's what. What is morality and ethics if not essentially a majority consensus on an expected norm of beliefs and values?
Most people want it both ways.
They don't believe in absolute truth, yet they also don't believe the majority is correct. How can both of these be wrong at the same time?
This is simple logic. Follow me here:
If you believe in absolute truth, then it exists outside of us. It is not an opinion. If you believe there is no absolute truth, then it exists within us - yet no one on earth is really satisfied by this answer!
If I came up to you while you were eating an orange and, upon seeing it was already peeled, I decided to take it from you for my own consumption, you would immediately object, either through physical aggression or a statement something along the lines of, "Hey! That's not fair!"
So I ask, what makes anything fair? Is the answer within yourself? Which means it would have to be within all of us. Or is it outside yourself? Which means the truth can be obtained, wholly, without taint, somehow.
You must first answer this question before you can be for or against this ruling. Otherwise, you're just being dishonest to yourself.
And if you agree that absolute truth exists, then there is an answer to whether gay marriage is right or wrong, it is not an opinion.
If you do not, however, agree there is an absolute truth, you can no longer argue that gay marriage is the right of anyone, because once again, the majority will determine that for themselves, since the majority is always right.
pre-edit: Before someone does, you cannot disagree with what I just said. It is purely logical. If you find yourself disagreeing, you may read it until you understand it.
|
On August 08 2010 15:00 Number41 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 14:52 GogoKodo wrote:
What if the drinking age in the US were changed from 21 to 18 like it is here in Alberta, Canada. Changing those rules! What's to stop it go from 18 to 14, to 10, to 1?
Recently here the age of consent for sex was changed from 14 to 16. What if the age of consent becomes 18, then 25, then 40? There's going to be a lot of statutory rape, horrible! If you change the age limit, you are not changing the application of law based or race, sex, creed, orientation, disability, or whatever...
It's not about the age, it's just an example to show why Starmaster's whole thing with changing the rules then there is no end thing is silly.
|
@neohero9 Maybe it wasn't you who were discussing slavery, but I'm pretty sure you compared black+white marriages and many others have compared slavery which cannot be compared. I think that was one of the reasons I got involved in this thread...well that and the idea that this wouldn't affect people which I also find crazy.
But please stop with this "logical fallacy please study" card when you can't respond to a point. Your major claim is that we should change things for "ethical improvement". If you don't see how insane that statement is, you have no business debating anybody. Let us please not turn this into an ethical standards debate and just say we all have different ones.
@Myles That is fine that you have that opinion, but I'd say most people do not. Essentially you think everybody should be free to do everything they want as long as it doesn't harm others, and I can respect that opinion. I could argue against it, but I don't want to go off topic. I'll just say...what about society as a whole?
|
United States5162 Posts
On August 08 2010 15:29 StarMasterX wrote:
@neohero9 Maybe it wasn't you who were discussing slavery, but I'm pretty sure you compared black+white marriages and many others have compared slavery which cannot be compared. I think that was one of the reasons I got involved in this thread...well that and the idea that this wouldn't affect people which I also find crazy.
But please stop with this "logical fallacy please study" card when you can't respond to a point. Your major claim is that we should change things for "ethical improvement". If you don't see how insane that statement is, you have no business debating anybody. Let us please not turn this into an ethical standards debate and just say we all have different ones.
@Myles That is fine that you have that opinion, but I'd say most people do not. Essentially you think everybody should be free to do everything they want as long as it doesn't harm others, and I can respect that opinion. I could argue against it, but I don't want to go off topic. I'll just say...what about society as a whole?
Well, if my country is supposedly based on liberty and freedom than I'd rather fight the majority than fit in with the hypocrites.
|
On August 08 2010 14:53 Nogardeci89 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 13:15 StarMasterX wrote:
And also please stop with the nonsense comparing this to blacks+whites+slavery etc. That is nothing more than a sweeping comparison statement to make those against gay marriage look like bigots. It does nothing to support your argument. The reason they are making the comparison is because those against gay marriage are bigots. copy paste wikipedia: A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The term has evolved to refer to persons hostile to people of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation and religion in modern English usage.
By your definition, everybody involved is a bigot. The gay rallys outside the churches are all bigots. I don't think we can use that word and get anywhere. Let us just please stop throwing that word around and get back to real discussion.
|
On August 08 2010 15:29 StarMasterX wrote:
@neohero9 Maybe it wasn't you who were discussing slavery, but I'm pretty sure you compared black+white marriages and many others have compared slavery which cannot be compared. I think that was one of the reasons I got involved in this thread...well that and the idea that this wouldn't affect people which I also find crazy.
But please stop with this "logical fallacy please study" card when you can't respond to a point. Your major claim is that we should change things for "ethical improvement". If you don't see how insane that statement is, you have no business debating anybody. Let us please not turn this into an ethical standards debate and just say we all have different ones.
Just because many people have different standards does not mean they're all right. Ethics is not relative; not to a society, not to an individual.
Oh, and ad hominem.
|
On August 08 2010 15:35 StarMasterX wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 14:53 Nogardeci89 wrote:On August 08 2010 13:15 StarMasterX wrote:
And also please stop with the nonsense comparing this to blacks+whites+slavery etc. That is nothing more than a sweeping comparison statement to make those against gay marriage look like bigots. It does nothing to support your argument. The reason they are making the comparison is because those against gay marriage are bigots. copy paste wikipedia: A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The term has evolved to refer to persons hostile to people of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation and religion in modern English usage. By your definition, everybody involved is a bigot. The gay rallys outside the churches are all bigots. I don't think we can use that word and get anywhere. Let us just please stop throwing that word around and get back to real discussion.
Many people are bigots, and on different issues. Just because it fits many does not mean it's too broad a term to be applied.
The gays rallying outside of a church with no logical reason to do so are bigots. Westboro Baptist Church is full of bigots. Anarchists who hate the establishment but don't know why are bigots.
The operative words in the definition are "obstinately" and "intolerantly"-- basically a bigot is a stubborn ass who is closed to any opposition to their position, however cogent.
If you haven't already, go read my post at the end of page 52.
|
On August 08 2010 14:52 GogoKodo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 14:43 StarMasterX wrote:On August 08 2010 14:33 Myles wrote:On August 08 2010 14:27 StarMasterX wrote:On August 08 2010 13:30 Myles wrote:On August 08 2010 13:15 StarMasterX wrote:
@Myles It isn't a logical fallacy because if we are looking at it logically there is only 1 real step that has to be made (remove the man+woman requirement) and that causes marriage to change (no more need for man+woman).
I also fail to see how there are "logical reasons" to make this change. Whos logic are you going by? If you are claiming ethical reasons then be my guest, but that is an opinion. You have no factual or logical evidence to support the need for change.
@neohero There is nothing wrong with changing the rules in itself...but your claim is we should change them for ethical improvement. Whos ethics? The majority of people in the country think it is ethically wrong to change marriage.
And also please stop with the nonsense comparing this to blacks+whites+slavery etc. That is nothing more than a sweeping comparison statement to make those against gay marriage look like bigots. It does nothing to support your argument. It's a logical fallacy because there's a difference between advocating change for no reason(consent, ect) and advocating change for liberty and equality. There's no reason to hold homosexual relationships as less real than heterosexual ones. They should be provided the same benefits that heterosexual couples receive. I guess you can say ethics is certainly an opinion, but I think most people can agree equality is certainly something everyone deserves(as long as it doesn't directly harm someone else). "Advocating change for liberty and equality"....again...why stop at gay marriage? I'm being serious. What about liberty for polygamists? There are so many examples I can't even type them all right now. Are you saying you want to let gays marry and then you are done with liberty and equality? Sure homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual. But marriage...well I am not particularly religious myself, but I can see where those types of people are coming from. There is a strong belief out there that marriage is a religious right or sacrament. But if you believe that it should be a civil right instead and have nothing to do with religion, than why shouldn't it be labeled a civil union? (Meh I know bringing up religion generally causes a shitfit but I'll throw it out there). Labeling it as civil unions goes back to the separate but equal thing that we tried with segregation. TBH, it would probably be better if all marriage was considered a 'civil union' under the law and calling things a marriage was up to religion. And I'm not against consensual polygamy, but it would have to be handled differently than marriage/civil unions since it would be a contract between multiple people. Fair enough. To be honest your idea of calling it all a civil union and calling marriage a religious thing would probably please everybody lol. Well it might...but then you would still get gay couples wanting to be married. As for polygamy, it isn't that I consider it the evil end to my slippery slope argument (as others seem to be implying). I'm just saying where do we stop if we change the rules? Everybody has a different opinion on that, just like everybody has a different opinion on what we do now. I didn't mean to get this deep into the thread heh....I'm just saying I can understand where the other side is coming from. What if the drinking age in the US were changed from 21 to 18 like it is here in Alberta, Canada. Changing those rules! What's to stop it go from 18 to 14, to 10, to 1? Recently here the age of consent for sex was changed from 14 to 16. What if the age of consent becomes 18, then 25, then 40? There's going to be a lot of statutory rape, horrible!
Joke all you want, but by definition the legalizing of gay marriage is a slippery slope in itself (hence why I brought it up). Everybody has their own idea of where the slope should end and that is a problem. Once you alter the traditional definition of marriage under equal protection, you can't stop at one alternative situation and then deny other alternative situations. Constitution my friend...
@danl9rm Solid post.
|
On August 08 2010 15:35 StarMasterX wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 14:53 Nogardeci89 wrote:On August 08 2010 13:15 StarMasterX wrote:
And also please stop with the nonsense comparing this to blacks+whites+slavery etc. That is nothing more than a sweeping comparison statement to make those against gay marriage look like bigots. It does nothing to support your argument. The reason they are making the comparison is because those against gay marriage are bigots. copy paste wikipedia: A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The term has evolved to refer to persons hostile to people of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation and religion in modern English usage. By your definition, everybody involved is a bigot. The gay rallys outside the churches are all bigots. I don't think we can use that word and get anywhere. Let us just please stop throwing that word around and get back to real discussion.
That is not a comparable situation. The gays are not rallying to strip rights from Christians, but the Christians are trying to strip rights from the gays. If you are opposed to gay marriage, you are the definition of a bigot.
|
On August 08 2010 15:03 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:09 LegendaryZ wrote:On August 05 2010 07:06 RivetHead wrote:On August 05 2010 06:36 Diuqil wrote:On August 05 2010 06:19 synapse wrote:On August 05 2010 06:14 Diuqil wrote:On August 05 2010 06:10 D10 wrote:On August 05 2010 06:08 Gatsbi wrote:On August 05 2010 06:03 Diuqil wrote:On August 05 2010 05:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Prop 8 overturned. - CNN
EDIT:
[quote] Aw man.. I'm a strong supporter of Prop 8 ...Why? He believes in the dictatorship of the majority, and think that the minorities desires should be crushed under popular vote, even if they dont directly affect anyones life but theirs Yes I do. Yes, that too. What is the problem here though? They're just my beliefs, you act like yours are something better, its all an opinion. The problem is that legal gay marriage can be beneficial to many couples for [reason reason reason] and would have no effect on your life, yet you choose to support the banning of gay marriage. Don't you see something wrong here? Again, its an OPINION Ya and you really need to take a look at your opinion. If you believe that if a majority of people in a community/state/nation agree on what is right, than that IS right, then you really need think long and hard what that means in the context of history and the nature of morality. If right and wrong is purely defined by majority rule, than morality becomes irrelevant because we already have laws to do that. Something maybe wrong one year and right the next. Ethically, where does that leave us? With jack shit, that's what. What is morality and ethics if not essentially a majority consensus on an expected norm of beliefs and values? Most people want it both ways. They don't believe in absolute truth, yet they also don't believe the majority is correct. How can both of these be wrong at the same time? This is simple logic. Follow me here: If you believe in absolute truth, then it exists outside of us. It is not an opinion. If you believe there is no absolute truth, then it exists within us - yet no one on earth is really satisfied by this answer! If I came up to you while you were eating an orange and, upon seeing it was already peeled, I decided to take it from you for my own consumption, you would immediately object, either through physical aggression or a statement something along the lines of, "Hey! That's not fair!" So I ask, what makes anything fair? Is the answer within yourself? Which means it would have to be within all of us. Or is it outside yourself? Which means the truth can be obtained, wholly, without taint, somehow. You must first answer this question before you can be for or against this ruling. Otherwise, you're just being dishonest to yourself. And if you agree that absolute truth exists, then there is an answer to whether gay marriage is right or wrong, it is not an opinion. If you do not, however, agree there is an absolute truth, you can no longer argue that gay marriage is the right of anyone, because once again, the majority will determine that for themselves, since the majority is always right. pre-edit: Before someone does, you cannot disagree with what I just said. It is purely logical. If you find yourself disagreeing, you may read it until you understand it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
|
On August 08 2010 15:43 StarMasterX wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 14:52 GogoKodo wrote:On August 08 2010 14:43 StarMasterX wrote:On August 08 2010 14:33 Myles wrote:On August 08 2010 14:27 StarMasterX wrote:On August 08 2010 13:30 Myles wrote:On August 08 2010 13:15 StarMasterX wrote:
@Myles It isn't a logical fallacy because if we are looking at it logically there is only 1 real step that has to be made (remove the man+woman requirement) and that causes marriage to change (no more need for man+woman).
I also fail to see how there are "logical reasons" to make this change. Whos logic are you going by? If you are claiming ethical reasons then be my guest, but that is an opinion. You have no factual or logical evidence to support the need for change.
@neohero There is nothing wrong with changing the rules in itself...but your claim is we should change them for ethical improvement. Whos ethics? The majority of people in the country think it is ethically wrong to change marriage.
And also please stop with the nonsense comparing this to blacks+whites+slavery etc. That is nothing more than a sweeping comparison statement to make those against gay marriage look like bigots. It does nothing to support your argument. It's a logical fallacy because there's a difference between advocating change for no reason(consent, ect) and advocating change for liberty and equality. There's no reason to hold homosexual relationships as less real than heterosexual ones. They should be provided the same benefits that heterosexual couples receive. I guess you can say ethics is certainly an opinion, but I think most people can agree equality is certainly something everyone deserves(as long as it doesn't directly harm someone else). "Advocating change for liberty and equality"....again...why stop at gay marriage? I'm being serious. What about liberty for polygamists? There are so many examples I can't even type them all right now. Are you saying you want to let gays marry and then you are done with liberty and equality? Sure homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual. But marriage...well I am not particularly religious myself, but I can see where those types of people are coming from. There is a strong belief out there that marriage is a religious right or sacrament. But if you believe that it should be a civil right instead and have nothing to do with religion, than why shouldn't it be labeled a civil union? (Meh I know bringing up religion generally causes a shitfit but I'll throw it out there). Labeling it as civil unions goes back to the separate but equal thing that we tried with segregation. TBH, it would probably be better if all marriage was considered a 'civil union' under the law and calling things a marriage was up to religion. And I'm not against consensual polygamy, but it would have to be handled differently than marriage/civil unions since it would be a contract between multiple people. Fair enough. To be honest your idea of calling it all a civil union and calling marriage a religious thing would probably please everybody lol. Well it might...but then you would still get gay couples wanting to be married. As for polygamy, it isn't that I consider it the evil end to my slippery slope argument (as others seem to be implying). I'm just saying where do we stop if we change the rules? Everybody has a different opinion on that, just like everybody has a different opinion on what we do now. I didn't mean to get this deep into the thread heh....I'm just saying I can understand where the other side is coming from. What if the drinking age in the US were changed from 21 to 18 like it is here in Alberta, Canada. Changing those rules! What's to stop it go from 18 to 14, to 10, to 1? Recently here the age of consent for sex was changed from 14 to 16. What if the age of consent becomes 18, then 25, then 40? There's going to be a lot of statutory rape, horrible! Joke all you want, but by definition the legalizing of gay marriage is a slippery slope in itself (hence why I brought it up). Everybody has their own idea of where the slope should end and that is a problem. Once you alter the traditional definition of marriage under equal protection, you can't stop at one alternative situation and then deny other alternative situations. Constitution my friend... @danl9rm Solid post. The slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
|
On August 08 2010 15:54 Sight wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 15:43 StarMasterX wrote:On August 08 2010 14:52 GogoKodo wrote:On August 08 2010 14:43 StarMasterX wrote:On August 08 2010 14:33 Myles wrote:On August 08 2010 14:27 StarMasterX wrote:On August 08 2010 13:30 Myles wrote:On August 08 2010 13:15 StarMasterX wrote:
@Myles It isn't a logical fallacy because if we are looking at it logically there is only 1 real step that has to be made (remove the man+woman requirement) and that causes marriage to change (no more need for man+woman).
I also fail to see how there are "logical reasons" to make this change. Whos logic are you going by? If you are claiming ethical reasons then be my guest, but that is an opinion. You have no factual or logical evidence to support the need for change.
@neohero There is nothing wrong with changing the rules in itself...but your claim is we should change them for ethical improvement. Whos ethics? The majority of people in the country think it is ethically wrong to change marriage.
And also please stop with the nonsense comparing this to blacks+whites+slavery etc. That is nothing more than a sweeping comparison statement to make those against gay marriage look like bigots. It does nothing to support your argument. It's a logical fallacy because there's a difference between advocating change for no reason(consent, ect) and advocating change for liberty and equality. There's no reason to hold homosexual relationships as less real than heterosexual ones. They should be provided the same benefits that heterosexual couples receive. I guess you can say ethics is certainly an opinion, but I think most people can agree equality is certainly something everyone deserves(as long as it doesn't directly harm someone else). "Advocating change for liberty and equality"....again...why stop at gay marriage? I'm being serious. What about liberty for polygamists? There are so many examples I can't even type them all right now. Are you saying you want to let gays marry and then you are done with liberty and equality? Sure homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual. But marriage...well I am not particularly religious myself, but I can see where those types of people are coming from. There is a strong belief out there that marriage is a religious right or sacrament. But if you believe that it should be a civil right instead and have nothing to do with religion, than why shouldn't it be labeled a civil union? (Meh I know bringing up religion generally causes a shitfit but I'll throw it out there). Labeling it as civil unions goes back to the separate but equal thing that we tried with segregation. TBH, it would probably be better if all marriage was considered a 'civil union' under the law and calling things a marriage was up to religion. And I'm not against consensual polygamy, but it would have to be handled differently than marriage/civil unions since it would be a contract between multiple people. Fair enough. To be honest your idea of calling it all a civil union and calling marriage a religious thing would probably please everybody lol. Well it might...but then you would still get gay couples wanting to be married. As for polygamy, it isn't that I consider it the evil end to my slippery slope argument (as others seem to be implying). I'm just saying where do we stop if we change the rules? Everybody has a different opinion on that, just like everybody has a different opinion on what we do now. I didn't mean to get this deep into the thread heh....I'm just saying I can understand where the other side is coming from. What if the drinking age in the US were changed from 21 to 18 like it is here in Alberta, Canada. Changing those rules! What's to stop it go from 18 to 14, to 10, to 1? Recently here the age of consent for sex was changed from 14 to 16. What if the age of consent becomes 18, then 25, then 40? There's going to be a lot of statutory rape, horrible! Joke all you want, but by definition the legalizing of gay marriage is a slippery slope in itself (hence why I brought it up). Everybody has their own idea of where the slope should end and that is a problem. Once you alter the traditional definition of marriage under equal protection, you can't stop at one alternative situation and then deny other alternative situations. Constitution my friend... @danl9rm Solid post. The slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
This has been pointed out to him multiple times, in various emphases of font.
He does not care.
|
On August 08 2010 15:43 StarMasterX wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 14:52 GogoKodo wrote:On August 08 2010 14:43 StarMasterX wrote:On August 08 2010 14:33 Myles wrote:On August 08 2010 14:27 StarMasterX wrote:On August 08 2010 13:30 Myles wrote:On August 08 2010 13:15 StarMasterX wrote:
@Myles It isn't a logical fallacy because if we are looking at it logically there is only 1 real step that has to be made (remove the man+woman requirement) and that causes marriage to change (no more need for man+woman).
I also fail to see how there are "logical reasons" to make this change. Whos logic are you going by? If you are claiming ethical reasons then be my guest, but that is an opinion. You have no factual or logical evidence to support the need for change.
@neohero There is nothing wrong with changing the rules in itself...but your claim is we should change them for ethical improvement. Whos ethics? The majority of people in the country think it is ethically wrong to change marriage.
And also please stop with the nonsense comparing this to blacks+whites+slavery etc. That is nothing more than a sweeping comparison statement to make those against gay marriage look like bigots. It does nothing to support your argument. It's a logical fallacy because there's a difference between advocating change for no reason(consent, ect) and advocating change for liberty and equality. There's no reason to hold homosexual relationships as less real than heterosexual ones. They should be provided the same benefits that heterosexual couples receive. I guess you can say ethics is certainly an opinion, but I think most people can agree equality is certainly something everyone deserves(as long as it doesn't directly harm someone else). "Advocating change for liberty and equality"....again...why stop at gay marriage? I'm being serious. What about liberty for polygamists? There are so many examples I can't even type them all right now. Are you saying you want to let gays marry and then you are done with liberty and equality? Sure homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual. But marriage...well I am not particularly religious myself, but I can see where those types of people are coming from. There is a strong belief out there that marriage is a religious right or sacrament. But if you believe that it should be a civil right instead and have nothing to do with religion, than why shouldn't it be labeled a civil union? (Meh I know bringing up religion generally causes a shitfit but I'll throw it out there). Labeling it as civil unions goes back to the separate but equal thing that we tried with segregation. TBH, it would probably be better if all marriage was considered a 'civil union' under the law and calling things a marriage was up to religion. And I'm not against consensual polygamy, but it would have to be handled differently than marriage/civil unions since it would be a contract between multiple people. Fair enough. To be honest your idea of calling it all a civil union and calling marriage a religious thing would probably please everybody lol. Well it might...but then you would still get gay couples wanting to be married. As for polygamy, it isn't that I consider it the evil end to my slippery slope argument (as others seem to be implying). I'm just saying where do we stop if we change the rules? Everybody has a different opinion on that, just like everybody has a different opinion on what we do now. I didn't mean to get this deep into the thread heh....I'm just saying I can understand where the other side is coming from. What if the drinking age in the US were changed from 21 to 18 like it is here in Alberta, Canada. Changing those rules! What's to stop it go from 18 to 14, to 10, to 1? Recently here the age of consent for sex was changed from 14 to 16. What if the age of consent becomes 18, then 25, then 40? There's going to be a lot of statutory rape, horrible! Joke all you want, but by definition the legalizing of gay marriage is a slippery slope in itself (hence why I brought it up). Everybody has their own idea of where the slope should end and that is a problem. Once you alter the traditional definition of marriage under equal protection, you can't stop at one alternative situation and then deny other alternative situations. Constitution my friend... @danl9rm Solid post.
Loving v Virginia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
The "traditional marriage" definition has been changed before (and for the better I would hope you agree). I guess we're slip sliding down this slope already like you said, there's no stopping it now.
|
On August 08 2010 15:36 neohero9 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 15:29 StarMasterX wrote:
@neohero9 Maybe it wasn't you who were discussing slavery, but I'm pretty sure you compared black+white marriages and many others have compared slavery which cannot be compared. I think that was one of the reasons I got involved in this thread...well that and the idea that this wouldn't affect people which I also find crazy.
But please stop with this "logical fallacy please study" card when you can't respond to a point. Your major claim is that we should change things for "ethical improvement". If you don't see how insane that statement is, you have no business debating anybody. Let us please not turn this into an ethical standards debate and just say we all have different ones.
Just because many people have different standards does not mean they're all right. Ethics is not relative; not to a society, not to an individual. Oh, and ad hominem.
Ethics is tough to deal with. And yes I read your previous post dealing with the definition of marriage mostly. I suppose ethical decisions and the definition of marriage are really the 2 key parts of this whole debate which is why it is so difficult to deal with....everybody has different ethical standards and different definitions.
As for marriage, I suppose the anti gay marriage side believes that society is better served using the current definition of man+woman or your "classic" definition. Many of them may even feel the "loss" that you spoke of but I can't personally say myself. I would imagine many people with the current belief of marriage as a sacrament will certainly feel a loss.
Nevertheless, I'm sorry if I attacked your character in any way. I still feel your earlier statement was insane though.
@The guy who posted about bigots By his definition, everybody involved is a bigot. Hostility towards differing religions etc. Hence its better to not use that word at all...or at least come up with a better definition.
|
On August 08 2010 15:35 StarMasterX wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 14:53 Nogardeci89 wrote:On August 08 2010 13:15 StarMasterX wrote:
And also please stop with the nonsense comparing this to blacks+whites+slavery etc. That is nothing more than a sweeping comparison statement to make those against gay marriage look like bigots. It does nothing to support your argument. The reason they are making the comparison is because those against gay marriage are bigots. copy paste wikipedia: A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The term has evolved to refer to persons hostile to people of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation and religion in modern English usage. By your definition, everybody involved is a bigot. The gay rallys outside the churches are all bigots. I don't think we can use that word and get anywhere. Let us just please stop throwing that word around and get back to real discussion.
not my definition..wikipedia's
plus, ive never heard about a gay rally outside a church? source?
|
On August 08 2010 15:57 StarMasterX wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 15:36 neohero9 wrote:On August 08 2010 15:29 StarMasterX wrote:
@neohero9 Maybe it wasn't you who were discussing slavery, but I'm pretty sure you compared black+white marriages and many others have compared slavery which cannot be compared. I think that was one of the reasons I got involved in this thread...well that and the idea that this wouldn't affect people which I also find crazy.
But please stop with this "logical fallacy please study" card when you can't respond to a point. Your major claim is that we should change things for "ethical improvement". If you don't see how insane that statement is, you have no business debating anybody. Let us please not turn this into an ethical standards debate and just say we all have different ones.
Just because many people have different standards does not mean they're all right. Ethics is not relative; not to a society, not to an individual. Oh, and ad hominem. Ethics is tough to deal with. And yes I read your previous post dealing with the definition of marriage mostly. I suppose ethical decisions and the definition of marriage are really the 2 key parts of this whole debate which is why it is so difficult to deal with....everybody has different ethical standards and different definitions. As for marriage, I suppose the anti gay marriage side believes that society is better served using the current definition of man+woman or your "classic" definition. Many of them may even feel the "loss" that you spoke of but I can't personally say myself. I would imagine many people with the current belief of marriage as a sacrament will certainly feel a loss. Nevertheless, I'm sorry if I attacked your character in any way. I still feel your earlier statement was insane though. @The guy who posted about bigots By his definition, everybody involved is a bigot. Hostility towards differing religions etc. Hence its better to not use that word at all...or at least come up with a better definition.
If they perceive a loss it is their ridiculous failure. Their marriage is unaffected-- it is still as valid and as good as they themselves make it. Even if they were the only married couple on Earth, this would be true. If everyone else on the planet were married in a heterosexual union, it would also be true. But once you add an "other", a new classification, to this previously not exclusive club, suddenly their marriage is under attack.
They have a belief that it ought to only be between a man and a woman, if this belief is challenged, yes, it is natural to have a negative reaction-- it's unsettling. Unsettling, however, does not lend credence to their beliefs. Only logic can do that, and logic is squarely not on their side.
They ought to consider what the actual issues are, free from their superstitious bogeymen. They will come to the same conclusions.
Society being better served by promoting arbitrary (read: irrational) discrimination is pretty funny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
