Iowa: Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

[forlife]

[quote]lucasa wrote:
To be clear, it’s acceptable and even favorable to you that misogynists, manic-depressives, child molesters, and Nazi cannibals can get married, just so long as homosexuals can as well?[/quote]

The law currently allows all of those groups to marry, except for gays. Are you saying you think the law should be changed to disallow these people from marrying? Have you spoken to your legislators about that as well?

Then what is the logical cohesiveness of your arguments based around?

My arguments stand or fall on their own merit, just as yours do. The education level either of us has obtained is irrelevant to the validity of the argument. You brought it up, not me.

[Sloth]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Answered. Repeatedly.

If that’s the best you can do, I won’t waste my breath any more.[/quote]

When you posed a question regarding one sentence of mine, while ignoring that the answer was clearly provided in the rest of the edited out paragraph, I pretty much gave up. When you then repeated my supposed arguement, one you created from thin air to cross examine, I decided you weren’t honest enough for this level of discussion. Please, feel free to save your breath. It’s exactly what I’ve been doing with your latest round of questions (which have been answered directly and repeatedly).

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]forlife wrote:

I’m not a legal expert by any means, but isn’t the burden of proof on those advocating a law which would discriminate against a certain class of individuals to demonstrate that allowing the same privilege to that class would cause harm? If it didn’t cause harm, why would you disallow it, given the equal protection clause of the constitution?[/quote]

Of course not - nearly every law “discriminates” on the basis it treats people differently. The presumption is that a legislature is constitutionally entitled to come to its own conclusions on the laws it creates - and under rational review, the burden is not on the legislature to prove itself to the judiciary. This is because the legislature is a co-equal constitutional actor, not a branch subordinate to the judiciary.

You don’t need to be a legal expert - just have a basic command of civics and common sense. If the legislature had to justify itself to the judiciary on all matters “discriminatory” - i.e., of they have the burden - then they aren’t co-equals. We don’t have that system of government, and anyone with any sense doesn’t want one.

The Equal Protection clause doesn’t morph the judiciary into some kind of “super-legislature” that proofs all legislation for “proper fairness”, etc. Some classes have a higher scrutiny, for obvious reasons - see Race - but this silly notion that a court sit back a second-guess a legislature’s determination of “harm” against a group of people is just that: silly. And certainly not the government we signed up for.

Finally, you don’t have a ghost of an argument that marriage is “discriminatory” - to suggest that when marriage laws were considered and passed, people said “hey, let’s create this awesome institution and stick it to the gays by leaving them out” is lunacy. Rest assured, when marriage was becoming a public policy, gay relationships weren’t part of the dicussion. To put it simple, no society has ever enacted marriage in order to discriminate against gays.

At least, this is my understanding of the reasoning behind the Iowa Supreme Court decision. It makes sense to me.

It only makes sense to you because you like the outcome. You have never considered the problems such an arrangement causes outside of your myopic interest in gay marriage. Set aside your obsession of gay marriage and ask yourself if the arrangement you suggest - a legislature needing to justify itself to a court in nearly every act of “discrimination” - is a good idea. Put your self-interest aside and look to the principle of the thing.

That seems a pretty low bar, since it justifies any law which is supported by a single rational reason.

Absolutely correct, and that is no accident - the legislature is afforded great deference to make laws since it is the lawmaking body. If you don’t think a law is good policy, call your representative. A single rational reason is enough - we give that power to the legislature - a republican body, accountable to voters - for a reason.

Isn’t the real question whether the rational reason(s) supporting the law are more compelling than the rational reason(s) rejecting the law? Looking at the overall effect on society seems wiser and fairer than taking a myopic view of just one effect on society.

Sure, if you want, and that is a perfectly good political argument - but not for a judicial review of a law. But a court has no charge to wade in a second-guess what conclusions a legislature comes to. Of course we don’t want a court to have the general power to strike down laws it thinks doesn’t have “more compeeling” reasons for its existence.

Your naivete is astounding, and don’t label that a personal attack - why do you assume that a panel of lawyers will conduct some more high-minded review of a law and decide what the “compelling reasons” are than your elected representatives? Every political debate will involve a back-and-forth over what the more “compelling” policy concerns are - and whatever conclusion is reached have to be respected.

What you have is a naked desire to have a tribunal impose its policy preferences on a society when a legislature won’t pass a certain law. Again your naivete - you are fine with giving that power to a court as long as it is delivering policy decisions that conform to your desires - i.e., ensuring your version of “Progress”. But what happens when that court starts imposing polciy preferences you don’t like?

It is not a fair answer to only like this judicial role when it churns out policy you like, only to think it is “wrong” when it doesn’t go your way. I suspect this is your outlook completely, and it is, to be frank, unprincipled and ignorant.

If reproduction isn’t necessary for marriage, then marriage cannot be denied to people on the basis of them being incapable or unwilling to reproduce. That castrates the argument that gays should not be allowed to marry because they are incapable of reproducing.

Been covered, and hitting “restart” doesn’t erase the slate of arguments. Gays aren’t denied marriage because they “can’t” reproduce, because that isn’t the threshold. The threshold is a general policy allowing people to marry who conceivably affect the creating and raising of children - note “affect”, so even couples that don’t have children are part of the mix (by keeping themselves “ordered” in the society of relationships that have kids and raise them).

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]forlife wrote:

It should be approved/rejected by the legislature and/or supreme court, the same as gay marriage.[/quote]

I find your almost cowardly refusal to address the issue disappointing.

First, your amazing deference to these institutions is dishonest - you wouldn’t be so deferential if they came to the “wrong” conclusion on gay marriage.

Second, back to your lack-of-civics problem - you don’t care how the law gets passed: legislature or court, who cares? A terrible answer.

Third, I am asking a direct question: based on your Equal Protection thinking, should polygamists file a lawsuit challenging the marriage laws Iincluding the new one permitting gay marriage) as unconstitutional?

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Clearly, someone can come up with a rational reason not to extend marriage to gay persons.
[/quote]

But if marriage is just a contract between two individuals what does it matter what those individuals call it?

On the flip side of that, I don’t think that any person should be forced to recognize a contract between two other people if they don’t want to, including businesses or any other organization for that matter.

[borrek]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Third, I am asking a direct question: based on your Equal Protection thinking, should polygamists file a lawsuit challenging the marriage laws Iincluding the new one permitting gay marriage) as unconstitutional?

[/quote]

The constitution of Utah specifically prohibits polygamy by name, so how could that ban be challenged as unconstitutional?

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]borrek wrote:

The constitution of Utah specifically prohibits polygamy by name, so how could that ban be challenged as unconstitutional? [/quote]

What does that have to do with challenging Vermont’s marriage laws as unconstitutional?

[forlife]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I find your almost cowardly refusal to address the issue disappointing.[/quote]

First, your amazing deference to these institutions is dishonest

Let me get this right.

You asked me to apologize for calling you a bigot, and I did so. I said twice that I considered you a decent person worthy of respect.

I asked you to apologize in turn for attacking my character and…silence.

Now, a mere couple of days later, you are back to attacking my character.

Is it impossible for you to have a respectful discussion without attacking the motivations, intent, and character of the person you are debating with…or it only me that you have a hard time with?

Can we please just agree to respect each other, without resorting to childish personal attacks on one another’s character?

The ad hominem attacks are well beyond old, and do nobody any good.

[Gambit_Lost]

[quote]forlife wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
I find your almost cowardly refusal to address the issue disappointing.

First, your amazing deference to these institutions is dishonest

Let me get this right.

You asked me to apologize for calling you a bigot, and I did so. I said twice that I considered you a decent person worthy of respect.

I asked you to apologize in turn for attacking my character and…silence.

Now, a mere couple of days later, you are back to attacking my character.
[/quote]

But didn’t he “prove his point” by showing that I don’t give him that very credit?

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Let me get this right.

You asked me to apologize for calling you a bigot, and I did so. I said twice that I considered you a decent person worthy of respect.

I asked you to apologize in turn for attacking my character and…silence.

Now, a mere couple of days later, you are back to attacking my character.[/quote]

Saying your statement was dishonest wasn’t an attack on your character - the statement doesn’t square up with other statements you have made that are very much to the contrary.

As such, your “deference to those institutions” is, in fact, dishonest - because it contradicts other things you have said.

Substitute “contradictory” for “dishonest” if it makes you feel better.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

But didn’t he “prove his point” by showing that I don’t give him that very credit? [/quote]

No, the “point proven” by your post was that there was an awful lot of horseshit in these forums - which, reliably, you continue to prove.

[borrek]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
borrek wrote:

The constitution of Utah specifically prohibits polygamy by name, so how could that ban be challenged as unconstitutional?

What does that have to do with challenging Vermont’s marriage laws as unconstitutional?[/quote]

I had missed the part about Vermont. Vermont law specifically states:

“Marriages contracted while either party has a living spouse or a living party to a civil union shall be void. (Amended 1999, No. 91 (Adj. Sess.), § 24.)”

Explain how you think allowing homosexual marriage would render this unconstitutional. The parties involved are already married, so that right hasn’t been abridged.

I think the fact that we’re even talking about gay marriages decades after Loving v. Virginia proves the slippery slope is invalid. It proves that as a society we can intelligently decide how the law applies to each alternative.

All that being said, if a polygamous marriage is not harmful to the parties involved, then I say let them do it. Call it a single marriage and only extend the same tax breaks that a two person marriage would receive. I don’t care if it’s fifty consenting adults or two.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]borrek wrote:

I had missed the part about Vermont. Vermont law specifically states:

“Marriages contracted while either party has a living spouse or a living party to a civil union shall be void. (Amended 1999, No. 91 (Adj. Sess.), § 24.)”

Explain how you think allowing homosexual marriage would render this unconstitutional. The parties involved are already married, so that right hasn’t been abridged.[/quote]

You missed the issue. I am not saying gay marriage renders anything unconstitutional. The legislature in Vermont duly enacted a law permitting gay marriage.

My question is “is the law itself unconstitutional under Equal Protection?” - as in, should a polygamist now sue in a Vermont court contending that the marriage laws (gay and traditional) violate the Equal Protection clause because it leaves them out based on not being able to marry who they want?

After all, gay marriage advocates swore up and down that a law that only permitted traditional marriage violated EP - now that gay marriage is part of the “marriage club” in Vermont, do all the gay marriage advocates now believe that the law still discriminates? And should a polygamist now sue?

And if not, why not?

I think the fact that we’re even talking about gay marriages decades after Loving v. Virginia proves the slippery slope is invalid. It proves that as a society we can intelligently decide how the law applies to each alternative.

Has nothing to do with anything related.

[borrek]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
borrek wrote:

I had missed the part about Vermont. Vermont law specifically states:

“Marriages contracted while either party has a living spouse or a living party to a civil union shall be void. (Amended 1999, No. 91 (Adj. Sess.), § 24.)”

Explain how you think allowing homosexual marriage would render this unconstitutional. The parties involved are already married, so that right hasn’t been abridged.

You missed the issue. I am not saying gay marriage renders anything unconstitutional. The legislature in Vermont duly enacted a law permitting gay marriage.

My question is “is the law itself unconstitutional under Equal Protection?” - as in, should a polygamist now sue in a Vermont court contending that the marriage laws (gay and traditional) violate the Equal Protection clause because it leaves them out based on not being able to marry who they want?

After all, gay marriage advocates swore up and down that a law that only permitted traditional marriage violated EP - now that gay marriage is part of the “marriage club” in Vermont, do all the gay marriage advocates now believe that the law still discriminates? And should a polygamist now sue?

And if not, why not?
[/quote]

Asking if they should sue is just baiting. You thought the law preventing polygamy, and same-sex marriage, was perfectly constitutional before. If they (polygamists) want a law enacted, they should call representatives and get the legislature to pass it. Nothing was changed regarding polygamous marriage when the wording was changed to allow gay marriage, so if they weren’t suing before, they have no new impetus to. That doesn’t mean they won’t sue.

[quote]
I think the fact that we’re even talking about gay marriages decades after Loving v. Virginia proves the slippery slope is invalid. It proves that as a society we can intelligently decide how the law applies to each alternative.

Has nothing to do with anything related.[/quote]

Of course it does. You want to say things like “What say the gay marriage advocates on Vermont’s shameful discrimination against polygamists? After all, this is just the next “civil right” at issue in Vermont now that gay marriage has been enacted…?” and pretend like you’re not using a slippery slope argument to denigrate gay marriage advocates invocation of Equal Protection.

Either you’re making the silly claim that there is a single-file queue of civil rights issues, and now that Vermont has allowed for gay marriage, it is polygamists’ turn. Or, as is truly the case, you are saying that allowing gay marriage has opened the door for other non-traditional marriages to state their case. Slippery slope.

The point I was making is simple. As a society we are intelligent enough to examine each alternative on its own merits, and not just say “aw hell, we let them gays marry, might as well let everyone marry”

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]borrek wrote:

Asking if they should sue is just baiting. You thought the law preventing polygamy, and same-sex marriage, was perfectly constitutional before. If they (polygamists) want a law enacted, they should call representatives and get the legislature to pass it. Nothing was changed regarding polygamous marriage when the wording was changed to allow gay marriage, so if they weren’t suing before, they have no new impetus to. That doesn’t mean they won’t sue.[/quote]

You seem confused. What I think or thought about the law is not at issue. Focus.

Gay marriage advocates - like Forlife - insisted that no matter the state, if the constitution had an Equal Protection clause, not having gay marriage was a violation of it. Period.

We know that gay marriage advocates can petition their representatives to change the law. That has nothing to do with the issue.

Now, the question remains - do polygamists sue? After all, the gay marriage advocates insist Equal Protection law must “mature” to reflect society’s “progress”, so just because the law didn’t permit gay marriage yesterday doesn’t mean a “progressive” Equal Protection clause demands gay marriage today.

All the same arguments for gay marriage at stake in an Equal Protection format - should polygamists (or some other class of alternative relationship) sue for the exact same reasons gay marriage advocates insist gays should have in Vermont prior to the enactment of gay marriage?

You keep fumbling about on non-issues. This is a basic query to see if the gay marriage advocates think the Equal Protection justice applies to other relationships that are being discriminated against in an environment where gay marriage isn’t one of the arrangements being “discriminated” against.

Of course it does. You want to say things like “What say the gay marriage advocates on Vermont’s shameful discrimination against polygamists? After all, this is just the next “civil right” at issue in Vermont now that gay marriage has been enacted…?” and pretend like you’re not using a slippery slope argument to denigrate gay marriage advocates invocation of Equal Protection.

Stop wasting my time. The gay marriage advocates themselves see the gay marriage movement as the “next civil right”, which is why Forlife invokes the civil rights comparison nearly every chance he gets (and he isn’t the only one).

I am precisely using a slippery slope argument here - what you don’t get is that the slippery slope argument I am using is provided to me by the gay marriage advocates themselves.

Good Lord.

Either you’re making the silly claim that there is a single-file queue of civil rights issues, and now that Vermont has allowed for gay marriage, it is polygamists’ turn. Or, as is truly the case, you are saying that allowing gay marriage has opened the door for other non-traditional marriages to state their case. Slippery slope.

And? There is nothing particularly secret about this. Gay marriage advoccates expressly said they deserve marriage under and Equal Protection reading because they were exactly “next in line”. I am just taking the next step of their argument for gay marriage under Equal Protection.

The point I was making is simple. As a society we are intelligent enough to examine each alternative on its own merits, and not just say “aw hell, we let them gays marry, might as well let everyone marry”

Again, this has nothing to do with the issue. Why? Because if what you say is true - that we are intelligent enough to examine each alternative on its own merits, etc. - there is no reason to have a court mandate marriage as a right under Equal Protection. After all, assuming we are “smart enough”, legislatures will figure it out as society’s agents.

But that isn’t what the gay marriage movement thinks - the think the opposite. They don’t think we are “intelligent enough” and gay marriage must be created as a right when the “intelligent” legislature won’t act.

Of course your problem is that your silly “aw hell, we let them gays marry, might as well let everyone marry” sadly becomes a reality when a court decides gay marriage is a right, because a court has no ability to pick favorites, unlike a legislature - either there is a marriage right in principle, or there isn’t, and the principle applies to anyone because…wait for ir…it is an Equal Protection clause, not a Cherrypick the Ones We Like Clause.

[Sloth]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
borrek wrote:

Asking if they should sue is just baiting. You thought the law preventing polygamy, and same-sex marriage, was perfectly constitutional before. If they (polygamists) want a law enacted, they should call representatives and get the legislature to pass it. Nothing was changed regarding polygamous marriage when the wording was changed to allow gay marriage, so if they weren’t suing before, they have no new impetus to. That doesn’t mean they won’t sue.

You seem confused. What I think or thought about the law is not at issue. Focus.

Gay marriage advocates - like Forlife - insisted that no matter the state, if the constitution had an Equal Protection clause, not having gay marriage was a violation of it. Period.

We know that gay marriage advocates can petition their representatives to change the law. That has nothing to do with the issue.

Now, the question remains - do polygamists sue? After all, the gay marriage advocates insist Equal Protection law must “mature” to reflect society’s “progress”, so just because the law didn’t permit gay marriage yesterday doesn’t mean a “progressive” Equal Protection clause demands gay marriage today.

All the same arguments for gay marriage at stake in an Equal Protection format - should polygamists (or some other class of alternative relationship) sue for the exact same reasons gay marriage advocates insist gays should have in Vermont prior to the enactment of gay marriage?

You keep fumbling about on non-issues. This is a basic query to see if the gay marriage advocates think the Equal Protection justice applies to other relationships that are being discriminated against in an environment where gay marriage isn’t one of the arrangements being “discriminated” against.

Of course it does. You want to say things like “What say the gay marriage advocates on Vermont’s shameful discrimination against polygamists? After all, this is just the next “civil right” at issue in Vermont now that gay marriage has been enacted…?” and pretend like you’re not using a slippery slope argument to denigrate gay marriage advocates invocation of Equal Protection.

Stop wasting my time. The gay marriage advocates themselves see the gay marriage movement as the “next civil right”, which is why Forlife invokes the civil rights comparison nearly every chance he gets (and he isn’t the only one).

I am precisely using a slippery slope argument here - what you don’t get is that the slippery slope argument I am using is provided to me by the gay marriage advocates themselves.

Good Lord.

Either you’re making the silly claim that there is a single-file queue of civil rights issues, and now that Vermont has allowed for gay marriage, it is polygamists’ turn. Or, as is truly the case, you are saying that allowing gay marriage has opened the door for other non-traditional marriages to state their case. Slippery slope.

And? There is nothing particularly secret about this. Gay marriage advoccates expressly said they deserve marriage under and Equal Protection reading because they were exactly “next in line”. I am just taking the next step of their argument for gay marriage under Equal Protection.

The point I was making is simple. As a society we are intelligent enough to examine each alternative on its own merits, and not just say “aw hell, we let them gays marry, might as well let everyone marry”

Again, this has nothing to do with the issue. Why? Because if what you say is true - that we are intelligent enough to examine each alternative on its own merits, etc. - there is no reason to have a court mandate marriage as a right under Equal Protection. After all, assuming we are “smart enough”, legislatures will figure it out as society’s agents.

But that isn’t what the gay marriage movement thinks - the think the opposite. They don’t think we are “intelligent enough” and gay marriage must be created as a right when the “intelligent” legislature won’t act.

Of course your problem is that your silly “aw hell, we let them gays marry, might as well let everyone marry” sadly becomes a reality when a court decides gay marriage is a right, because a court has no ability to pick favorites, unlike a legislature - either there is a marriage right in principle, or there isn’t, and the principle applies to anyone because…wait for ir…it is an Equal Protection clause, not a Cherrypick the Ones We Like Clause.

[/quote]

I predict you won’t recieve direct answers.

Though, who knows? Maybe one of them will explain why Equal Protection only applies to homos and heteros in two person unions, where the parties must have sex with each other. And, that every other conceivable arrangement involving consenting adults isn’t being discriminated against. Therefore, they themselves aren’t bigots for not stepping up to support polygamists, extended bisexual unions, etc.

Or, they’ll tell us that they do in fact support these other “alternative” arrangements, too. Thus, shooting themsevles in the foot in downplaying the “slippery slope” arguements.

So, to recap. They have to come across as bigots. Or, they have to give legitimacy to the slipperty slope arguement they often criticize. They’re stuck.

[borrek]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You seem confused. What I think or thought about the law is not at issue. Focus.
[/quote]

You’re kind of phoning it in now. The point is that your views are well known, which makes it transparent that your “basic query” is just an ill-disguised attempt to discredit the gay marriage movement. You’re salivating to have a same-sex marriage advocate say that polygamists shouldn’t sue so you can then paint gays as greedily following their own self interests and washing their hands of Equal Protection once they get to marry.

Gay marriage advocates - like Forlife - insisted that no matter the state, if the constitution had an Equal Protection clause, not having gay marriage was a violation of it. Period.

This I know. I agree with them.

You keep fumbling about on non-issues. This is a basic query to see if the gay marriage advocates think the Equal Protection justice applies to other relationships that are being discriminated against in an environment where gay marriage isn’t one of the arrangements being “discriminated” against.

I addressed this in the first part. This is not simply Dr. Thundystorm’s civics poll.

I am precisely using a slippery slope argument here - what you don’t get is that the slippery slope argument I am using is provided to me by the gay marriage advocates themselves.

Good Lord.

Good Lord is right, who cares where you get a specious argument. If you’re using it for ironic effect, you’re just wasting everyone’s time. There is a reason why a slippery slope argument is a fallacy.

And? There is nothing particularly secret about this. Gay marriage advoccates expressly said they deserve marriage under and Equal Protection reading because they were exactly “next in line”. I am just taking the next step of their argument for gay marriage under Equal Protection.

You’re not taking the next step, you’re trying to corral them into the direction you think is easiest to refute.

Again, this has nothing to do with the issue. Why? Because if what you say is true - that we are intelligent enough to examine each alternative on its own merits, etc. - there is no reason to have a court mandate marriage as a right under Equal Protection. After all, assuming we are “smart enough”, legislatures will figure it out as society’s agents.

You’re right, legislatures will figure it out, such as they have in Vermont.

But that isn’t what the gay marriage movement thinks - the think the opposite. They don’t think we are “intelligent enough” and gay marriage must be created as a right when the “intelligent” legislature won’t act.

Of course your problem is that your silly “aw hell, we let them gays marry, might as well let everyone marry” sadly becomes a reality when a court decides gay marriage is a right, because a court has no ability to pick favorites, unlike a legislature - either there is a marriage right in principle, or there isn’t, and the principle applies to anyone because…wait for ir…it is an Equal Protection clause, not a Cherrypick the Ones We Like Clause.

It isn’t cherrypicking to recognize that each alternative marriage issue needs to be individually addressed. No matter how hard you insist that the fate of each alternative marriage is being decided in one fell swoop, changes the fact that this is and has been about gay marriage only.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]borrek wrote:

You’re kind of phoning it in now. The point is that your views are well known, which makes it transparent that your “basic query” is just an ill-disguised attempt to discredit the gay marriage movement. You’re salivating to have a same-sex marriage advocate say that polygamists shouldn’t sue so you can then paint gays as greedily following their own self interests and washing their hands of Equal Protection once they get to marry. [/quote]

This has become laughable. It’s as though you’ll do anything but answer the question.

I simply want to know where the Equal Protection argument leads us. I may disagree with it, and I may say so, but we’re having a debate here.

Don’t like it? No problem, find a different hobby. This is how a debate works, and I am raising a question that goes straight to the heart of both the Iowa Supreme Court decision (see the title) and the gay marriage advocate’s defense of the ruling.

This I know. I agree with them.

Good. So is the lack of a law permitting polygamy violating the Vermont EP Clause under the same principle?

I addressed this in the first part. This is not simply Dr. Thundystorm’s civics poll.

You haven’t addressed anything related to the question - you mumbled something about getting polygamy passed by the legislature, which isn’t the issue. Every state in the Union can do that.

Good Lord is right, who cares where you get a specious argument. If you’re using it for ironic effect, you’re just wasting everyone’s time. There is a reason why a slippery slope argument is a fallacy.

“The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another [u]without any argument[/u] for the inevitability of the event in question.”

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

Read above.

A “slippery slope” argument is only a fallacy if you don’t independently support the argument of causation between the events of the slope. Here, that has been done over and over and over: the principle that judicially establishes gay marriage - that society must afford marriage to validate a gay individual’s relationship - is a principle that applies to other non-traditional relationships…like polygamy.

Now, the question I raised creates an opportunity for gay marriage advocates to (1) say the causation chain is right and marriage has to be afforded to polygamists, or (2) to pierce the causation chain and explain why the EP principle doesn’t apply to other non-traditional relationships.

Try something - anything - other than foolishly misstating logical fallacies and avoiding the question.

You’re not taking the next step, you’re trying to corral them into the direction you think is easiest to refute.

Sure it is the next step, even if you think I am “corraling” these innocent victims into a place they don’t want to go.

If it isn’t the next step, no problem - I am presenting the opportunity for a gay marriage advocate to tell me whay it isn’t the next step. That was the original intent of my question.

It isn’t cherrypicking to recognize that each alternative marriage issue needs to be individually addressed. No matter how hard you insist that the fate of each alternative marriage is being decided in one fell swoop, changes the fact that this is and has been about gay marriage only.

Exactly wrong. Courts do not make such evaluations on factual bases - courts do not “individually address” which relationships are “better” or “worse”. They decide the nature of rights as a constitutional matter on legal principles.

If a court decides that gay marriage is a protected right and polygamy is not, it has to explain as a matter of principle - not as a matter of preference or fact - why that is so. You seem completely oblivious to this distinction between a legislature and a court, but at this point, I am not terribly surprised.

As such, I am asking gay marriage advocates to put on fictional judicial robes - and not a legislature’s - and tell me, as a matter of right under the Equal Protection clause, why gay marriage, what a court should tell a polygamist who has sued for a marriage right under the Equal Protection clause.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

I predict you won’t recieve direct answers. [/quote]

Sadly, I think you are right.

So, to recap. They have to come across as bigots. Or, they have to give legitimacy to the slipperty slope arguement they often criticize. They’re stuck.

What? Impossible! They have “Progress” on their side - and that cancels out all bad arguments, illogic, and amateurish misunderstadings of logical fallacies.

Kidding aside, I thought someone would actually take up the question and present an intelligent analysis, even if it didn’t agree with mine. Oh well.

[Gambit_Lost]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

But didn’t he “prove his point” by showing that I don’t give him that very credit?

No, the “point proven” by your post was that there was an awful lot of horseshit in these forums - which, reliably, you continue to prove.
[/quote]

Ahhh, I see. When I said, “[quote]You give him a lot more credit than I do.[/quote]” you see this as an example of “horseshit.” You be real gud at arguin’ ain’tcha?

Did you ever answer my stereotyping question by the way? I’m just wondering if the studies forlife posted fit for you.