[quote]Sloth wrote:
Why are the non-bigots avoiding my repeated request?[/quote]
Because it’s not an honest question. You’re just playing the same tired “slippery slope” game.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Why are the non-bigots avoiding my repeated request?[/quote]
We don’t have such low IQs like yourself that we’d fall for that. The slippery slope slips both ways.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ah, but then that means they’ve yet to adopt non-discriminatory state recognized marriage! I’ve been asking those of you who throw out nonsense like “discriminate” and “bigot” to offer up a non-discriminatory state recognized marriage. Show us the complete absence of bigotry within your big hearts. Give us this definition.
Unapologetically I want to keep to heterosexual marriage on a pedestal…
What slippery slope game? Look at we’re at now in marriage, divorce, intact homes, and now discussing what the hell marriage even is, if it can even have a definition which keep it from being ‘bigoted.’
Show me nations with legalized gay marriage. However, only, and I mean only, if you post their divorce/marriage rate, out of wed-lock rates, and–perhaps most importantly–their fertility. Largely a bunch of graying, barren, already at the bottom (which is why they even passed such legislation) of the slope, nations. I’m guessing another common theme would be that of populations largely going extinct (factor out the fertility rates of recent arrivals, and it’s worse), replacing themselves with immigrants who hold to larger and more traditional family values. Aint that a twist. [/quote]
Yes. Your “guess” is quite a twist, indeed. Care to back it up with any proof or fact?
Now, if you want to talk about the dangers of gay marriage on divorce rates, out of wedlock births, and fertility, go ahead. But stop playing the “If you let a man marry a man you have to let a man marry his turtle!” game. Its old and tired and just annoying at this point.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Why are the non-bigots avoiding my repeated request?[/quote]
Because it’s not an honest question. You’re just playing the same tired “slippery slope” game. [/quote]
You see, Sloth, they won’t answer a question that isn’t honest, and by the way, only Captain Planet is allowed to decide whether or not the question is an honest one . . .
soo, your question is dishonest, which means your question is a liar . . . yeah, cuz your question doesn’t tell the tru . . . wait, questions don’t state they ask . . . so a question can’t be dishonest, because it is not a declarative but a interrogative . . . oh neve rmind, me and my silly definitions . . . just let Captain Planet tell you what to think . . .
So, Sloth, should we put limits on marriage based on race? How about height? Weight? National origin? Religion?
But if we let a Christian marry a Non-christian, we have to let people marry animals!
See? Slippery slope = fucking stupid.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Why are the non-bigots avoiding my repeated request?[/quote]
Because it’s not an honest question. You’re just playing the same tired “slippery slope” game. [/quote]
You see, Sloth, they won’t answer a question that isn’t honest, and by the way, only Captain Planet is allowed to decide whether or not the question is an honest one . . .
soo, your question is dishonest, which means your question is a liar . . . yeah, cuz your question doesn’t tell the tru . . . wait, questions don’t state they ask . . . so a question can’t be dishonest, because it is not a declarative but a interrogative . . . oh neve rmind, me and my silly definitions . . . just let Captain Planet tell you what to think . . .[/quote]
Have you stopped abusing women yet?
But, yeah, Sloth, I’ll agree - marriage will always have restrictions. There are differences between legitmate restrictions and ones that exist as a result of, and for the purpose of, discrimination.
The issue of gay marriage is if not allowing same sex couples to marry is one or the other, and should be considered on its own.
Does this make sense? Or are you going to keep playing the TIRED, STUPID “If you allow gay marriage, then its discrimination to say 20 people cant marry through facebook!” card?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ah, but then that means they’ve yet to adopt non-discriminatory state recognized marriage! I’ve been asking those of you who throw out nonsense like “discriminate” and “bigot” to offer up a non-discriminatory state recognized marriage. Show us the complete absence of bigotry within your big hearts. Give us this definition.
Unapologetically I want to keep to heterosexual marriage on a pedestal…
What slippery slope game? Look at we’re at now in marriage, divorce, intact homes, and now discussing what the hell marriage even is, if it can even have a definition which keep it from being ‘bigoted.’
Show me nations with legalized gay marriage. However, only, and I mean only, if you post their divorce/marriage rate, out of wed-lock rates, and–perhaps most importantly–their fertility. Largely a bunch of graying, barren, already at the bottom (which is why they even passed such legislation) of the slope, nations. I’m guessing another common theme would be that of populations largely going extinct (factor out the fertility rates of recent arrivals, and it’s worse), replacing themselves with immigrants who hold to larger and more traditional family values. Aint that a twist. [/quote]
Yes. Your “guess” is quite a twist, indeed. Care to back it up with any proof or fact?
Now, if you want to talk about the dangers of gay marriage on divorce rates, out of wedlock births, and fertility, go ahead. But stop playing the “If you let a man marry a man you have to let a man marry his turtle!” game. Its old and tired and just annoying at this point.[/quote]
You’re stonewalling. A turtle? Really? I started out this line of posts saying “consenting adults.” You’re the one bringing up animals.
Here’s the fertility rates. I believe it’s 2.1, if I recall correctly, to reach replacement levels. Keep in mind when looking at these numbers, it doesn’t subtract recent arrivals, which is reflected in my statement about having to replace the gray, barren, and self-destructing natives with more…traditional, people.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
List of nations with gay marriage (or even fairly limited ‘civil unions’).
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So, Sloth, should we put limits on marriage based on race? How about height? Weight? National origin? Religion?
But if we let a Christian marry a Non-christian, we have to let people marry animals!
See? Slippery slope = fucking stupid. [/quote]
Here’s the state-recognized marriage limit needed; men and women marry, 1 to 1, the birds and bees to take care of the rest. No, micromanagement need.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Have you stopped abusing women yet?[/quote]
WHy would I want to stop that? They all love it and those that don’t know where the door is . . . you live in Irish’s house, you play by Irish’s rules . . . of course every other wednesday and the third thursday of the month is opposite day, and all of my ladies get to turn the tables and abuse me all day - of course, I am a bit of a masochist, so I occasionaly let the fun continue on into Friday afternnon, but we always have to wrap things up by 3:00 pm on Friday so that we can get ready for the stripper dash and mudslide off the back yard down to the lake . . . it’s sort of a tradition, it was started by LaShonda about and year and a half ago and is a big hit with all of the retirees living around the lae and we would hate to disappoint them. we’ve only had one accident and that was when Svetlana’s thigh high boot was flung too far to the left and nearly blinded poor old Mr. Weisencrop, but I sent Svetlana over to apologize in person and he never pressed any charges. Svetlana is very very good at apologizing . . . so, thanks for asking, but I’ll just keep on keeping on . . .
The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A lead to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not done.
You arguments require independent justification of the connection between their terms (otherwise the argument remains fallacious) and you can’t provide said justification, ergo your argument is one not worth pursuing.
If your domino theory hadn’t been so tired and played out, people might have taken the bait.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A lead to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not done.
You arguments require independent justification of the connection between their terms (otherwise the argument remains fallacious) and you can’t provide said justification, ergo your argument is one not worth pursuing.
If your domino theory hadn’t been so tired and played out, people might have taken the bait.[/quote]
Yet, here we are, marriage and divorce rates askew, out-of-wedlock rates, fertility rates for native citizens plummeting, and we’re contemplating the further dilution of marriage (in some cases, have instituted such). You’ve reached bottom of the marriage/sexuality slippery slope, yet ask us to ignore it. To press ownwards in our brave new progressive world! Hoooo!
But please Mak, are you alone–since everyone else has retreated–capable of defining non-discriminating state recognized marriage? I will now predict the future. Mak, will post again, with no attempt to do so. Instead, though it might take a few posts, Mak will begin to champion the idea of abolishing the recognition of marriage.
3
2
1
Here’s your moment, Mak.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A lead to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not done.
You arguments require independent justification of the connection between their terms (otherwise the argument remains fallacious) and you can’t provide said justification, ergo your argument is one not worth pursuing.
If your domino theory hadn’t been so tired and played out, people might have taken the bait.[/quote]
Oh, that’s adorable, you found a definition. Do you find it on your own or did you need help?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
I hardly see how something that hurts no one and takes place between one or more consenting adults could possibly be considered in any way shape or form, evil.
If you disagree, you’re going to have to explain your system of morality to me, and prove that it isn’t filled with gaping holes the size of Jupiter.
I really don’t care if you hate gay people, so long as your consistent and hate everyone else having sex too.[/quote]
Religiously sex is only good within the confines of a sound traditional marraige. More specifically, “becoming one” is supposed to entail the physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual. I would say it’s valid to think all of those can’t happen in a homosexual relationship.
Hurting no-one else in no way ties into what I consider good or bad. I think suicide is wrong too.[/quote]
So basically you hate everyone having sex that isn’t doing so for the purposes of pro-creation. I can dig it. That’s consistent.
So long as you’re not ok with heteros having premarital sex but not ok with homos.[/quote]
I’ve yet to see this, ever. In fact, most of the people I hear who are against homosexuality themselves practice premarital/nonmarital sex.[/quote]
I never said it was how I felt about it, just the christian interpretation.
I never said I “hate” anything. There are lots of things I think are wrong that I don’t hate.
I never claimed I wasn’t a hypocrite in practice either.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
But, yeah, Sloth, I’ll agree - marriage will always have restrictions. There are differences between legitmate restrictions and ones that exist as a result of, and for the purpose of, discrimination.
The issue of gay marriage is if not allowing same sex couples to marry is one or the other, and should be considered on its own.
Does this make sense? Or are you going to keep playing the TIRED, STUPID “If you allow gay marriage, then its discrimination to say 20 people cant marry through facebook!” card?[/quote]
Why did you substitute legitimate restrictions in place of discrimination? Just say discrimination. Now please, please define non-discriminating state-recognized marriage. I thought for sure the anti-bigotry brigade would be all over this.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I like the idea of no federal/state involvement in marriage . . . eevrything legal and financial can still be completed (joint ownership/named beneficiary, etc) and as far as visitation rights, in this tech driven day and age, certianly we could generate a visitation list or some other device/program to allow for that as well.[/quote]
Personally I’m all for state recognized marriage. I can face the discrimination charges with a “so?” Not a bit of guilt. When one realizes that marriage would be defined right out of existence in order to meet some non-discriminatory standard, one realizes that not all discrimination is wrong.[/quote]
Exactly what about it are “for”? Can you elaborate? Other than the legal benefits you may gain, what about the state recognition is important?[/quote]
Being set upon a pedestal. The recognition that this institution is so important to the orderly propagation and prosperity of our future citizenry that we hold it in awe privately and publically.[/quote]
So you feel that without marriage being recognized by the state, our future citizen’s will be less prosperous? I would imagine a lot of successful people from single mothers might argue with that.
Are you saying that the ideal scenario is that everyone marry and have children? Are citizens who choose to stay unmarried but are productive in other ways in our society, doing us and the next generations a disservice?
Do you feel that allowing gay marriage will harm us as a society as a whole? Do you feel that if gay marriage is allowed, there will somehow be more gays, therefore less children for the future? This is not to say I am pro gay marriage. i’m just trying to figure out what your reasoning for your stance is, especially with feeling the need (or social benefit) for state recognition is.
[quote]cueball wrote:
So you feel that without marriage being recognized by the state, our future citizen’s will be less prosperous?[/quote]
Yes. Even just the weakening of state recognized marriage has caused harm. It has changed the attitude of what marriage is.
Ok.
The ideal is a prestigious, exclusive, upon-a-pedestal, institution for men and women to aspire to. The exclusivity, the discriminating limits even, are what provides the pedestal. It is a model set apart for other private human relationships; sexual, non-sexual, single, numerous people involved, whatever. Anyways, the implicit (since nature handles the rest) payoff is the orderly propogation and raising of our children within intact homes. Nothing needs to be added to my statement.
State recognized, most definitely. Why is it that it’s largely the graying, barren, declining west considering diluting (in a number pf cases, has already diluted) the very institution which has already been eroded? It’s a sure sign of just how broken we are.
It is not so much that non discriminatory state-marriage of any shape will lead us down the slippery slope, we’re already headed down it. Perhaps, already at the very bottom, in fact. Where we should be making our way despite the effort back up the slope despite effort, in order to reinvigorate the most important institution a nation has, we’re electing (have elected) to anchor ourselves down. When do we wake up and realize progress has become regress?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
So you feel that without marriage being recognized by the state, our future citizen’s will be less prosperous?[/quote]
How exactly, as far as prosperity is concerned, does the weakening of state recognized (not religion recognized) marriage directly degrade our society? It seems your main concern is with degradation of the classic model of marriage more than how it actually affects the prosperity of our citizens as a whole.
And you feel then that the current orderly propagation of our children within intact homes will diminish because gays have a state allowed marriage? I’m not sure people in great numbers will suddenly or progressively stop marrying and raising kids in a traditional 2-parent home just because gay people are now allowed to marry.
Now, if you want to talk about the institution being degraded in a religious aspect, I would agree a lot more with you.
[quote]State recognized, most definitely. Why is it that it’s largely the graying, barren, declining west considering diluting (in a number pf cases, has already diluted) the very institution which has already been eroded? It’s a sure sign of just how broken we are.
It is not so much that non discriminatory state-marriage of any shape will lead us down the slippery slope, we’re already headed down it. Perhaps, already at the very bottom, in fact. Where we should be making our way despite the effort back up the slope despite effort, in order to reinvigorate the most important institution a nation has, we’re electing (have elected) to anchor ourselves down. When do we wake up and realize progress has become regress?[/quote]
A question since you feel (I assume) that it’s the state recognition that makes the institution so important, Do you feel our society would not be where it is today if marriage historically was ONLY recognized by the church? if so, why?
Edit: attempt to fix quoting, sorry.
Sloth, I hope you can swim through that mess i just threw up there.
[quote]cueball wrote:
Edit: attempt to fix quoting, sorry.
[/quote]
Hah. I’ll have to wait till you do. Too scary looking at the moment for me to read.