[quote]H factor wrote:
And crazily enough those states aren’t allowing a 30 year old to marry a 9 year old.
[/quote]
Many states allow Older men to marry underage girls with their parents permission, and this is where UtahLama is drawing from. Remember Courtney Stodden and her 50+ year old husband?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Is a set of articles published by a second-rate news outlet which has a profit interest in controversy–is this fulfillment of the prophecy?
I could find much stranger editorials being tossed around the world of internet news.[/quote]
No, that’s why I put the question mark in the title. However, I’m not sure I’d call NRO or Slate second rate. No AP press for certain, however they are pretty widely “with it” from various poles of the political spectrum.
Certainly not calling it a prophecy…perhaps your time in the “Hell” thread is seeping through your terminology ;). I did find it interesting that this line of argument took so little time to come up into print–that is what I was alluding to. As I mentioned in my OP I didn’t think this would be even mentioned in mainline outlets (opinion or news) for much longer than the people who did keep mentioning it.
I tend to agree with your assessment of the slippery slope argument. It is not structurally valid (obviously) and it usually deals with inductive logic which strictly speaking is not structurally valid in the first place anyway (because the conclusion is not 100% entailed by true premises). However that isn’t to say it is absurd to speak about it: the slippery slope hasn’t been slid down many times before in many other areas trhoughout history. I think it is useful to differentiate between structurally unsound and absurd. In many cases something structurally unsound can be restated to make it sound. The trouble of course is defining precedent or reasoning with a slippery slope.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
And crazily enough those states aren’t allowing a 30 year old to marry a 9 year old.
[/quote]
Many states allow Older men to marry underage girls with their parents permission, and this is where UtahLama is drawing from. Remember Courtney Stodden and her 50+ year old husband?
[/quote]
What do you think is a better model for marriage?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What do you think is a better model for marriage?
How about one where sexual orientation is irrelevant to the government, and it is viewed as a custody contract between two consenting adults like any other contract. Oh and the same government doesn’t tell churches or private business what it can or can’t do or say in regards of the matter, unless that business harms a person or persons.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What do you think is a better model for marriage?
How about one where sexual orientation is irrelevant to the government, and it is viewed as a custody contract between two consenting adults like any other contract. Oh and the same government doesn’t tell churches or private business what it can or can’t do or say in regards of the matter, unless that business harms a person or persons.[/quote]
Concur.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What do you think is a better model for marriage?
How about one where sexual orientation is irrelevant to the government, and it is viewed as a custody contract between two consenting adults like any other contract. Oh and the same government doesn’t tell churches or private business what it can or can’t do or say in regards of the matter, unless that business harms a person or persons.[/quote]
Well that can be the new policy after the revolution but I am not sure its a realistic solution to this debate in this particular political climate.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What do you think is a better model for marriage?
How about one where sexual orientation is irrelevant to the government, and it is viewed as a custody contract between two consenting adults like any other contract. Oh and the same government doesn’t tell churches or private business what it can or can’t do or say in regards of the matter, unless that business harms a person or persons.[/quote]
Well that can be the new policy after the revolution but I am not sure its a realistic solution to this debate in this particular political climate.[/quote]
HAHA!
I hear you. We do need to stop bringing up sexual orientation every time someone brings up same sex marriage though. It is an invitation for government to actually care.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What do you think is a better model for marriage?
How about one where sexual orientation is irrelevant to the government, and it is viewed as a custody contract between two consenting adults like any other contract. Oh and the same government doesn’t tell churches or private business what it can or can’t do or say in regards of the matter, unless that business harms a person or persons.[/quote]
This is exactly what I want. The idea that gay marriage is bound to lead to all of these horrific marriage based outcomes is specious reasoning at it’s finest. But Utah isn’t saying that…he’s just saying, well now you can ARGUE that lol.
I’m not saying this will lead to babies being eaten for breakfast, I’m just saying it COULD. Don’t jump on me, I’m not saying It WILL. Just kinda throwing that out there ya know.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
And crazily enough those states aren’t allowing a 30 year old to marry a 9 year old.
[/quote]
Many states allow Older men to marry underage girls with their parents permission, and this is where UtahLama is drawing from. Remember Courtney Stodden and her 50+ year old husband?
[/quote]
What do you think is a better model for marriage?
And this question will take us down a slippery slope.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
And crazily enough those states aren’t allowing a 30 year old to marry a 9 year old.
[/quote]
Many states allow Older men to marry underage girls with their parents permission, and this is where UtahLama is drawing from. Remember Courtney Stodden and her 50+ year old husband?
[/quote]
What do you think is a better model for marriage?
And this question will take us down a slippery slope.
[/quote]
Well you were the one that brought up underage girls. If anything that is simply an artifact of the past and not a recent trend so its not a valid comparison to something that is thought of as a “new” problem.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What do you think is a better model for marriage?
How about one where sexual orientation is irrelevant to the government, and it is viewed as a custody contract between two consenting adults like any other contract. Oh and the same government doesn’t tell churches or private business what it can or can’t do or say in regards of the matter, unless that business harms a person or persons.[/quote]
This is exactly what I want. The idea that gay marriage is bound to lead to all of these horrific marriage based outcomes is specious reasoning at it’s finest. But Utah isn’t saying that…he’s just saying, well now you can ARGUE that lol.
I’m not saying this will lead to babies being eaten for breakfast, I’m just saying it COULD. Don’t jump on me, I’m not saying It WILL. Just kinda throwing that out there ya know. [/quote]
30 years ago, people would have had the same reaction to gays getting married.
At least your snark actually did not make things up in this post, you are getting better.
Legal precedent is weird like that.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
And crazily enough those states aren’t allowing a 30 year old to marry a 9 year old.
[/quote]
Many states allow Older men to marry underage girls with their parents permission, and this is where UtahLama is drawing from. Remember Courtney Stodden and her 50+ year old husband?
[/quote]
What do you think is a better model for marriage?
And this question will take us down a slippery slope.
[/quote]
Well you were the one that brought up underage girls. If anything that is simply an artifact of the past and not a recent trend so its not a valid comparison to something that is thought of as a “new” problem.[/quote]
Go back up and read the thread. I did not bring it up.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Is a set of articles published by a second-rate news outlet which has a profit interest in controversy–is this fulfillment of the prophecy?
I could find much stranger editorials being tossed around the world of internet news.[/quote]
No, that’s why I put the question mark in the title. However, I’m not sure I’d call NRO or Slate second rate. No AP press for certain, however they are pretty widely “with it” from various poles of the political spectrum.
Certainly not calling it a prophecy…perhaps your time in the “Hell” thread is seeping through your terminology ;). I did find it interesting that this line of argument took so little time to come up into print–that is what I was alluding to. As I mentioned in my OP I didn’t think this would be even mentioned in mainline outlets (opinion or news) for much longer than the people who did keep mentioning it.
I tend to agree with your assessment of the slippery slope argument. It is not structurally valid (obviously) and it usually deals with inductive logic which strictly speaking is not structurally valid in the first place anyway (because the conclusion is not 100% entailed by true premises). However that isn’t to say it is absurd to speak about it: the slippery slope hasn’t been slid down many times before in many other areas trhoughout history. I think it is useful to differentiate between structurally unsound and absurd. In many cases something structurally unsound can be restated to make it sound. The trouble of course is defining precedent or reasoning with a slippery slope.[/quote]
Yeah, we pretty much agree here. I certainly don’t think that the idea isn’t going to start appearing.
However, I don’t think anybody is going to be buying it, and I don’t think it’ll get political traction. If for no other reason than the following: Most people don’t feel an attraction to people for the same sex. This allows them to analogize it with the attraction that they feel toward their wife/girlfriend/husband/boyfriend. This, in turn, gives them some measure of natural empathy.
Polygamy, on the other hand, is not easily analogized. We understand love of one other person; it is much harder for us to understand, or really care about, love of ten people.
I, for example, feel no sympathy for someone who wants ten hot wives–I want an Andalusian horse that can fly and breathe fire. I’m not crying over the fact that I’ve been told it’s not going to happen.
By the way, I was referring to Slate with that. I don’t think too highly of it, though they have a few good people. It’s mostly the PC and really left-field feminist stuff that they publish.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What do you think is a better model for marriage?
How about one where sexual orientation is irrelevant to the government, and it is viewed as a custody contract between two consenting adults like any other contract. Oh and the same government doesn’t tell churches or private business what it can or can’t do or say in regards of the matter, unless that business harms a person or persons.[/quote]
This is exactly what I want. The idea that gay marriage is bound to lead to all of these horrific marriage based outcomes is specious reasoning at it’s finest. But Utah isn’t saying that…he’s just saying, well now you can ARGUE that lol.
I’m not saying this will lead to babies being eaten for breakfast, I’m just saying it COULD. Don’t jump on me, I’m not saying It WILL. Just kinda throwing that out there ya know. [/quote]
Yeah…
You are ignoring the point.
There is no room left to argue against polygamy in the offical narrative.
Ideas do matter though, so it is only a matter of time.
If your only argument is that it has not happened YET, you are in fact arguing that those heteronormative monogamous bastards are still oppressing polyamourous people.
Can we have that in this egalitarian times?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What do you think is a better model for marriage?
How about one where sexual orientation is irrelevant to the government, and it is viewed as a custody contract between two consenting adults like any other contract. Oh and the same government doesn’t tell churches or private business what it can or can’t do or say in regards of the matter, unless that business harms a person or persons.[/quote]
This is exactly what I want. The idea that gay marriage is bound to lead to all of these horrific marriage based outcomes is specious reasoning at it’s finest. But Utah isn’t saying that…he’s just saying, well now you can ARGUE that lol.
I’m not saying this will lead to babies being eaten for breakfast, I’m just saying it COULD. Don’t jump on me, I’m not saying It WILL. Just kinda throwing that out there ya know. [/quote]
Yeah…
You are ignoring the point.
There is no room left to argue against polygamy in the offical narrative.
Ideas do matter though, so it is only a matter of time.
If your only argument is that it has not happened YET, you are in fact arguing that those heteronormative monogamous bastards are still oppressing polyamourous people.
Can we have that in this egalitarian times?[/quote]
Lol, your only argument is that it will happen. So let’s recap:
You argue this will happen because of gay marriage. You could still be correct, but right now you are demonstrably incorrect.
I argue gay marriage is no reason to assume this will happen. Gay marriage in some places has been around for a while, and this hasn’t passed in any of those places. I could still be incorrect, but right now I am demonstrably correct.
You do realize legally arguments were made long before gay marriage passed about polyamorous relationships right? And now magically because of the passing of gay marriage in some places you feel as if the only logical conclusion is this will lead to legal victories about that right now?
Again, why is heroin illegal if alcohol is legal again? None of you are touching that one.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Would someone be willing to place a small bet with me on this subject? Say…I bet within 10 years polygamous marriage suits will be in several courts across the land. I’d place a second bet that some court somewhere will grant the plaintiff’s request.
Who wants to take me on?[/quote]
Polygamy suits have already done that long before gay marriage was allowed anywhere. What a silly setup to win bet. If you actually feel strongly about something go ahead and place some beans in the basket.
How about this:
One decade from now no state will legally allow a polygamous marriage. You may not be wanting to touch that one so much. In fact I’d love to get a list of posters on here that thinks that will happen.
You guys keep wanting to argue that people will be able to argue this. Any judge may easily agree. The idea that this is about to become law is absurd and I look forward to you guys cementing your stance so I can continue to bring it up over and over again and laugh at how wrong you are.*
*The polls are all biased, Romney wins easy! Some of my first viewings of PWI posts.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What do you think is a better model for marriage?
How about one where sexual orientation is irrelevant to the government, and it is viewed as a custody contract between two consenting adults like any other contract. Oh and the same government doesn’t tell churches or private business what it can or can’t do or say in regards of the matter, unless that business harms a person or persons.[/quote]
This is exactly what I want. The idea that gay marriage is bound to lead to all of these horrific marriage based outcomes is specious reasoning at it’s finest. But Utah isn’t saying that…he’s just saying, well now you can ARGUE that lol.
I’m not saying this will lead to babies being eaten for breakfast, I’m just saying it COULD. Don’t jump on me, I’m not saying It WILL. Just kinda throwing that out there ya know. [/quote]
Yeah…
You are ignoring the point.
There is no room left to argue against polygamy in the offical narrative.
Ideas do matter though, so it is only a matter of time.
If your only argument is that it has not happened YET, you are in fact arguing that those heteronormative monogamous bastards are still oppressing polyamourous people.
Can we have that in this egalitarian times?[/quote]
Lol, your only argument is that it will happen. So let’s recap:
You argue this will happen because of gay marriage. You could still be correct, but right now you are demonstrably incorrect.
I argue gay marriage is no reason to assume this will happen. Gay marriage in some places has been around for a while, and this hasn’t passed in any of those places. I could still be incorrect, but right now I am demonstrably correct.
You do realize legally arguments were made long before gay marriage passed about polyamorous relationships right? And now magically because of the passing of gay marriage in some places you feel as if the only logical conclusion is this will lead to legal victories about that right now?
Again, why is heroin illegal if alcohol is legal again? None of you are touching that one.
[/quote]
Well, its should not be and for the longest time it was not.
But it will be, after cannabis, cocaine and whatnot.
But, you know, IT HAS NOT HAPPENED YET, IT HAS NOT HAPPENED YET, is not too much of an argument either.
Look at the changes of the last 100 years and tell me in which direction the wind is blowing.