Slippery Slope Predicted?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

even if never-married homes make up for a majority of broken homes, divorce/marriage ratio is greater than 50% right now.
ie : more than one marriage out of two will create another broken home.
ie : marriage is more often bad than good.

[/quote]

Where do you get the 50% from? At least in the US the highest was estimated at 50% but its been in decline for the last 20 years or so.[/quote]

Wikipedia says 53% here : Divorce demography - Wikipedia
with sources coming from the CDC (i confess that i didn’t check their math).
[/quote]

Short answer, its in decline so when it gets to 49% and lower what is your argument above?

142

[quote]kamui wrote:

The game of changing the rules have their own rules.
Once upon a time, one of these rules was “Plurimae leges pessima respublica.”
Now it’s “vox populi, vox dei”. [/quote]

Strawman. I’m not making an argument from opinion polls. My argument is that there is no harm done and this slippery slope nonsense is just that.

[quote]

[quote]
2. I don’t give a damn if we call it chess or blackjack.[/quote]

Apparently. [/quote]

Here is a wonderful example of the folly of argument by completely unrelated analogy. We’re no longer talking about anything.

[quote]

This is a red herring–we’re talking about policy, it doesn’t mean a thing what kind of contradictory babble some people spout. “Gay marriage is bad because this gay guy just contradicted himself.” I have gathered that you are more intelligent than that. If confusion persists: Tell me your dearest political cause and I’ll find you somebody who champions it stupidly.

But let’s take a look at this “everyone is forced to recognize” line. This is what? An inconvenience to you? Does your argument rest on inconvenience?

143

See Christian wedding cake baker story.

See Duck Dynasty story.

Slippery slope, in more ways than one.

Christianity will be driven into the closet. It will eventually be openly disparaged by even your local news weatherman, without any fear of retaliation.

Public school teachers will actually be encouraged to vilify it in their classrooms.

Because Christianity= “bigotry.” No getting around it. You’ve all said/heard the inter-racial marriage comparisons. It is no better than racism to the outside world.

It’ll ascend to the pedestal of ‘racism.’

Christianity CAN NOT be tolerated in this nation. Slowly, but surely.

Edit: Even here, there are some folks on the opposite side of my own position, who treat me as if I’m still a “good guy.”

However, polite as my arguments might be, shouldn’t I be treated by them as no better than a racist? What I espouse, gentle or not, must be bigotry according to them.

Just as with racism, it’ll be taken for granted that both the public and private sectors MUST ostracize, shutdown, and disenfranchise Christianity.

144

As for the topic…Of course.

Mass media opinion columns will begin softening up to state recognized plural-amorous marriages. The frequency of the topic will build slowly, and then explode. Eventually you’ll see the nobles of the US–movie stars and near nude pop singers–pick up the cause. They’re always in search of a fresh one. Especially if you use poly-amorous bi-sexuals frequently as the face for plural marriage. I mean, hey, how fair is it that bisexuals are still left in the dark, only being able to marry into one aspect of their sexual orientation! They aren’t consenting adults!!!

145

[quote]
Strawman. I’m not making an argument from opinion polls. My argument is that there is no harm done and this slippery slope nonsense is just that.[/quote]

So, let’s see.
What harm is done by polyamorous couples ?
And if there is no harm done, why shouldn’t we recognize their marriages ?

[quote]
Here is a wonderful example of the folly of argument by completely unrelated analogy. We’re no longer talking about anything.[/quote]

Well, you said “i don’t give a damn if we call it chess or blackjack”. In the terms of this analogy it means “i don’t give a damn if we call it marriage or not”.

i suppose that if marriage can be called anything, anything can be called a marriage.

The argument “it’s none of our business so they should be allowed to marry” hasn’t been made by “some people”. it has been made in this thread, a few post before mine.

And my answer isnt “gay marriage is bad because this gay guy just contradicted himself”.
It’s “advocates of gay marriage can have it both way. it’s either “none of our business” or “everyone’s business”. Not both at the same time”.

I wasn’t trying to prove that gay marriage is bad. Was just showing that one of the main argument in favor of gay marriage is intrinsically flawed.

I don’t have to prove that gay marriage is bad. You have to prove it’s good.
Not only good for gay people, but good for the res publica.
If it’s not, the res publica shouldn’t even care nor get involved.

[quote]
But let’s take a look at this “everyone is forced to recognize” line. This is what? An inconvenience to you? Does your argument rest on inconvenience? [/quote]

It’s not an inconvenience, it’s an absurdity.

146

Oh there is a slippery slope . Some one may achieve some unauthorized pleasure . It is such a ludicrous conversation . This discussion isn like why did we free slaves , Why did we allow women to vote , I don’t get it

147

Just FYI, in case you didn’t read the old thread(s?) on this issue :

i’m not arguing this from a purely theoretical perspective.
I’m in a relationship since 6 years with a bisexual woman. And our relationship sometimes turns into a “menage a trois”.

I don’t think we harm anyone but ourselves. But i don’t think we deserve any privilege either, and i certainly won’t ask for one.

I understand why so many of my “queer” friends want a right to marry.
They think that the official recognition of their unions will help the societal recognition of their sexual orientation.

My usual answer is “yes, and it will make you easier to find when they will reopen the camps.”.

148

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]
Strawman. I’m not making an argument from opinion polls. My argument is that there is no harm done and this slippery slope nonsense is just that.[/quote]

So, let’s see.
What harm is done by polyamorous couples ?
And if there is no harm done, why shouldn’t we recognize their marriages ?[/quote]

That is a separate discussion. And if there would be no harm done, then I don’t care if their marriages are recognized. Though I imagine that they would have a much harder time of selling the innocuousness than gays, what with the potential for fraud and abuse.

[quote]
The argument “it’s none of our business so they should be allowed to marry” hasn’t been made by “some people”. it has been made in this thread, a few post before mine.

And my answer isnt “gay marriage is bad because this gay guy just contradicted himself”.
It’s “advocates of gay marriage can have it both way. it’s either “none of our business” or “everyone’s business”. Not both at the same time”.

I wasn’t trying to prove that gay marriage is bad. Was just showing that one of the main argument in favor of gay marriage is intrinsically flawed/[/quote]

This is mere quibbling, nitpicking, cherry-picking arguments for their weaknesses. Sine gloria vincit, indeed. The substance of the debate has exactly nothing to do with this.

Speaking of substance, it would be nice to return to it. You say that this slippery slope is not fallacious (it is, because, again, its chain must be logically necessary, which it isn’t). So, answer me this:

A family of four qualifies for SNAP benefits in New York State if it earns up to and including $2,552 per month.

Therefore, a family of four is considered by the State to be unable to properly feed itself at $2,552 per month.

Three pennies more per day ($1/month) does not have any appreciable affect on a family of four’s ability to buy and prepare food.

Therefore, a family of four earning $2,553 per month does not have an appreciably easier time of feeding itself than does a family of four earning $2,552 per month.

See where this is going? Each increment of $1 will not, in itself, be enough to separate the family not qualifying from the family that is qualifying. And soon Michael Bloomberg will be buying lobster and caviar with his EBT card.

Now, the leap from gay marriage to polygamy is much larger and of a much grander kind than is the leap from $2,552 to $2,553 per month. Tell me–if the former is a foregone conclusion, then why am I not on food stamps right now? Or at the least, why don’t I qualify for them?

Let’s try another.

Heroin and cocaine and marijuana are illegal because of X, Y, and Z.

How well do you think X, Y, and Z apply to alcohol?

Pretty well, it turns out.

Why is alcohol legal? What about the slippy slide?

149

[quote]kamui wrote:
Just FYI, in case you didn’t read the old thread(s?) on this issue :

i’m not arguing this from a purely theoretical perspective.
I’m in a relationship since 6 years with a bisexual woman. And our relationship sometimes turns into a “menage a trois”.

I don’t think we harm anyone but ourselves. But i don’t think we deserve any privilege either, and i certainly won’t ask for one.

I understand why so many of my “queer” friends want a right to marry.
They think that the official recognition of their unions will help the societal recognition of their sexual orientation.

My usual answer is “yes, and it will make you easier to find when they will reopen the camps.”.

[/quote]

Understood. I don’t see why you say you’re hurting no one but yourselves–unless you mean within the context of your specific relationship.

150

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

Why are they asking all of us to recognize, endorse and pay for their own business then ?

Because you know, that’s exactly what we do each and every time someone else get married.
[/quote]

You refer to tax breaks, yes?[/quote]

I am still wondering about this.

151

[quote]kamui wrote:
Just FYI, in case you didn’t read the old thread(s?) on this issue :

i’m not arguing this from a purely theoretical perspective.
I’m in a relationship since 6 years with a bisexual woman. And our relationship sometimes turns into a “menage a trois”…

[/quote]

Stops reading.

152

Key kamui! Grow some balls. Tell your woman there are to be no more menage a troise, get married, have kids, raise them well and live and happy and properous life.

153

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Key kamui! Grow some balls. Tell your woman there are to be no more menage a troise, get married, have kids, raise them well and live and happy and properous life.[/quote]

I am sure he will take advice from a prude , Maybe a Menage a Trois is fun . I know of another person with a similar relation ship . In this case I find the guy to be a repulsive individual and the women participants only do it because the guy has more money than GOD (IMO)

154

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Key kamui! Grow some balls. Tell your woman there are to be no more menage a troise, get married, have kids, raise them well and live and happy and properous life.[/quote]

I am sure he will take advice from a prude , Maybe a Menage a Trois is fun . I know of another person with a similar relation ship . In this case I find the guy to be a repulsive individual and the women participants only do it because the guy has more money than GOD (IMO)
[/quote]

Sounds healthy.

/may or may not be jealous

155

[quote]kamui wrote:

I’m in a relationship since 6 years with a bisexual woman. And our relationship sometimes turns into a “menage a trois”.

[/quote]

The horror.

156

[quote]kamui wrote:
I understand why so many of my “queer” friends want a right to marry.
They think that the official recognition of their unions will help the societal recognition of their sexual orientation.

My usual answer is “yes, and it will make you easier to find when they will reopen the camps.”.
[/quote]

Huh. Good point. Hadn’t thought of that.

That also happens to be my objection to concealed-weapons permits.

158

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

That also happens to be my objection to concealed-weapons permits.[/quote]

Yep.

I get more and more perturbed about the requirement of having a CCW permit. It surely is a registry. Mine expired a good 15 - 18 years ago on purpose but it still shows up when a cop runs my driver’s license at a traffic stop. That bothers me.[/quote]

You may(or may not) be surprised by the information that can show up when a cop runs a driver’s license on a traffic stop. Ex-member of the Pagans? Yep, a hit can still pop up showing you are a criminal gang-member(or some such language). All for the sake of “officer safety,” I’m sure.

159

One solution for the future, though, might be to designate “marriage” as a social institution with no legal standing and to create “civil union” as a legally recognized subtype of business partnership, available to anyone who is willing to make the appropriate commitments.

160

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[/quote]

And, Legalize polygamy: Marriage equality for all.

The pro opinion pieces will come in faster and faster, until the dam gives, and a flood bursts forth. Then come the flags and parades. Then it’s legally recognized.

From a common sense social institution, to an institution simply existing for the expression of individualism.