Surpeme Court Gay Marriage Cases....

[kentonio]

How is it a fallacy? I challenged gay marriage proponents to show me why polygamy ought not be permitted. They were unable to do so.

Why would gay marriage proponents think that polygamy shouldn't be allowed? Why should we care?

[PLATO]

So "defending" marriage against teh gays is just a bunch of hyperbole and hyperventilation then?

People do have a right to believe as they will, don't they? Or does that threaten the rights of the minority to be heard?

Personally, I don't really think this should be an issue at all. If religious people want to claim "marriage" as theirs, then so what? It is the legal standing that seems to be the issue here...so seperate it into two different components. The question I guess is "Is marriage a religious right or a civil right?" If we determine it to be civil (which it seems clear to me that it is), then SCOTUS should have no problem ruling on the issue. If they do see it as simply a civil right, then perhaps the religious folks can start to call it a "holy union" or some such.

From just a little research, it is easy to see that the word "Marriage" is a fairly recent creation (historically speaking) having probably come into use to describe the union of two people around 1300AD or so.

To me it is just terminology. The real issue here is getting the civil union (for lack of a better discriptor) recognized. The argument over the word "marriage" just makes that harder to do.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why would gay marriage proponents think that polygamy shouldn't be allowed? Why should we care?

Then you concede the validity of the slippery slope.

[kentonio]

Then you concede the validity of the slippery slope.

No, that's stupid. If I don't see any inherent problem with polygamy then why would it be a slope?

[Ben Kenobi]

having probably come into use to describe the union of two people around 1300AD or so.

Again, this is false. It was and is used to describe the union of a man and a woman.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, that's stupid. If I don't see any inherent problem with polygamy then why would it be a slope?

The argument you would have to show is why polygamy shouldn't be permitted. If your argument is that polygamy is a-ok, then you've conceded the slippery slope. It's not a fallacy at all if the proponents are unable to cobble together a cogent argument against polygamy.

[kentonio]

The argument you would have to show is why polygamy shouldn't be permitted. If your argument is that polygamy is a-ok, then you've conceded the slippery slope. It's not a fallacy at all if the proponents are unable to cobble together a cogent argument against polygamy.

You're starting from a position of believing polygamy is bad, which makes your question completely meaningless. If we don't believe it is inherently bad, then there's no 'slope' involved because it does not represent any kind of negative movement.

Plus slippery slope arguments are usually ****ing stupid anyway.

[PLATO]

Again, this is false. It was and is used to describe the union of a man and a woman.

Ben...don't be dumb. Do just a little research before you spout off.
(assuming you believe there was an English language prior to 1300)

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=marry

[Kidlicious]

The argument you would have to show is why polygamy shouldn't be permitted. If your argument is that polygamy is a-ok, then you've conceded the slippery slope. It's not a fallacy at all if the proponents are unable to cobble together a cogent argument against polygamy.

There is no cogent argument against gay marriage or polygamy.

[PLATO]

Plus slippery slope arguments are usually ****ing stupid anyway.

(unless they involve evil things I don't believe in. )

[MichaeltheGreat]

What's the legal justification if we change the definition of marriage to allow you to get married on the basis of equal protection for banning polygamy?

Someone else brought that up and I answered in depth. A rationale under present laws for banning polygamy is that you don't have a mechanism for assigning various benefits of marriage, e.g. survivor's rights, inheritance, etc., to mulitple parties. If Paul Polygamist croaks and has three wives, do they collectively have an undividided interest or separate interests in the estate, and if the latter, in what proportions? Same thing with kids - do the "mothers" have collective custody, or each have custody of the ones to whom they gave birth? What about intervening spousal death and remarriage with minor children, etc? There are legal answers and a legal framework for all these issues in a two-party marriage, there are none for multi-party relationships. So the "Equal Protection" question can be invoked in both directions - in favor of permission on "right to marry who you want if they're consenting adult" grounds. and against permission based on "unequal status of subsequent spouses and children" grounds.

[Kidlicious]

You're starting from a position of believing polygamy is bad, which makes your question completely meaningless. If we don't believe it is inherently bad, then there's no 'slope' involved because it does not represent any kind of negative movement.

Plus slippery slope arguments are usually ****ing stupid anyway.

It figures that you would be willing to share a wife with another man.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're starting from a position of believing polygamy is bad

Actually, I'm starting from the position of neutrality. I'm asking the question - if you are taking out man and woman, why does it have to be restricted to just one of each?

So far gay marriage proponents here have offered no explanation - thus confirming the slippery slope.

[Kidlicious]

Actually, I'm starting from the position of neutrality. I'm asking the question - if you are taking out man and woman, why does it have to be restricted to just one of each?

So far gay marriage proponents here have offered no explanation - thus confirming the slippery slope.

You don't know why someone shouldn't be married to more than one person?

[kentonio]

Actually, I'm starting from the position of neutrality. I'm asking the question - if you are taking out man and woman, why does it have to be restricted to just one of each?

So far gay marriage proponents here have offered no explanation - thus confirming the slippery slope.

Are you being deliberately stupid or is it just inherent? If you don't think polygamy is bad then why would it constitute any form of 'slope? The whole concept of a slippery slope argument is that one thing leads to something worse. If it's not worse, then why would it be a slope?