Homosexual Marriage

[Mr. Jaggers]

To say that gay marriage "opens the door" to other forms of marriage leading to abolishing legal marriage is just another form of "slippery slope" argument, which is both illogical and invalid.

[RickSp]

One fine example of the "slippery slope" argument.

The porpoise-driven wife: O'Reilly links same-sex marriage to UK woman who "married" dolphin

Bill O'Reilly once again repeated his argument that same-sex marriage will lead to interspecies marriage. In the "Most Ridiculous Item of the Day" segment, O'Reilly said that "[o]ne of the arguments against gay marriage, that we just spoke about, is that if it becomes law, all other alternative marital visions will be allowed." He then related the story of a British woman, Sharon Tendler, who "married" a dolphin in Israel.

[Jack]

Wouldn't every segment of his show qualify for the "Most Ridiculous Item of the Day"? His popularity seems to be slipping as quickly as his hero's, and justifiably so.

[Mr. Jaggers]

The “slippery slope” argument is not a valid way of positing the debate for reason that (1) it begs the question, and (2) mischaracterizes the issue. For example, to say that the sanctioning of same-sex unions is the start down the slippery slope to the loss of sanctity of marriage and immorality, petitio principii, begs the question (viz. the conclusion that same-sex unions are illegal or illegitimate is assumed in the premise), while mischaracterizing gays and lesbians (without mentioning them) by labeling them as immoral. Such circular reasoning is illogical for it is premised upon a presupposed bias or prejudice rather than facts susceptible of proof; and it is inherently unfair because it at once postures the proponent of same-sex unions as against the sanctity of marriage and in favor of immorality. Thus framed, the argument goes round and round and gets nowhere, while the framer paints the opposition in a bad light. It is a form used by propagandists like Mr. O’Reilly, supra; which, sadly, is the way the debate of this very important issue has been going.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: Mr. Jaggers To say that gay marriage "opens the door" to other forms of marriage leading to abolishing legal marriage is just another form of "slippery slope" argument, which is both illogical and invalid.

Have it your way, then. Give me ONE good reason why we should legalize same-sex marriage. We'll start there.

[Dirty Name]

My argument is that marriage is a legal contract that should be available to all responsible adults.

Two gay people are perfectly and legally allowed to enter into any contract they wish with one another. The ONLY real limitation is that they don't qualify for married tax status and they don't qualify for social security survivor benefits.

Virtually all other benefits are either granted privately, or they are attainable via the contract.

It is my position that granting those last two benefits is wholly unnecessary since same-sex relationships are of lesser interest to society/government than are traditional sexual unions.

But I notice you people keep avoiding that part of the argument, and instead want to throw the "bigot" grenade at me.

[Dirty Name]

One fine example of the "slippery slope" argument.

I have NEVER brought up beastiality or human/animal marriage as part of my argument against same-sex marriage.

[Dirty Name]

The “slippery slope” argument is not a valid way of positing the debate for reason that (1) it begs the question, and (2) mischaracterizes the issue. For example, to say that the sanctioning of same-sex unions is the start down the slippery slope to the loss of sanctity of marriage and immorality, petitio principii, begs the question (viz. the conclusion that same-sex unions are illegal or illegitimate is assumed in the premise), while mischaracterizing gays and lesbians (without mentioning them) by labeling them as immoral. Such circular reasoning is illogical for it is premised upon a presupposed bias or prejudice rather than facts susceptible of proof; and it is inherently unfair because it at once postures the proponent of same-sex unions as against the sanctity of marriage and in favor of immorality. Thus framed, the argument goes round and round and gets nowhere, while the framer paints the opposition in a bad light. It is a form used by propagandists like Mr. O’Reilly, supra; which, sadly, is the way the debate of this very important issue has been going.

Have you ever read my argument in it's entirety? I never bring up morality, religion, beastiality or any of the typical drive-by arguments that casual visitors throw out.

Try again.

[Mr. Jaggers]

No, you try again.

Your argument fails to recognize that the right to marriage is a matter of state law. Rights exist, including the right of a person to be married, only as conferred by law; but once granted, such right may not be infringed without due process and the equal protection of law guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). This is the problem posed by the recent amendment to the Constitution of the State of Texas, as pointed out in Post# 3097, supra. There is no evidence that same-sex marriage can have a deleterious effect on marriage as an institution; the state will still retain jurisdiction over the incidents of the marriage in either case, while the rights of individual will be expanded rather than restricted as with the constitutional amendment limiting marriage between one man and one woman.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name I have NEVER brought up beastiality or human/animal marriage as part of my argument against same-sex marriage.

So? Again you refuse to acknowledge the direct implications of your own argument. What does that say?

Quote by: Dirty Name Same-sex marriage opens the door to "anything goes," which in turn means that there would no longer be any point in the state offering the incentive in the first place.

Bill O'Reilly and Rick Santorum take your argument to its logical and ridiculous extreme, nothing more.

Quote by: Dirty Name Two gay people are perfectly and legally allowed to enter into any contract they wish with one another. The ONLY real limitation is that they don't qualify for married tax status and they don't qualify for social security survivor benefits.

What silly double talk. You claim that they have all contractual rights except for the important ones. More seperate but unequal.

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: Mr. Jaggers No, you try again. Your argument fails to recognize that the right to marriage is a matter of state law. Rights exist, including the right of a person to be married, only as conferred by law; but once granted, such right may not be infringed without due process and the equal protection of law guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). This is the problem posed by the recent amendment to the Constitution of the State of Texas, as pointed out in Post# 3097, supra. There is no evidence that same-sex marriage can have a deleterious effect on marriage as an institution; the state will still retain jurisdiction over the incidents of the marriage in either case, while the rights of individual will be expanded rather than restricted as with the constitutional amendment limiting marriage between one man and one woman.

Let me see if I understand you...

You are saying that, if a state licenses and regulates Doctors (i.e. the state restricts who can legally refer to themselves as and earn a living as doctors), then it must also license...astrologers? or Mediums? or Rain-dancers? Alright, I'll be nice. Let's just say that you are saying that, If a state regulates doctors, it must also regulate paperboys.

[Dirty Name]

What silly double talk. You claim that they have all contractual rights except for the important ones. More seperate but unequal.

Where is the inequality? I beg you to tell me.

First you have to show that a protected class of individuals is deprived of the same opportunity as other people outside the protected class.

Make your case. What protected class is seperate but unequal here, and secondly, what opportunity (or "right") are they denied that others may freely exercise?

Yes, this is always where your argument breaks down.

[Mr. Jaggers]

I think that you can answer the question yourself; and, if you are honest with yourself, you will admit that, indeed, it does.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Dirty Name Where is the inequality? I beg you to tell me. First you have to show that a protected class of individuals is deprived of the same opportunity as other people outside the protected class. Make your case.

I have made it, several times in other threads, (Here, for example) at which point you disappear and do not respond. I'm still waiting for responses in those, but here you go...

What protected class is seperate but unequal here,

Homosexuals, which the USSC has established are a protected class in several cases, e.g Lawrence v. Texas.

and secondly, what opportunity (or "right") are they denied that others may freely exercise?

Right to marry another consenting adult with whom they are in love. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man", Loving v. Virginia, quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma, see also Maynard v. Hill.

[Mr. Jaggers]

I don’t think that our argumentative friend is a scholar, much less one of the law. He, like every man, considers himself the final arbiter on the subject of the law - the Supreme Court be damned! - and so there is little point in arguing with him.

I remember Professor Tribe once telling me that the law doesn’t mean what it says. I thought, at the time, that he was jesting; however, now, after all these years, I’ve come to think that he was in earnest.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name Where is the inequality? I beg you to tell me.

You are not that stupid. Gay folks do not have the legal right to enter into the contractual arrangement called marriage. Your claim that they do have this right, except for all the meaningful benefits and responsibilities, is ludicrous on its face. The discussion is not over whether gay folks can have long term committed relationships, they do that already, but whether they will receive equal protection under the law. And your foolish denials and evasions add absolutely nothing to the conversation.

[Dirty Name]

What protected class is seperate but unequal here, Homosexuals, which the USSC has established are a protected class in several cases, e.g Lawrence v. Texas.

What right are "homosexuals" specifically denied, that heterosexuals are granted and frequently exercise?

I'm not aware of anything. See below for a full explanation.

[Dirty Name]

Gay folks do not have the legal right to enter into the contractual arrangement called marriage.

Yes, they most certainly DO have the right to marry - they have the exact same right to marry as I do - and they even have the right to collect the exact same benefits that I have.

You people don't have your heads screwed on straight. You're trying to make a leap here by ignoring the undeniable fact that sexual orientation is NOT a factor when the state denies a couple the right to marry. Bitch and moan all you want, but that is a FACT, and I can prove it:

http://www.komotv.com/news/story.asp?id=30719

Looks like "gay folks" ARE allowed to get legally married after all.

So please, get your facts straight, and try to get your brain wrapped around the idea that GAY marriage is a misnomer, that in fact we are talking about "same-sex marriage."

As soon as you get past this stumbling block, we can move on to the next point. Sadly, I just know you're going to fight me on this - after all, it's one of the lynchpins in the "gay rights" argument.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name Yes, they most certainly DO have the right to marry - they have the exact same right to marry as I do - and they even have the right to collect the exact same benefits that I have. You people don't have your heads screwed on straight. You're trying to make a leap here by ignoring the undeniable fact that sexual orientation is NOT a factor when the state denies a couple the right to marry. Bitch and moan all you want, but that is a FACT, and I can prove it: .

I have made it very clear that I was referring to the specific contractual arrangement called marriage as defined by law. You then use marriage in a non-contractual sense. Obviously this was not wha I was referring to and I doubt that you are so stupid as not have figured that out. You then start splitting hairs as to whether we arr discussion gay-marriage or same sex marriage, a completely pointless diversion as it is clear exactly what the topic of discussion is.

You obivous either lack the wit to keep track of the meaning of words, which I doubt, or you understand that your position is a bad joke so you persist in playing word games to create a smoke screen. Either way your blathering is a bankrupt waste of time. Simple bigotry hiding behind endless, meaningless verbiage.

[twoanickel]

Anyone who believes that approving homosexual marriage would resolve the issue and that there would not be any further consequences is kidding themselves. Allowing that to become legal would just be the beginning. The militant gays are quiet right now because they don't want to alarm the public with the full scope of their agenda.

Can anyone spell "affirmative action"? Refuse to go along with their agenda, and they will cram it down the throat of society by force of law. NAAGP--an acronym for National Association for the Advancement of Gay People Try to defend your family and American culture from them and they will have you jailed.