Comments on: MA birth certificates: the slippery slope connection

By: forest hunter

forest hunter — Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:16:58 +0000

Walter E. Wallis : You seldom speak but when you do …………….

By: Walter E. Wallis

Walter E. Wallis — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 16:33:09 +0000

If the traditional meaning of any word can be changed by one judge against the opinion of the majority of the people, then laws become suggestions and judges become Gods.
Let homosexuals come up with a unique terminology to define their relationships and seek legislation specific to that definition.

By: Baklava

Baklava — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 22:41:03 +0000

Elendril wrote, “they don’t even have the same rights”

That would be the middle ground to work towards but a majority of homosexuals don’t want just that. They want marriage changed. It’d be nice to have both sides work towards the middle ground.

Elendril wrote, “but not when it’s unconstitutional” That opinion isn’t supported by the Supreme Court… And until that is so then your opinion is not factual.

I personally don’t see where in the constitution marriage as currently defined is unconstitutional. It might be wise to read opinions from a lawyer who doesn’t agree with you so that you can understand why things are the way they are. It’d be helpful to our discussions.

By: Elendril

Elendril — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:33:08 +0000

Baklava,
I understand your last paragraph, but that’s the problem with this situation, they don’t even have the same rights. The laws are set up to recognize “married” couples, and the definition of marriage has changed over the centuries, at least in developed countries. No longer does the husband “own” his wife and resultant children. Women are now allowed to own property, earn their own money, gain custody of children, etc. Marriage has become a contract officially recognized between two equal individuals. I’m not speaking for various religions’ standards and views, but legal status, in a country where we are to make no laws regarding any particular religion.
Majority rule is best, but not when it’s unconstitutional.

By: Baklava

Baklava — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:40:07 +0000

Elendril, The people (not a religious based institution) of CA voted FOR prop 22 about 5 years ago stating that marriage is between one man and one woman. I guess they/we are no better than Iranians?

While I’d agree with your last paragraph, there is no reason to change the definition of marriage against the principles of the majority of the people in this nation.

But alas, that isn’t good enough to just have the same rights… See Andrew Sullivan. He wants marriage changed.

By: Elendril

Elendril — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:07:12 +0000

Marriage can be defined any way you want to define it, that’s not the point. If a religion-based institution is used as the sole criteria for determining what kind of taxes you’ll pay, or whether you can rent a certain house, or have a certain job, or adopt a child, or make medical/legal decisions for the person with whom you’ve made a life-long committment, then we’re no better than Iran. The whole point of America is that no one person is better or worse than any other one person. This essentially is an equal rights issue.
Not to mention, how bad would it really be for two loving, consenting adults to have an officially recognized committment? One that grants them the same rights that any other couple of loving, consenting adults is afforded?

By: Riding Sun

Riding Sun — Tue, 09 Aug 2005 08:25:58 +0000

The 150th Carnival of the Vanities

Welcome to the 150th Carnival of the Vanities. This week’s Carnival contains over 50 submissions. It should go without saying that the views expressed…

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 19:39:23 +0000

I note you didn’t respond to my key question: is the definition of marriage absolute, or not? If you want to have an intelligent conversation about this, please go back and re-read my points and get back to me. Otherwise, don’t bother.

No. It’s not absolute. See Loving v. Virginia.

By: Sister Toldjah

Sister Toldjah — Thu, 04 Aug 2005 00:32:12 +0000

I was unaware the United States was facing a significant underpopulation problem.

Me too. Where did you hear that?

The logical fallacies in this post and comments are legion. Slippery slope arguments are generally regarded as one of the weaker forms of argument, because they are based on the false premise that the failure to draw one distinction implies the failure to draw another. The fallacy of equating correlation with causation is prominently displayed in this post as well.

Please learn the distinction between a sound argument and a fallacious one.

Please don’t lecture me how to make an argument, especially considering the argument you started out making and argued against was a strawman, since I didn’t state that the US was facing an ‘underpopulation’ problem. Instead of trying to educate me on how to argue, I suggest you do a little bit better of a job at reading what the argument made actually *is* rather than what you’ve made it out to be.

As a side note, I should add that the people who usually pooh pooh the idea of a slippery slope the most are those who don’t think for five seconds what their consequences their ‘progresssive’ social ideas may have (see sex ed, war on poverty, 60s feminist movement for more details).

By: Big Worm

Big Worm — Wed, 03 Aug 2005 19:24:26 +0000

I was unaware the United States was facing a significant underpopulation problem. If so, I fail to see how gay marriage would contribute to it, unless somehow prohibiting same-sex marriage would induce gay folks to turn straight.

Please learn the distinction between a sound argument and a fallacious one.

By: Sister Toldjah

Sister Toldjah — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:06:10 +0000

LOL. That tells me all I need to know. Thanks.

By: actus

actus — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:02:26 +0000

“You really just shot your credibility on this one, actus, with your comparisons of the â€˜gay rights movement’ to the civil rights movement.”

I don’t think they’re the same. I think we’ell look back on the people who resist equality today in the same way we look back on those who resisted in favor of segregation.

“I note you still didn’t answer my question about the definition of marriage. Is it absolute or not?”

I think the definition of marriage is absolutely up to the people defining it. If people want to call what britney spears or tom cruise do a marriage, thats absolutely up to them.

By: Sister Toldjah

Sister Toldjah — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:52:27 +0000

You really just shot your credibility on this one, actus, with your comparisons of the ‘gay rights movement’ to the civil rights movement.

I note you still didn’t answer my question about the definition of marriage. Is it absolute or not?

By: actus

actus — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:14:14 +0000

“Actus, the handwriting is on the wall. Whether you want to willfully ignore it or view the situation there for what it is is entirely up to you”

The handwriting I see is a growing acceptance of homosexuality — a generational gap in the understanding of these issues — and a growing likelyhood that the people resisting equality now are going to be seen as the george wallace’s of the day, yelling “segregation forever.”

By: Sister Toldjah

Sister Toldjah — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 01:56:01 +0000

Hi wit! Thank you – I do enjoy blogging a great deal and plan on continuing well into the foreseeable future. Thanks for linking to me