Grr I hate living in the bible thumping texas..Follow

Sure. But you're the one who asked why Republican's aren't actively pursuing civil unions as an agenda. It's quite meaningful in that context. The whole "change versus status-quo" ideological difference between liberals and conservatives would seem to be relevant here...




Says who? Isn't it reasonble that if Liberals want gay couples to have a recognized status that grants them the things they want, that maybe *they* should actually A) determine what exactly it is that gay couples want/need, and B) work up a coherent strategy for getting there. What we're seeing is a whole bunch of liberals screaming for "action" and "gay rights", but when you get them into a room no 5 of them can agree on exactly what it is they want. That's certainly not the fault of the conservatives...




Again. That's not the point at all. We're asking that you maybe decide what it is you want and stick to it!. What we end up seeing is that when conservatives and liberals agree on a common ground, common sense, compromise, the next group of not so moderate liberals are printing up the next round of protest signs that it's not enough before the ink drys. How many times does this have to happen before we accept that the liberal "movement" never stops. There's no line that you can draw at which point they'll all be satisfied.

We trust the idea of civil unions just fine. What we don't trust is Liberals and the Democratic party accepting it as a solution. It's not *us* that's the problem here. It's the ever moving target of liberal political agendas that makes it kinda difficult to come up with a "fair" solution to anything.



Heh. At what point does it stop being a "slippery slope" and become "the obvious next step", Joph? Here we have someone saying outright: "Yup. Once civil unions are accepted as the moderate position, we're going to move on to gay marriage as the next step".

It's not a slippery slope fallacy when the guys on the other side tell you what they're going to do next if you let them do what they want now...



You asked when Republicans would promote the cause of civil unions. I provided you with one.

And you know what? There'd be a hell of a lot more like him in the Republican party if we didn't get burned literally every single time we "compromise" with the liberals. Ever think of that? If the Democrats would stop thinking of every compromise as one more step in a direction, maybe Republicans would be more willing to compromise. Seems kinda obvious really...

You don't understand the conservative viewpoint Joph.

Fixing something that already exists is not "change" in this context. Creating something different, or taking a social structure in a new direciton *is* change. Taking an institution that for pretty much the entire history of man has been defined a specific way and changing that definition is a pretty big change, wouldn't you say? Even adding a new social status is a good sized change as well.

SS already exists. Therefore keeping it working properly is maintaining status quo. Iraq is a foreign issue. We're looking more at domestic social structure when we talk about maintaining status quo. Conservatives believe that there are very few roles that the federal governmant should be actively involved in all the times. The military is one of them. We didn't have to create a military and the concept of government having power over one in order to invade Iraq. That's not "change" in this context. It's using something we already have.

Medicare is the same as SS. We're finding the best way to do something, not adding something "new" to the mix. The patriot act was not pushed just by Republicans, and is a far more complex issue covering a wide range of different areas. We could have a separate thread just on that act alone, why each change was made, who pushed for that wording of that part, etc...

When conservatives talk about change versus status quo, we aren't saying that conservatives don't ever pass legistlation. That's silly. But those that we pass are designed to keep domestic structures as similar as possible and as simple as possible. Conservatives will generally try to fix problems by using existing structures whenever possible, not adding whole new ones for everything that comes along. It's a much deeper concept then just "don't pass any laws cause you'll change things!".



Hold on there though. You're talking about the "slippery slope" the logical fallacy. But that really only applies when your arguing about whether something is logical or not. There's a difference between "will this work" and "should we do this". Most conservatives will look at civil unions and agree that that is the correct solution to the problem. However, most conservative politicians will not vote for a civil union solution, not because it wont work, but because they know that if they do, then the next bill on the ballot will take it one step further to gay marriage.

It's quite possible to agree with civil unions but still vote against them for political reasons. And the slippery slope is a quite valid reason for doing that. We're not ignoring logic. We're not disagreeing that civil unions are a great idea. But the political reality is that civil unions are not the end point that Liberals want, so giving it to them at this time would be a political mistake.

That's what those Republicans are talking about. They aren't arguing that the logic of civil unions is wrong because of the slipperly slope. They're simply arguing that the reality is that the slipperly slope *will* happen, and so they're going to be concerned about passing a civil union bill.

The solution (as I've said all along) is for liberals to decide what they really want and stick to it. If you want civil unions, agree to civil unions and agree to *not* use that as a stepping stone to gay marriage. Until the liberals agree to that, the conservatives are going to be really hesitant to support civil unions, regardless of their own feelings on that as a solution.


It's not about logic Joph. It's about politics. And in politics, a slippery slope is definately a valid argument...

Um. Actually it's not. It's only a Slipperly Slope fallacy if the conclusion "downstream" can be shown not to be a consequence of the decision being analysed at the moment.

According to this site the correct way to debunk a slipperly slope argument is to identify the proposition being refuted, and the final event in the series of events, and show that the proposition need not result in that final event.


Proposition: Establish a civil union status

Final event (see the quote from the Bishop guy above): Will be used as argument to establish gay marriage


Can you show that the proposition wont lead to the final event in the sequence? Not at all. In fact, the quote from Rouse shows that this is *exactly* what will happen. It's not a refutable consequence. The other side has already stated the intention to use the establishment of civil unions as a stepping stone towards gay marriage.

I win. Thanks for playing though.

Nope. You're missing a key point. You're placing the wrong final event as a result of the proposition occuring. The stated argument isn't that passage of a civil union bill will automatically lead to passage of a gay marriage bill (or similar), but that it'll be "used as a stepping stone towards" a gay marriage bill.

This is the correct logical statement:

Proposition: Passage of a civil union bill

Final Event: Civil union bill used as a political stepping stone towards same-sex marriage.

Given the quote by Marty Rouse, is it really unreasonable to make that statement? Read the quote by the Bishop again:



See that? He's not saying it's guaranteed to cause same-sex marriage, but that it'll be used as a stepping stone towards same-sex marriage.

Again. Can you tell me honestly that he's wrong? It's not a slippery slope fallacy. If we didn't have the quote from Marty Rouse, we could maybe pass doubt on whether it *might* be a slipperly slope, but since we have a member of a prominent gay rights group saying publically that he intends to use passage of a civil union bill as a stepping stone toward gay marriage, then there's absolutely no doubt that the final event *is* a rational and likely consequence from the proposition, so therefore it is quite logical to address that final event when discussing the proposition.



Well this is different from determining whether it's a slipperly slope fallacy since we're including a much broader set of facts into the equation, but I'll bite.

I'd counter that "people" are not asking for gay marriage. A relatively small number of activists are demanding it. How many times have we argued this exact point on this forum? Every single time when I say that gay couples don't need marriage, we end up with a ton of people listing off reasons why gay couples need marriage. In every case, the list is exclusive to benefits that a civil union would cover perfectly. And every time, I point this ask and ask why, if a civil union will cover everything that gay people are asking for and actually want, is it that the activist groups go after marriage instead?

Gay couples want specific legal rights. They want to have automatic joint power of attorney. They want autmatic joint guardianship. They want hospitals and insurance companies to recognize them as "spouse" and/or "next of kin". Every single one of those is granted via a civil union contract. Every one. That's what "people want". The activists have simply decided among themselves that gay marriage is the method to get those things. What most people actually want is civil unions.

The problem (and the fear of Conservatives) is that if we give them that, the activists will continue to push their agenda anyway. And so far, we have no reason to blieve differntly. When you have folks like Marty Rouse stating so clearly that nothing short of gay marriage will satisfy him, it kinda doesn't give much encouragement for a reasonable compromise, does it?




Except that the assumption to a slippery slope argument is that the arguer in this case would then turn to the audience and say something like: "And none of us want to live in a communist state, right?". He's making the logical equivalent of saying that passing this law *will* result in us all living in a communist state. Something that clearly cannot be supported with any logic present.

That's quite a stretch from someone saying: "We shouldn't pass a civil union bill because if we do, the Liberals will simply use it as a stepping stone towards a same-sex marriage bill".

In the second case, he's not saying that there will be gay marriage, only that the passage of a civil union bill will be used to try to get gay marriage. It's a difference between absolutes and degrees. If the first example had been presented as varrying possiblities rather then absolutes, it would not be a slipperly slope argument either. If I said that passing a ban on assault weapons was wrong because it *might* lead to bans on all weapons, and that might lead to us living in a communist state, you're free to argue the improbability of that conclusion, but you can't call it a slippery slope.



Ask yourself why you added the bolded phrase, and you might just understand why one statement is a slippery slope and the other is not...

Thanks for clearing that up gbaji.

I'm glad the Right is willingly withholding civil rights from citizens to prevent possible political footholds for the Left.

Yeah, it's not like a Republican ever, y'know, emancipated all the slaves or anything.

I dont see the difference between civil unions and marriage as according to dictionary.com they are the same thing. Parties in a civil union have the same rights and protections as married couples. What's the difference aside from the name?

According to Pew Research, 41% of Republicans (vs. 59% Dems and 61% Independants) favor civil unions. 31% of those calling themselves Conservative favor civil unions (vs. 60% moderates and 80% Liberals). That's far less than half of the Right supporting the issue. I hestitate to say that the opposite number opposes since the poll doesn't list the "no opinion" percentage but it's safe to say that there's no groundswell of support for civil unions coming from the Right. The rate at which support has gained momentum among Republicans is 3%, same as for Democrats but support among social Conservatives has declined 4% in the past year.

I'm sure you'll try to spin that into "but it's because the Deeemmmooccrraaatttsss will use it as a stteeeepppinngg stoonnneee!!!!" but the numbers are what they are regardless. If you can find numbers supporting your "we'd all do it if only no one asked for gay marriage!" theory, feel free to share because, God knows, your word on it ain't worth much.

I know, I know... the Republicans can never be on the wrong side of an issue and it's never because of moral or religious considerations. The real reason Republicans oppose abortion is economic considerations, the real reason they oppose embryotic stem-cell research is to cut pork spending and the real reason they are opposed to gay marriage is because some guy said it'd be a stepping stone. Of course.

Honestly, I imagine that the public would just refer to a couple people legally joined via civil union status as married. If only because there's no real smooth way of saying "Oh, Jane and Dawn are civilly unionized" or whatever. I suppose someone could go to Vermont and poll the public about what they call couples in a civil union, but I'm busy this afternoon.

Edited, Sat Oct 15 12:32:36 2005 by Jophiel

You assume there'd be a seperate box for "civil union" instead of one saying "Married/Civily Joined" or whatnot. If the two are identical in a legal sense, there's no point in seperating the two on legal forms. Again, is there any sign from places with civil unions that the status is making them ineligible for marital benefits?

Personally, I'm in favor of gay marriage. I find it funny that there's people who claim to be for small government and who would rather establish an entire seperate but equal legal status rather than append the existing one just to "preserve the sanctity of marriage". But I don't find civil unions to be the slap in the face you're claiming and, provided the benefits are identical to those of "traditional" marriage, comparisons to Jim Crow laws and racism don't really apply. Civil rights laws didn't make racists stop hating blacks and gay marriage won't make homophobes stop hating gays. The question is one of equal legal protection.

I've heard many heterosexual people however say that we should just do away with marriage as a government sponsored institution and deal solely with civil unions and leave "marriage" in the hands of holy men.

Apparently they don't feel they'd be missing out on anything. Would I rather be "civilly joined" to my partner than married? Not really. Why? Because there's no difference to make me prefer civil unions. Which doesn't mean civil unions are a blighted wasteland of human rights, it just means that there's no pressing reason for me to demand a civil union in lieu of a marriage. On the other hand, if we decided tomorrow to remove marriage from the governmental baliwick and the piece of paper you got from the county courthouse said "Certificate of Civil Union" on it, I wouldn't start weeping and rending my garments. So long as legal aspects were the same, they could call it a Certificate of Government Acknowledged Co-Habitation for all I care.

I'm constantly fascinated by how left out of our laws the GLBT community really is. Most of the civil protections that we take for granted are not accorded to them. As Ambryra alluded, the Fair Housing Act does not protect against discrimination due to sexual orientation.

Be that as it may, even if they were legally married, they'd still be gay and the apartment manager could still discriminate against them as the law allows. Barring gender-ambigous names, he'll probably catch on when the lease reads "Married: Robert Smith and spouse Jason Smith".

Ok now i'm against shoving the bible down people's throats but don't make a generalization about all christians.