LBGT TerrorismFollow

Not exactly only his position, but I'm also curious at what point they believe we should have stopped trying to fix anything. Woman's suffrage? Child labor? Slavery? How about that whole revolution thing? That didn't fix everything all at once either. It's pretty Amish if you think about it.

"We solemnly believe that although humans have been around for a million years, you feel strongly that they had just the right amount of technology between 1835 and 1850 - not too little, not too much."

I get what you're saying, it's just that what you're saying is in error.

For his own safety or something?

No, but you could utilize the ignore function.

It's not me fearing Group B though. And despite the handful of posters saying that they don't have a problem with siblings marrying, or with polygamy, the reality is that most people today don't believe state recognized marriage should include those relationships. If that wasn't the case, then no one would spend so much time insisting that expanding marriage to include gay couples wont lead to those things.

What's childish and illogical is insisting that it's a slippery slope fallacy when someone says "If we expand the marriage status to include gay couples, it'll open the door for incestuous marriage and polygamy" rather than honestly owning that fact and arguing that we should expand that status because those other types of marriage should be recognized too. If you can't give a reason why one should be allowed, but not the others, then arguing for one *is* arguing for the others. But for some reason, those making that argument insist on being dishonest about it.



Then stop pretending that opening up the requirements for marriage in this case doesn't increase the odds of that future case as well. I'm just pointing out the inherent inconsistency (and dishonesty) of both insisting that those other things wont happen when they are brought up, but then failing to provide a reason why, then, when pressed just saying "It doesn't matter if it happens in the future anyway".

Why not start with that? You know the answer. Because if you started with admitting that one will lead to the other then you wont get what you want today. The process only works if you convince people that doing A wont lead to B, then once A is done, you can argue for B at your leisure. And you can even argue that B wont lead to C and hope that people are stupid enough to buy that line again. I'm just pointing out the inherent flaws in the argument being made. One *will* lead to the other. So we really should consider the change being made, what precedent it will set, and ask whether the result down the line is what we want before making the change right in front of us.

No, it's just you trying to scare people away from one thing by using an unrelated thing as a scary boogeyman.


All your boogeymen will be just as illegal the day after SSM is legalized as they are today. Arguments for their legalization will stand or fall on their own merits.


All your boogeymen will be just as illegal the day after SSM is legalized as they are today. Arguments for their legalization will stand or fall on their own merits.


Advocates for incestual polygamy or whatever other scary boogeyman pairings you dream up can argue for them right this very moment. You know what will really lead to Man-Goat marriage? Enough people advocating for Man-Goat marriage to convince enough other people outside the Man-Goat marriage sphere that, yeah, Man-Goat marriage is something that should be allowed and those people petitioning and electing Congresscritters* who'll have Man-Goat marriage as part of their platform and take the Man-Goat marriage message to Washington where sufficient numbers of other Man-Goat marriage advocating Congresscritters will join them in casting votes to legalize Man-Goat marriage.

You'll notice that not a single step in that process involves "First make sure the gays can marry!" Again, you're just using these things as a boogeyman to scare people away from SSM because -- hey! It's a good bet they don't like incest so let's link SSM to that and that's easier than having a real argument against SSM!

* Or state legislators to their respective state houses depending on scope

Edited, Aug 28th 2012 5:54pm by Jophiel

What error might that be?

So what? I didn't make up terrorists but if I start telling people that allowing a religious bookstore will lead to Islamic terrorist cells in the strip mall, it's sure as hell me trying to scare people with crap.


All your boogeymen will be just as illegal the day after SSM is legalized as they are today. Arguments for their legalization will stand or fall on their own merits.


Congratulations on proving how little you understand the arguments about SSM.


It doesn't need to be any stronger since it already demolishes your arguments.

Edited, Aug 28th 2012 6:59pm by Jophiel

Please gbaji, I don't think you have ever once (at least not in the few years I've been lurking here) made an apt analogy. For the love of god, please stop trying.

That's okay, raving about incest is a pretty crappy argument against SSM.




Go ahead and cry now that I just laughed at you and how it must mean I have no response. I'm sure everyone here will say "Wow! Joph must have never debated THAT point before!"

Huh? That's not why I hold the position I hold. Don't mistake me pointing out that the removal of the restrictions denying gay couples marriage will also allow other forms of marriage as my own argument on the issue. I'm just pointing out that those who do use that as an argument do have a valid point. It's not a slippery slope fallacy as many claim.


I oppose extending our marriage statuses to include gay couples because I believe that the status exists for a reason. That reason being to encourage heterosexual couples to marry, so that if they have children together they'll do so while bound to a state defined and enforced marriage contract. It's worth the state doing this because the socio-economic advantages to a society with as low a rate of children born to unwed mothers as possible is greater than the cost. But it only makes sense to apply this to couples who might procreate outside of such a marriage contract if it did not exist. If every couple capable of procreation always got married prior to procreating, there would be no need for the state to involve itself in marriage at all.

Similarly, since same sex couples as a group cannot procreate, there is no need for the state to involve itself in their relationships. They're free to marry in the traditional sense, but there is no reason at all to apply the state marriage status to them.


I don't hold this position because I hate gays, or want to infringe their rights. My reasoning in this case is no different than the reason why I might oppose giving every driver a handicapped placard, or everyone a foodstamp card, or giving everyone a free pony. I also don't have a problem with denying a blind person a drivers license, or denying non-blind people seeing eye dogs. Each status our government creates, and the effects they have, must have a specific purpose for existing. And the application of those things should be consistent with that purpose. Just arguing that it would be nice to have a puppy isn't a good reason for the government to hand them out. But that's more or less exactly the argument *for* SSM. That blind guy got a free puppy, so I should get one too! Sorry. I don't buy that argument.

You don't hold a side. If this were a board dominated by conservatives, you'd be spending all your time pointing out the flaws in their arguments instead.