Supreme Court Gay Rights Rulings: A Slippery Downhill Slope Toward What's Next?

No. I mean a relationship between two people of the same sex, and a relationship between two people of the opposite sex. By definition they are different, and therefore not equal.

You said the answer was obvious and didn't warrant explanation. Clearly that's not true. It very much needed to be explained afterall.

"By this definition and therefore" might be sound logic to you but my critical mind beckons more. Even if that means shaking the foundation.

This discussion definitely needed a little lightening of tone, so thanks for that.

Welcome :p

I was being fairly serious though. Extending this to all these hypothetical(s?) has no basis in our current reality. It's just not justified thinking. It's unfounded imagination. People keep bringing up historical examples that should be making an impact. Why are they not? These same type of slippery slope arguments have been regurgitated over and over towards other minorities groups. Never pans out in favor of the ones positing these wild concerns. If we let blacks vote then what will stop robots from taking over the world. That's the same level of silliness as LGBT equality leading to people making centaur babies with their equus lovers.

reply to post by kaylaluv

Again, consenting adults. That's what stops the next group from claiming the same right to be included. Same as it's always been in our culture. And that hasn't changed with same-sex marriage.

I am happy to note that you are perfectly convinced the buck stops here. It seems to me, however, that the new perception of marriage is that it is simply a social construction we can redefine as we please. For this reason, I will remain skeptical.

It seems to me, however, that the new perception of marriage is that it is simply a social construction we can redefine as we please.

I would argue having the perception it's NOT a social construction that can be redefined is improper perception. It was constructed socially. It can and will be further altered....socially. The only reason to deny this is if you firmly believe it's construction was 'other worldly'. Religion. That's a divide I cannot fill. It's all human social construction in my eyes. When that's the understanding it's merely about progress towards compassion and not some ultimate violation of definitions.

reply to post by kaylaluv

I wish that people who use the "slippery slope" argument would admit that this is just a façade for something else. The real problem with these people, is that they personally find homosexuals "icky", and it really bothers them to have to share something that they have previously been able to covet as their own - that "something" being a marriage license. This "legitimizes" homosexuality in a way that really bothers these people.

Fortunately, these people are becoming a minority -- as recent polls suggest that the majority of the American population is accepting of same-sex marriage. The fact that same-sex marriage has been legal in some countries for many years now, with no ill-effects should be proof enough that the slippery slope is not a logical argument.

Seriously, OP. Don't be afraid. It's going to be alright.

This entire comment is completely unfounded, and brings absolutely nothing useful to the table. I don't find homosexuals "icky", I really couldn't care less about my marriage license, and truth be told, I am not afraid. More so, I am a bit amused that this kind of ad hominem rhetoric is what discussions such as these ultimately lead to.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


The definition of marriage has not been in flux in the way people suggest. In fact, marriage itself
has not been redefined at all. Because there have been variations on the theme does not mean
there has been no theme. From the dawn of civilization marriage has always been between men
and women.

There have been changes. Historically some have been denied marriage (e.g., the young, the
genetically aberrant, and interracial couples). Others were allowed to marry more than once,
either consecutively (divorce and remarriage), or concurrently (polygamy). Spousal rights have
altered and traditions have evolved. But marriage has still been marriage. And spouses have
always been male and female.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

I would argue having the perception it's NOT a social construction that can be redefined is improper perception. It was constructed socially. It can and will be further altered....socially. The only reason to deny this is if you firmly believe it's construction was 'other worldly'. Religion. That's a divide I cannot fill. It's all human social construction in my eyes. When that's the understanding it's merely about progress towards compassion and not some ultimate violation of definitions.

Either marriage and family have a fixed, natural purpose (a natural "teleology") or they do not. If not, marriage as you have suggested, is some kind of social construction, an invention of culture like knickers or bow ties, fashions that change with the times. Marriages defined by convention can be anything culture defines them to be. No particular detail is essential.

I think it can be strongly argued, however, that marriage is not defined by cultures, but rather described by them. The truth is, it is not culture that constructs marriages or the families that marriages begin. Rather, it is the other way around: Marriage and family construct culture. As the building blocks of civilization, families are logically prior to society as the parts are prior to the whole. Bricks aren’t the result of the building because the building is made up of bricks. You must have the first before you can get the second.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews


What precedent? Other countries have already set this precedent and they're not having their pedos, necros, and dendros running wild marrying their philia of choice. We're late to this party and other girls are wearing our dress.

I have been reading all these great arguments and not sure who is right. But as a conspiracy theorist I cannot help thinking that TPTB are up to no good with this. I think that gays should think very carefully about what they are letting themselves into and it is strange that I have never heard an opinion from any gays and lesbians that do not want marriage legalised. I believe that g&l will rue the day that their marriages were legalised (hetero as well) because there will be a sting in the tail. Governments ands courts never do anything just to be nice and reasonable and there is always a hidden reason for them changing or passing laws. Maybe thats just my paranoia (who said that)

This is a topic that will just bring any moralistic person frustration. There are too many immoral unnatural homosexuals running wild on here blindly attacking anyone who disagrees with their perverse lifestyles. Take my advise and don't even try and argue this with them. You guys will have far less headache.

reply to post by Christian Voice


If homosexuality is unnatural why do we see it in a number of different species? How can wanting equal rights be considered immoral?

Originally posted by Christian Voice
This is a topic that will just bring any moralistic person frustration. There are too many immoral unnatural homosexuals running wild on here blindly attacking anyone who disagrees with their perverse lifestyles. Take my advise and don't even try and argue this with them. You guys will have far less headache.

i am not immoral, i am not unnatural, and i am not perverse, and i have not attacked anyone

i'll defend your right to believe what you want

Originally posted by DonVoigt
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

When you brought the third person into the equation YOU stepped outside the paramaters of TWO GAY MEN OR TWO LESBIAN WOMEN, try again to make your argument where it only involves two gay men or two lesbian women and I will give your theory a chance.

So these werent your words?

,but as soon as I see two men of two women successfully blend their DNA I will grant them the title of being married, but until then the most I'll give them its the title of wedded bliss.

hmmmm....I see no qualification....

After consideration I do think the OP has a valid argument due to the logic of slippery slope. Lets say in the future we can communicate with animals and the legal consenting age is 12. Those of bestiality and pedophilia would have the same rights (laws) of those set by the legality of homosexual marriage. The norms of such would change from the phrase "two consenting adults" to fit norms that could potentially happen.

Some have the same feelings of homosexuality as they do pedophilia however most have accepted and embraced it. However it stands to reason that the rights of homosexuals are also of the same merit of rights of pedophiles .

With that said, you referenced 'progress' in the way of the law regarding pedophiles. I believe this is a step in the right direction regardless of the slope it may carry. Marriage will continue to change just as humans will continue to change I can only hope that we will continue to progress.

If marriage is between a 'Man and a Women' what is to stop a pedophile from marrying? not all pedophiles are gay, so the male pedophiles that would marry young girls would fall into a 'Male and Female' marriage, so how would allowing same sex marriage be logically a 'slippery slope' into allowing pedophiles?

Originally posted by Whatifitdidhappen
After consideration I do think the OP has a valid argument due to the logic of slippery slope. Lets say in the future we can communicate with animals and the legal consenting age is 12. Those of bestiality and pedophilia would have the same rights (laws) of those set by the legality of homosexual marriage. The norms of such would change from the phrase "two consenting adults" to fit norms that could potentially happen.

Some have the same feelings of homosexuality as they do pedophilia however most have accepted and embraced it. However it stands to reason that the rights of homosexuals are also of the same merit of rights of pedophiles .

With that said, you referenced 'progress' in the way of the law regarding pedophiles. I believe this is a step in the right direction regardless of the slope it may carry. Marriage will continue to change just as humans will continue to change I can only hope that we will continue to progress.

And this is the problem with slippery slope arguments. They are not grounded in logic or reality.

"What if in the future we can communicate with animals"....are you kidding? What if in the future pink sloths rule the world?

I mean really, if this is the best argument you've got...then you have none.

I just don't see what so many are concerned about.

If Betty and Doris have a Chevy and want to call it an Audi, it does not impact the value of your Audi.

!

I mean really, if this is the best argument you've got...then you have none.

Whats my argument?

Originally posted by Whatifitdidhappen

I mean really, if this is the best argument you've got...then you have none.

Whats my argument?

edit on 28-6-2013 by Whatifitdidhappen because: (no reason given)

As I already said, you dont have one. The idea that there is any merit to 'slippery slope' arguments such as this is ridiculous.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Whatifitdidhappen

I mean really, if this is the best argument you've got...then you have none.

Whats my argument?

edit on 28-6-2013 by Whatifitdidhappen because: (no reason given)

As I already said, you dont have one. The idea that there is any merit to 'slippery slope' arguments such as this is ridiculous.

edit on 28-6-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)

Look, all i'm saying is that there is a point here that should be acknowledged. No one knows the true implications of this unless they are from the future. Hence slippery slope...

Welcome to the future my friends.