Quantcast
Romney or Obama and why

Forums - Politics Discussion - Romney or Obama and why

Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
 

It's a derivative of the slippery slope fallacy. You take one element of the opposition argument and stretch it out to ridiculous extremes in an attempt to invalidate it. For the purposes of the gay marriage debate, the differences between a monogamous gay relationship and other non-conventional forms of love are significant enough to merit their exclusion from the terms of debate, and introducing them is an example of the slippery slope fallacy.

what makes polygamy any more ridiculous than gay marriage. its not slippery slope, when the same principle applies. its no slope it is extension.

you cannot logically  be for gay marriage, while simultaniously being against the other forms of marriage that i mentioned.

you have yet to pose any argument on why gay marriage should be legal while others not. nor have you explained why you are for gay marriage, claim that those who arent are bigots and or behind the times, while also being against other forms of marriage, and not considering yourself a bigot.

if its wrong, discrimintation, and bigotry to be against gay marriage, then it must also be so for people against other forms of marriage.

The claim is that they are not the same. Being related to someone provides the legal framework that marriage in turn provides making the legal framework unnecessary, and thus is not needed. The issues surrounding polygamy are distinct from the issues surrounding gay marriage, polygamy being an artifact of an older era and historically exploitative towards one gender.

With marriage we have an institution which is a legal framework that provides individuals with certain benefits. What we must debate on the matter of gay marriage then is that certain couples are being denied the ability to enter into this contract, who otherwise need to do so.

@killerzX

As I stated above, "Polygamy is not okay because it creates inherently unequal partnerships. For example, situations where multiple women have to share one man." That argument DOES NOT apply to same-sex marriage. Therefore, same-sex marriage and polygamy are logically and ethically different. I can support same-sex marriage without also supporting polygamy.

Here's an affirmative statement of my position: In my view, two people should be allowed to marry as long as (1) they are both consenting adults, (2) their marriage would create an equal partnership, and (3) their marriage would not put their children at substantial risk for a negative outcome that is not shared by the parents.

Same-sex marriage would pass this test. Polygamy would fail, due to criterion (2), and same-family marriage would fail due to criterion (3).



Around the Network
bluesinG said:
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
 

It's a derivative of the slippery slope fallacy. You take one element of the opposition argument and stretch it out to ridiculous extremes in an attempt to invalidate it. For the purposes of the gay marriage debate, the differences between a monogamous gay relationship and other non-conventional forms of love are significant enough to merit their exclusion from the terms of debate, and introducing them is an example of the slippery slope fallacy.

what makes polygamy any more ridiculous than gay marriage. its not slippery slope, when the same principle applies. its no slope it is extension.

you cannot logically  be for gay marriage, while simultaniously being against the other forms of marriage that i mentioned.

you have yet to pose any argument on why gay marriage should be legal while others not. nor have you explained why you are for gay marriage, claim that those who arent are bigots and or behind the times, while also being against other forms of marriage, and not considering yourself a bigot.

if its wrong, discrimintation, and bigotry to be against gay marriage, then it must also be so for people against other forms of marriage.

The claim is that they are not the same. Being related to someone provides the legal framework that marriage in turn provides making the legal framework unnecessary, and thus is not needed. The issues surrounding polygamy are distinct from the issues surrounding gay marriage, polygamy being an artifact of an older era and historically exploitative towards one gender.

With marriage we have an institution which is a legal framework that provides individuals with certain benefits. What we must debate on the matter of gay marriage then is that certain couples are being denied the ability to enter into this contract, who otherwise need to do so.

@killerzX

As I stated above, "Polygamy is not okay because it creates inherently unequal partnerships. For example, situations where multiple women have to share one man."


What if everyone in the relationship is Bisexual.

Or it's two guys and two women all marrying each other.

Devil's advocate here.



HappySqurriel said:
Rath said:


You're demonstrating correlation, not causation. The fact is people in poverty, involved in crime and generally on the wrong end of social demographics are more likely to be single parents. It's not the fact that they're single parents that are causing the kids to turn out bad, it's all the other factors that are causing them to become single parents


Even when you control for the socioeconomic status prior to having children, children of single mothers tend to be poorer and worse off based on most metrics. The reason for this is not controversial, it takes a lot of time and money to raise healthy well-adjusted children and single parents are at a huge disadvantage on both counts compared to a married couple. This doesn't mean that the children are doomed to failure, but it does mean that they're at a significant disadvantage.

Did your initial post with the nine times more likely to be involved in crime and six times more likely to be obese take into account these factors?



Kasz216 said:
bluesinG said:
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:

what makes polygamy any more ridiculous than gay marriage. its not slippery slope, when the same principle applies. its no slope it is extension.

you cannot logically  be for gay marriage, while simultaniously being against the other forms of marriage that i mentioned.

you have yet to pose any argument on why gay marriage should be legal while others not. nor have you explained why you are for gay marriage, claim that those who arent are bigots and or behind the times, while also being against other forms of marriage, and not considering yourself a bigot.

if its wrong, discrimintation, and bigotry to be against gay marriage, then it must also be so for people against other forms of marriage.

The claim is that they are not the same. Being related to someone provides the legal framework that marriage in turn provides making the legal framework unnecessary, and thus is not needed. The issues surrounding polygamy are distinct from the issues surrounding gay marriage, polygamy being an artifact of an older era and historically exploitative towards one gender.

With marriage we have an institution which is a legal framework that provides individuals with certain benefits. What we must debate on the matter of gay marriage then is that certain couples are being denied the ability to enter into this contract, who otherwise need to do so.

@killerzX

As I stated above, "Polygamy is not okay because it creates inherently unequal partnerships. For example, situations where multiple women have to share one man."


What if everyone in the relationship is Bisexual.

Or it's two guys and two women all marrying each other.

Devil's advocate here.

Heh. Those are interesting scenarios in the abstract, but what are the chances that everyone in the group would be equally in love with and committed to everyone else? I'd estimate a 0% chance.

Are you arguing that they should be allowed to marry?



HappySqurriel said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
NolSinkler said:
Romney, because at least he isn't for same-sex 'marriage'.


Feel free to check out my signature whenever you've got some time to spare.


Not that I care much anymore (gay marriage has been legal in Canada for several years now) but your signature, and most pro-gay marriage stances, fails to address the underlying question of "What is marriage?"

We live in a society where the institution of marriage has been under assault for over 60 years, and today it has been so watered down that the average person's definition would be something along the lines of "What happens after a wedding". There is far more to it than that, and one of the reasons the divorce rate is already so high is most people have forgotten what a marriage is supposed to be; and simply want a wedding with their partner because they lust for them. I don't fear a "slippery slope" argument with gay marriage, but I have never seen anyone explain how two people of the same sex can be married ... Being in love is not enough, having a ceremony is not enough, having a stable monogamous partnership which lasts a lifetime for the purpose of raising children is required.

This isn't about "good vs. evil" or about "tolerance" this is purely about definitions ... Just because you want to call your cat a dog doesn't make it a dog

Well, I guess we disagree about the definition of marriage. Or at least part of it. Committing to a stable, monogomous partnership is enough for me. Children are certainly not required (and I say that as the happily married father of one child, and hopefully more in the future).

Also, two follow-up questions: First, should opposite-sex couples be allowed to marry if they do not intend to have children? Second, internationally, there are far more children in need of adoptive parents than there are opposite-sex couples looking to adopt; do you think that these "extra" children would be better off raised by married same-sex couples or in group homes?



Around the Network
killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
 

It's a derivative of the slippery slope fallacy. You take one element of the opposition argument and stretch it out to ridiculous extremes in an attempt to invalidate it. For the purposes of the gay marriage debate, the differences between a monogamous gay relationship and other non-conventional forms of love are significant enough to merit their exclusion from the terms of debate, and introducing them is an example of the slippery slope fallacy.

what makes polygamy any more ridiculous than gay marriage. its not slippery slope, when the same principle applies. its no slope it is extension.

you cannot logically  be for gay marriage, while simultaniously being against the other forms of marriage that i mentioned.

you have yet to pose any argument on why gay marriage should be legal while others not. nor have you explained why you are for gay marriage, claim that those who arent are bigots and or behind the times, while also being against other forms of marriage, and not considering yourself a bigot.

if its wrong, discrimintation, and bigotry to be against gay marriage, then it must also be so for people against other forms of marriage.

The claim is that they are not the same. Being related to someone provides the legal framework that marriage in turn provides making the legal framework unnecessary, and thus is not needed. The issues surrounding polygamy are distinct from the issues surrounding gay marriage, polygamy being an artifact of an older era and historically exploitative towards one gender.

With marriage we have an institution which is a legal framework that provides individuals with certain benefits. What we must debate on the matter of gay marriage then is that certain couples are being denied the ability to enter into this contract, who otherwise need to do so.

well if its legal frame work that is the point, then marriage is not necassary. you can have the same benefits without gay marriage, so thats a moot point.

you cant ban something because historically it was exploitative to someone. the act it self is not exploitative, what peoples individuals action are, are of no significance. if it were then i could say, marriage should be banned completely because historically men have beat their wives.

why are you discriminating against groups that simply want to profess their love for each other, and have the legal benefits of marriage, and want to have it for principle, yet support it for a group that claim the same thing.

its quite hypocritical, and countradictory.

like i said, you cant come up with any reason for why you are against marriage equality other than its not necassary, and its bad. sounds a lot like the arguments against gay marriage, the arguments you laugh at.

Then we should put an end to statutory rape laws. Just because minor-adult sexual relations have been exploitative historically doesn't mean they should be now, right?

My. It's fun to use your tactics.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Obama. Hands down. Romney would be almost the same damn thing as Bush, and there is no way I want that back. Bush was one of the worst things to happen to this nation. Obama 2012.



Ask stefl1504 for a sig, even if you don't need one.

bluesinG said:
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
 

It's a derivative of the slippery slope fallacy. You take one element of the opposition argument and stretch it out to ridiculous extremes in an attempt to invalidate it. For the purposes of the gay marriage debate, the differences between a monogamous gay relationship and other non-conventional forms of love are significant enough to merit their exclusion from the terms of debate, and introducing them is an example of the slippery slope fallacy.

what makes polygamy any more ridiculous than gay marriage. its not slippery slope, when the same principle applies. its no slope it is extension.

you cannot logically  be for gay marriage, while simultaniously being against the other forms of marriage that i mentioned.

you have yet to pose any argument on why gay marriage should be legal while others not. nor have you explained why you are for gay marriage, claim that those who arent are bigots and or behind the times, while also being against other forms of marriage, and not considering yourself a bigot.

if its wrong, discrimintation, and bigotry to be against gay marriage, then it must also be so for people against other forms of marriage.

The claim is that they are not the same. Being related to someone provides the legal framework that marriage in turn provides making the legal framework unnecessary, and thus is not needed. The issues surrounding polygamy are distinct from the issues surrounding gay marriage, polygamy being an artifact of an older era and historically exploitative towards one gender.

With marriage we have an institution which is a legal framework that provides individuals with certain benefits. What we must debate on the matter of gay marriage then is that certain couples are being denied the ability to enter into this contract, who otherwise need to do so.

@killerzX

As I stated above, "Polygamy is not okay because it creates inherently unequal partnerships. For example, situations where multiple women have to share one man." That argument DOES NOT apply to same-sex marriage. Therefore, same-sex marriage and polygamy are logically and ethically different. I can support same-sex marriage without also supporting polygamy.

Here's an affirmative statement of my position: In my view, two people should be allowed to marry as long as (1) they are both consenting adults, (2) their marriage would create an equal partnership, and (3) their marriage would not put their children at substantial risk for a negative outcome that is not shared by the parents.

Same-sex marriage would pass this test. Polygamy would fail, due to criterion (2), and same-family marriage would fail due to criterion (3).

you are assuming its unequal. without any proof. you cant just assume, some one will love one more than another. if that were the case, all marriage should be banned, including gay.

and as kaz said, it could easily be 5 girls, 5 guys.

and for your last point a guess people with with heart disease shouldnt marry, fat people shouldnt marry, people with aids, smokers, shouldnt marry, etc. all those should be banned, right?



Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
 

It's a derivative of the slippery slope fallacy. You take one element of the opposition argument and stretch it out to ridiculous extremes in an attempt to invalidate it. For the purposes of the gay marriage debate, the differences between a monogamous gay relationship and other non-conventional forms of love are significant enough to merit their exclusion from the terms of debate, and introducing them is an example of the slippery slope fallacy.

what makes polygamy any more ridiculous than gay marriage. its not slippery slope, when the same principle applies. its no slope it is extension.

you cannot logically  be for gay marriage, while simultaniously being against the other forms of marriage that i mentioned.

you have yet to pose any argument on why gay marriage should be legal while others not. nor have you explained why you are for gay marriage, claim that those who arent are bigots and or behind the times, while also being against other forms of marriage, and not considering yourself a bigot.

if its wrong, discrimintation, and bigotry to be against gay marriage, then it must also be so for people against other forms of marriage.

The claim is that they are not the same. Being related to someone provides the legal framework that marriage in turn provides making the legal framework unnecessary, and thus is not needed. The issues surrounding polygamy are distinct from the issues surrounding gay marriage, polygamy being an artifact of an older era and historically exploitative towards one gender.

With marriage we have an institution which is a legal framework that provides individuals with certain benefits. What we must debate on the matter of gay marriage then is that certain couples are being denied the ability to enter into this contract, who otherwise need to do so.

well if its legal frame work that is the point, then marriage is not necassary. you can have the same benefits without gay marriage, so thats a moot point.

you cant ban something because historically it was exploitative to someone. the act it self is not exploitative, what peoples individuals action are, are of no significance. if it were then i could say, marriage should be banned completely because historically men have beat their wives.

why are you discriminating against groups that simply want to profess their love for each other, and have the legal benefits of marriage, and want to have it for principle, yet support it for a group that claim the same thing.

its quite hypocritical, and countradictory.

like i said, you cant come up with any reason for why you are against marriage equality other than its not necassary, and its bad. sounds a lot like the arguments against gay marriage, the arguments you laugh at.

Then we should put an end to statutory rape laws. Just because minor-adult sexual relations have been exploitative historically doesn't mean they should be now, right?

My. It's fun to use your tactics.


using your logic, yes. using your logic all mariage should be banned because husbands have beat their wives.



bluesinG said:
Kasz216 said:
bluesinG said:
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:

what makes polygamy any more ridiculous than gay marriage. its not slippery slope, when the same principle applies. its no slope it is extension.

you cannot logically  be for gay marriage, while simultaniously being against the other forms of marriage that i mentioned.

you have yet to pose any argument on why gay marriage should be legal while others not. nor have you explained why you are for gay marriage, claim that those who arent are bigots and or behind the times, while also being against other forms of marriage, and not considering yourself a bigot.

if its wrong, discrimintation, and bigotry to be against gay marriage, then it must also be so for people against other forms of marriage.

The claim is that they are not the same. Being related to someone provides the legal framework that marriage in turn provides making the legal framework unnecessary, and thus is not needed. The issues surrounding polygamy are distinct from the issues surrounding gay marriage, polygamy being an artifact of an older era and historically exploitative towards one gender.

With marriage we have an institution which is a legal framework that provides individuals with certain benefits. What we must debate on the matter of gay marriage then is that certain couples are being denied the ability to enter into this contract, who otherwise need to do so.

@killerzX

As I stated above, "Polygamy is not okay because it creates inherently unequal partnerships. For example, situations where multiple women have to share one man."


What if everyone in the relationship is Bisexual.

Or it's two guys and two women all marrying each other.

Devil's advocate here.

Heh. Those are interesting scenarios in the abstract, but what are the chances that everyone in the group would be equally in love with and committed to everyone else? I'd estimate a 0% chance.

Are you arguing that they should be allowed to marry?

well then should we pass a law stating polygamy is legal as long as their marriage consists of equal amount of men and women.

really what you are doing now is trying to legislate love, and how much one has for another