September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  


« Is Consistency Important? (Video) | Main | Links Mentioned on the Show »

July 31, 2012



Someone will likely come along claim that the polygamy argument is not a fallacious causal slippery slope but a legitimate logical slippery slope.

They have a point but that's not the end of the story becuase as you've pointed out, there are reasons for us to worry about pedophilia, polygamy, beastiality, and incest that don't apply to homosexuality. So, while proponents of, say, polygamy, may try to use the same arguments that are used in favor of gay marriage, there are still objections to polygamy that don't apply to homosexuality.


I asked whether Gessen's children were 'legally protected' because (as the OP says) the state protects the union between a man and a woman.

Right. What sort of legal protection are children entitled to?

It's a rhetorical question, of course: clearly Gessen's children (not to mention Gessen herself) are hurt - not protected, legally or otherwise - by such a state policy.

Of course it's rhetorical, but rhetorical questions are rhetorical because they assume the answer. I’m asking why do you assume the answer? What legal protections are children entitled to as it relates to marriage?


I stated that the purpose of marriage is mutual comfort, encouragment, and support.

Where in the world is the evidence for this claim? Put simply, there is no evidence for this claim. Clifton, you have repeatedly referenced, romance, love, etc. and then you say those things aren't necessary or required for marriage. So why all the talk of them? You’re constantly mixing your message.

Again, if the purpose of marriage is as simple as your wrongheaded assertion above, so many relationships would qualify as to render it absurd.


The evidence for my claim stems from the lack of evidence that marriage is inextricably tied to children which I've presented over the last several days. If the state viewed marriage as tied to children in this way, it would be inexplicable why gay marriage has been legalized in several states. I've also presented evidence against that claim in the form of the legalization of interracial marriage.

The ease of divorce and the ability to enter and maintain marriage with no requirement of producing or caring for children serve as further evidence. There is also anecdotal evidence for my view; everywhere marriage and married couples are advertised, the appeal is the happiness of the couple, not the fact that they have or can have children.


What sort of legal protection are children entitled to?

I answered my rhetorical question. This one seems to be yours.

Clifton said:

    You're comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, polygamy, beastiality [sic], and incest?


I refuted your over-reaching (perhaps unqualified?) claim that (your words):

    Homosexuals are denied the right to marry someone they love romantically, and thus this is a form of discrimination based upon gender and sexual orientation.

by using counter-examples illustrating your claim does not apply to all circumstances of 'romantic love', suggesting other factors inform this issue.

Nothing more.



Son of Adam-

In context, it should be clear that I meant by my statement that two adult homosexuals, in love with one another, should be allowed to get married. Another implicit condition in my qualification is that homosexual couples are otherwise healthy, that is healthy apart from their inability to procreate. Incestuous couples and the like are not otherwise healthy.


Straight couples do not have the right to marry people they love romantically. That is not what the right of marriage is. The state has no interest in romance. Every person has the right to marry any one other person of the opposite sex for any reason whatsoever.

The state does have an interest in the next generation of citizens. That is why, though it does not test whether couples intend to have children, it at least requires that the union it supports by of the kind that could result in children.

If the reason for the marriage were critical to the right, then it would be impossible to enter into a marriage of convenience. It would be impossible for a couple to get married because they got pregnant. It would be impossible to marry someone for their money. It would be impossible to marry someone to please one's parents. Etc., etc. etc.

As for the anti-miscegenation argument. Of course, I have shown that men and women of every color were denied rights on the basis of surprises me not at all that you have been completely unable to grasp this.

At this point, I am no longer interested in continuing this discussion. If you would care to have the last word, I will read what you have to say.


My point is not that the state must allow marriage on the basis of romantic love, but that the state is denying gay couples the right to marry whom they love, and this is discrimination based on sexual orientation, a subject which the state *is* interested in.

Your second paragraph appears to be little more than an assertion of the premise that led to our debate. The third seems based upon a misunderstanding of my point about romantic love.

I am aware that men and women of every color were denied rights on the basis of color. I understand that this was unjust and needed to be amended. I don't understand how the anti-miscegenation argument doesn't prove that prohibting discrimination is more important to the state than what you claim to be the purpose of marriage, and why protecting gay couples from discrimination based on sexual orientation would not also be in the state's interest.

Ultimately, I think we spoke past eachother, and we likely did so due to hidden premises largely grounded in emotional and spiritual views. Still, I hope some progress was made.

Thank you for your time.

Same sex marriage won't be enough, indeed. The demand goes way beyond Masha's call to eliminate marriage.

It won't be "enough" until all morality that civil societies have lived by for millenia is eradicated and universally declared "intolerant", "narrow-minded", and "bigoted." Then after society crumbles under rampant amorality and anarchy, moral codes will again gain relevance to bring us up out of the nightmare and ashes of truthlessness.

If you are not married, suppose for a moment that you are.

Now suppose that you wake up tomorrow to learn that your spouse has spontaneously changed genders overnight.

How do you respond?


Most interesting flourish of opinions even if I came late to the dance.

What can I add? Me thinks only several simple questions.

Lots of talk ABOUT " rights". Rights granted, rights denied.

Lots of talk about " discrimination".

(Please excuse my tablets keyboard. It believes it has the right to input whatever it wants at times regardless of what key I actually hit. I want to throw it out the window but that would be discrimination.)

Where did these so-called rights come from? I have a right to many things sitting here in the USA. Right to drive a car (With certain conditions), right to walk down the street (Again with certain conditions), right to start a business (With conditions), right to freely speak (With conditions), right to Bear Arms (With conditions in most states), right to freedom of religion (with conditions), right to breathe. Many other things I do not have a "right" to such as exceeding the speed limit, waving a gun in another's face (Unless there is a reasonable cause), shove other people off the sidewalk, etc., etc.

My question is where do those rights come From? Does government grant them or do they come from somewhere higher (Or lower)?

And what is the reason for Government in the first Place? As the guardian and decider of "rights"? Or to protect the population from "discrimination"? And why are my rights that I experience here in the USA different from those I would have in other Countries? And why is there discrimination in other countries that we don't have Here? Who has the right to decide what is and what is not Discrimination?

While we sit here scratching our heads inevitably we sink further in lawlessness and anarchy. (Witness the assertion that marriage should be abolished).

And what is the logical outcome of anarchy? Someone (Or a group) comes along to lay down a law of their own making. Usually these people have names like Hitler or Stalin. Then in those cases we can all argue our " rights" at the barrel end of a gun (As Mao alluded).

There must be a better way. I think that the Declaration of Independence had this correct: That rights ultimately come from God. I think that this generation is tending to want to re-write that document to exclude God and make government instead the arbiter of rights and decider of discrimination.

Will this brave new government be a step to a brighter future?

Some, like you it seems, say rights are real things in the world - like rocks. These people mostly say rights are created by their god.

Others, say rights are an important theoretical idea - but not necessarily real things in the world.

The latter group has to answer endless challenges like yours. The former needs to show some reason for thinking their view is true.



Regarding your question, how many times have we gone through appeals to emotion?

By "my question", do you mean "How do you respond"?

This issue continues to boggle and infuriate me. The issue with so-called "gay marriage" and homosexual rights isn't about civil rights at all. Those that attempt to make those terms the forefront of the discussion do so with the most extreme dishonesty ever seen. The correct issue is as follows:


Period. End of discussion. So every time I hear this raging debate about whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry, I want to vomit because we've been totally duped into talking about the wrong topic.

I think this is not coincidental. See, people know deep down in their hearts that this behaviour is abnormal and sinful, and so they try to cover it up and wrap it "good sounding" terms like "equal rights" and "marriage", when in fact it's merely an attempt to legitimize a type of behaviour that statistics show is by far a minority practice...



Sure, why not?

It seems like the problem of a slippery slope is that most of the folks on it think they're happily snowboarding and fail to see that they're free-falling...



One might argue (as I do) that it is not morally acceptable for two people of the the same gender to have sex with each other. A fairly typical Kantian argument leads to that conclusion (not the Bible...though a Biblical argument also leads to that conclusion). But society should not outlaw everything that is immoral. With that said, society should also not celebrate or condone activities that are immoral. Not unless there are decisive considerations of justice or state interest that require that the state condone the immoral act.

The problem with homosexual marriage is that it does condone the immoral activity of homosexuality. It treats it exactly the same as heterosexual activity. And there is no overarching consideration of justice or state interest that requires that this immoral act be condoned.

So the question really is on my view whether homosexual marriage should be allowed (and the answer is no). The question does, of course, presuppose my answer to your question.


RonH wrote:
"Sure, why not?"

Hey...Ron's on to something here! I never thought about this before...I mean WHY NOT?!

....I mean why not take a Ferrari and drive it in the Baja 500?

Or let's take all the Stradivarius violins in the world and use them for fire wood!

Or let's use the multimillion dollar concert hall downtown to house our livestock!

I mean come on - Ron's right! WHY NOT? The only things we regret in life are the things we didn't do - right?

So what about people who don't have children? Their marriage is null and void? The whole point of marriage isn't to protect children, though that is part of marriage or civil unions.

Also, if one woman + one man = children, then what about her senario. Since the biological father of her child is her brother, does HE get the legal rights? But then he isn't married to her wife so who gets the say in this?

By using her quote, you just negated the argument that marriage is there to protect the child and a child is only the result of one man and one woman...because people become parents in a HUGE variety of ways...some that don't include marriage at all.

Katrina, yes, children are always the result of the sperm from one man and the egg from one woman. That's biology. The very problem is that people are complicating this by not doing this within the marriage of a man and a woman, but by bringing in another person (donor, surrogate, etc.) into the relationship who is not within the marriage relationship, then they want to change the laws to accommodate the situation they've created. This is a problem, and the result is not a good one for the children or for society. Gessen's story is an illustration of this problem, not a proof that it isn't a problem.

As for your question about people who don't have children, I direct you to the comments above where this was addressed.

This situation seems to be very twisted and difficult. My opinion is that people from LGBT community suffer enough from the society, why not letting them enjoying their lives as they want. They are not forcing someone to follow their way, they just want to be happy.

Thank you for your honest thoughts. It has convinced me that I personally need to double my efforts to protect traditional marriage, as in one man and one woman. You can do what you like, there is no hate here, but if your objective is to destroy the fabric of America by abolishing the institution of marriage then I'm going to fight for it tooth and nail.

On the subject of equal rights, marriage allows equal rights for all, whether gay or straight. A homosexual man has the same right to marry any woman he would like, just as a heterosexual man. A homosexual woman has the right to marry any man, just as a heterosexual woman. I consider that "equal" rights. If they were allowed not to marry someone of the opposite sex, then it would be unequal, but it isn't outlawed or forbidden.

I think that same-sex marriages should be allowed many years ago. it doesn't influence the demographical situation at all, I would say, just the other way round. It's normal!

The comments to this entry are closed.