|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/11/2008 03:01:19 PM · #651 |
Originally posted by JMart:
 RonB, You are trying to make the slippery slope argument that allowing gay marriage would remove barriers to incestual unions. Just to point out the obvious, such arguments are highly fallacious. In essence it takes the debate down this path:
A) Gay marriage is being argued for.
B) Allowing gay marriage opens questions about incestual marriage. (we automatically go down the slope)
C) Incest is wrong. (this is also a straw man argument)
D) Therefore gay marriage is wrong.
Yes, what happens in gay marriage could have an effect on arguments for any number of marriage related arguments, but those other arguments should take place on their own merits since they are different cases with different variables (i.e. serious genetic problems related to incest).
edited to fix grammar |
Well summarized! And you can work backwards UP the slope too; it's possible to make the assertion that divorce should be made illegal, using this sort of reasoning, for example.
R. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 03:09:52 PM · #652 |
You know, this analogy just occurred to me, so it's likely fraught with problems, but just follow me for a second:
People in favor of gay marriage look to hunting licenses. If you want to hunt, you need a license. Simple as that. One license is good for everything. They are issued by the government just like a marriage license.
People against gay marriage also look to hunting licenses. If you want to duck hunt, you need a duck hunting license. If you want to shoot bears, you can't use a duck hunting license, you need a bear hunting license.
Legislation like Prop 8 seem to say, "We are defining what a duck is for purposes of hunting. It does not necessarily mean you can't hunt bears, but you can't do it with a duck license."
I dunno. Just trying to find bridges of common understanding here. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 03:11:12 PM · #653 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by JMart:
RonB, You are trying to make the slippery slope argument that allowing gay marriage would remove barriers to incestual unions. Just to point out the obvious, such arguments are highly fallacious. In essence it takes the debate down this path:
A) Gay marriage is being argued for.
B) Allowing gay marriage opens questions about incestual marriage. (we automatically go down the slope)
C) Incest is wrong. (this is also a straw man argument)
D) Therefore gay marriage is wrong.
Yes, what happens in gay marriage could have an effect on arguments for any number of marriage related arguments, but those other arguments should take place on their own merits since they are different cases with different variables (i.e. serious genetic problems related to incest).
edited to fix grammar |
Well summarized! And you can work backwards UP the slope too; it's possible to make the assertion that divorce should be made illegal, using this sort of reasoning, for example.
R. |
I find it interesting that JMart is guilty of doing exactly what he accuses me of doing - namely creating a straw man argument.
First he "creates" a straw man out of a debate scenario that I neither made nor implied, then he shoots it down as being a slippery slope argument using a straw man in the middle.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2008 03:15:36 PM · #654 |
Originally posted by RonB:
It appears that you are allowing emotions to rule logic. I did not make any point about incest being "wrong". If that is a straw man argument, it is one that YOU made, not me. In fact, I made the argument, or at least raised the question, whether "incest" is still "wrong", from a state's interest perspective, if the couple is incapable of procreation.
I am merely attempting to point out that what seems to be a "simple" change of "a" law about "marriage" has far more implications that that which is apparent - arguing neither FOR nor AGAINST the change, itself.
In Nebraska, the "safe haven" law permitting a parent to abandon a child without fear of prosecution did not specify an age limit. Elsewhere, a child is defined as anyone under the age of 19. The unintended consequence of the law is that many older children - in one case TEN siblings ranging in age from 1 to 17 - have been abandoned.
I'm saying that there may be unintended consequences in the laws surrounding marriage, as well - and pointing out what some of them might be from a logical perspective, not slippery slope or straw man arguments.
-edited to fix spelling - |
Oh, forgive me. So, are you trying to tie incest and gay marriage together for some other reason? Is there a specific argument you are indeed making or do you intend to just argue by innuendo? By the way, just to be as exacting as you are being, I never said you took a position on incest. I only gave an example of why bringing incest into the argument can derail the discussion with logical fallacies.
The "safe haven" law looks like it was poorly defined. The poor crafting and definition of the law should have no bearing on whether or not the original intent of the law was a good idea. If it's as simple as defining an age, then perhaps the legislature should amend the law to fix the problem. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 03:25:46 PM · #655 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You know, this analogy just occurred to me, so it's likely fraught with problems, but just follow me for a second:
People in favor of gay marriage look to hunting licenses. If you want to hunt, you need a license. Simple as that. One license is good for everything. They are issued by the government just like a marriage license.
People against gay marriage also look to hunting licenses. If you want to duck hunt, you need a duck hunting license. If you want to shoot bears, you can't use a duck hunting license, you need a bear hunting license.
Legislation like Prop 8 seem to say, "We are defining what a duck is for purposes of hunting. It does not necessarily mean you can't hunt bears, but you can't do it with a duck license."
I dunno. Just trying to find bridges of common understanding here. |
Here's the current situation. If you want to hunt bears, you need a bear license. However, the state does not issue a bear license. But supposedly you are not being discriminated against because you can have a duck license, just like the duck hunters do. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 03:37:44 PM · #656 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You know, this analogy just occurred to me, so it's likely fraught with problems, but just follow me for a second:
People in favor of gay marriage look to hunting licenses. If you want to hunt, you need a license. Simple as that. One license is good for everything. They are issued by the government just like a marriage license.
People against gay marriage also look to hunting licenses. If you want to duck hunt, you need a duck hunting license. If you want to shoot bears, you can't use a duck hunting license, you need a bear hunting license.
Legislation like Prop 8 seem to say, "We are defining what a duck is for purposes of hunting. It does not necessarily mean you can't hunt bears, but you can't do it with a duck license."
I dunno. Just trying to find bridges of common understanding here. |
I appreciate the analogy Doc. Just to poke at it then, should I have an interracial union licence since I'm Caucasian, my wife is Asian, and there are some people who don't believe we should be "married". More to the point, who will define what a "duck" is or a "bear" is? The Bible? Christians? Muslims? And which denominations?
Also, there are differences between various hunting licenses. Each one gives you a distinctly different set of rights. Prop 8 people have argued that civil unions afford the same legal rights to all parties, so perhaps it's more like having a fishing license for people that use live bait that has the exact rights, but a different name, than the license for people who use artificial lures.
The live bait people don't consider the artificial lure people "real" fishermen. So, to protect the sanctity of fishing they allow artificial lure people to fish, but instead of calling it a "fishing license" they will call it an "aquatic life acquisition license". So, what's the point of the needless redundancy just to change the name? I don't know, but it seems like a silly thing for government that is supposed to be secular about lures to bother itself with. But hey, I'm just thinking off the cuff about this rather fun analogy ;) |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 03:38:16 PM · #657 |
This "bear license" is sort of what I was saying. Since it is a secular institution, the boundaries shouldn't be religious.
Now, I can understand if some churches don't provide the means for gays to marry, but the state really has no leg to stand on here since there is allegedly a separation there. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 03:38:46 PM · #658 |
btw, Doc, the only way duck-bear analogies work, and the only way slippery-slope-to-incest arguments work, is if you think gay marriage is categorically different than straight marriage. In my life, I've seen such a variety of supposedly "straight" marriages, and I've seen such devotion, commitment and sense-of-inevitability in "gay" marriages, that to think of them as two different categories seems totally artificial to me.
Unfortunately, this will take time. It will take more gay couples being examples, just as Jackie Robinson and Barack Obama had to be examples, before people realize that we're all just people trying to get along. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 03:45:55 PM · #659 |
there seems to be an easier way to describe it:
A bunch of people are getting huffy, just because they want to feel special. Those who oppose calling it 'marraige' are so worried that someone vastly different than themselves might share common bonds. It threatens them only because it makes them realize how very much alike we ALL are, despite our differences in religion / politics / skin color.
How dare someone else claim to be in love & want to share their lives with another person.
Of course, if it walks like a duck... |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 03:54:18 PM · #660 |
Originally posted by JMart:
Oh, forgive me. So, are you trying to tie incest and gay marriage together for some other reason? |
Yes, for some other reason. To point out that the laws surrounding marriage can, indeed, have far reaching effects on other laws, and should thus only be changed after due deliberation and with great caution.
Originally posted by JMart:
Is there a specific argument you are indeed making or do you intend to just argue by innuendo? |
I have stated multiple times the argument that I am trying to make, but some of y'all keep trying to bring the discussion back to incest for some reason.
Originally posted by JMart:
By the way, just to be as exacting as you are being, I never said you took a position on incest. I only gave an example of why bringing incest into the argument can derail the discussion with logical fallacies. |
Ah, but you DID say that I was "trying to make a slippery slope argument", and then provided a slippery slope example which implied that it was one that fairly ( in essence ) represented the slippery slope argument that you were accusing me of trying to make.
Originally posted by Jmart:
The "safe haven" law looks like it was poorly defined. The poor crafting and definition of the law should have no bearing on whether or not the original intent of the law was a good idea. If it's as simple as defining an age, then perhaps the legislature should amend the law to fix the problem. |
I believe that the legislature is being called back in to session to do just that.
I am somewhat surprised at your opinion that the poor crafting and definition of the law should have no bearing on whether or not the original intent of the law was a good idea.
Many hold that same opinion about California's marriage laws. It appears that over 50% of the voters in California thought that the "original intent" of the laws surrounding marriage were also poorly crafted, and that the judicial branch made its rulings predicated on the wording of the law and not the "original intent of the law", and then, since the legislature would not amend the law to fix ( what they saw as ) the problem, they decided to amend the constitution to do it themselves.
Note: I don't live in California, and feel that Californians are responsible for their own laws. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 03:57:51 PM · #661 |
| Chris Rock has some good points here |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 04:17:41 PM · #662 |
RonB, I'm sure you're correct that allowing gay people to have equal protection under the law with regard to marriage can, and likely will, have a wide reaching impact. I disagree, however, that any group of people being discriminated against should be delayed in gaining their civil liberties.
Is there a good reason why we deny gay people equal protection? What is there to be deliberated or to be cautious of? More importantly, shouldn't we be expedient in correcting violations of the US constitution that demands equal protection under the law? |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 04:21:25 PM · #663 |
Originally posted by metatate:
Chris Rock has some good points here |
LOL! -"Gay people got a right to be as miserable as everybody else." |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 04:32:40 PM · #664 |
Originally posted by JMart:
I appreciate the analogy Doc. Just to poke at it then, should I have an interracial union licence since I'm Caucasian, my wife is Asian, and there are some people who don't believe we should be "married". More to the point, who will define what a "duck" is or a "bear" is? The Bible? Christians? Muslims? And which denominations? |
I've argued way up above that the definition is arbitrary and I am in favor of letting the people decide. We spoke then a bit about the "tyrrany of the majority", but nobody really gave an idea of "who decides" that couldn't have holes poked in it from those against.
Originally posted by JMart:
Also, there are differences between various hunting licenses. Each one gives you a distinctly different set of rights. Prop 8 people have argued that civil unions afford the same legal rights to all parties, so perhaps it's more like having a fishing license for people that use live bait that has the exact rights, but a different name, than the license for people who use artificial lures. |
The analogy is just that, an analogy, and shouldn't be scrutinized too closely (especially since it came from me).
Originally posted by JMart:
The live bait people don't consider the artificial lure people "real" fishermen. So, to protect the sanctity of fishing they allow artificial lure people to fish, but instead of calling it a "fishing license" they will call it an "aquatic life acquisition license". So, what's the point of the needless redundancy just to change the name? I don't know, but it seems like a silly thing for government that is supposed to be secular about lures to bother itself with. But hey, I'm just thinking off the cuff about this rather fun analogy ;) |
So I'll flesh it out a bit from the position of "protecting marriage" (or whatever you want to call the anti-gay marriage position). They would argue that people have hunted for millenia. However, people almost exclusively hunted birds. There are perhaps anecdotes of people hunting other animals like bears, but really hunting has, for all intents and purposes, meant shooting birds. In fact, the understanding is so implied that the license you get just says "hunting". At some point some people declare they have been hunting bears. They have always hunted bears and, in fact, they feel you can find at least some historical texts to show that bear hunting has perhaps occurred in the past. Being good citizens they want to apply for a hunting license (they also get some rights and protections for having one). They argue, "hey look, we are all hunting here. The license says 'hunting'. What's the big deal if I hunt bears or birds?" The other group counters, "but 'hunting' has always meant birds. You aren't 'hunting', you are doing something else." So this group, liking things to be straightforward and clear (and some of them secretly thinking bear hunting is rather bizarre) decide to have the license now declare "bird hunting". It goes to a vote and it passes. "Hunting" is now defined as "bird hunting".
So, in hunting terms, all my argument above boils down to this:
1) Hunting has always really been understood as bird hunting.
2) The definition, outside religion, however, is arbitrary.
3) The people have decided in many places to officially declare hunting means hunting birds.
4) Some people hunt bears.
5) In places with official definitions it makes no sense to apply for a bird license if you want to hunt bears.
6) Some progressive and enlightened areas have either declared hunting is in fact just "hunting" while others have declared you can also get a "bear hunting" license if you want.
7) Personally, I am rather for having "bird hunting" and "bear hunting" licenses out of respect for the original meaning of "hunting" to refer exclusively to birds, but I am also for granting all bear hunters the same rights and protection and bird hunters.
Clear enough?
Message edited by author 2008-11-11 16:34:39. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 05:02:53 PM · #665 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Clear enough? |
Uh... Yes, perfectly clear Doc. And entertaining too. If only the government had just steered clear of the hunting license business and just given people those secular "predator permits" ;) |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 05:07:12 PM · #666 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So, in hunting terms, all my argument above boils down to this:
1) Hunting has always really been understood as bird hunting.
2) The definition, outside religion, however, is arbitrary.
3) The people have decided in many places to officially declare hunting means hunting birds.
4) Some people hunt bears.
5) In places with official definitions it makes no sense to apply for a bird license if you want to hunt bears.
6) Some progressive and enlightened areas have either declared hunting is in fact just "hunting" while others have declared you can also get a "bear hunting" license if you want.
7) Personally, I am rather for having "bird hunting" and "bear hunting" licenses out of respect for the original meaning of "hunting" to refer exclusively to birds, but I am also for granting all bear hunters the same rights and protection and bird hunters.
Clear enough? |
People were only allowed to hunt white birds up until forty years ago.
Black birds weren't even really considered birds then.
Black and white birds were especially prohibited from being hunted at all.
the definitions of hunting have changed quite often over the years, rather than having always been meant to mean one thing.
the argument from history or tradition doesn't make a lot of sense really, given that it isn't true. Loving vs Virgina wasn't so long ago.
Message edited by author 2008-11-11 17:10:36. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 05:09:13 PM · #667 |
Originally posted by JMart:
RonB, I'm sure you're correct that allowing gay people to have equal protection under the law with regard to marriage can, and likely will, have a wide reaching impact. I disagree, however, that any group of people being discriminated against should be delayed in gaining their civil liberties.
Is there a good reason why we deny gay people equal protection? |
The Supreme Court ruling in California says that California did deny gay people equal protection, specifically on the basis that the ONLY term used to define heterosexual marriage was, well, "marriage"; heterosexuals were not permitted to enter into "domestic partnerships" - therefore, that term MUST be available to same-sex unions as well. The Judiciary could just as easily have ruled that the "domestic partnership" law was unconstitutional, in that it did not permit heterosexuals to register as a "domestic partnership" ( unless one of them was over the age of 62, for some reason ).
IF the California Legislature were to change the law such that henceforth all legal unions would be called "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions", then the term "marriage" could be reserved for religious "marriages" only, without violating California's Equal Protection clause - because legal unions would all have the same name regardless of the gender(s) of the members of that union. But then, they would have to change the "domestic partnership" law to permit heterosexual unions.
Originally posted by JMart:
What is there to be deliberated or to be cautious of? More importantly, shouldn't we be expedient in correcting violations of the US constitution that demands equal protection under the law? |
It's not the U.S. Constitution that is/was being challenged - it was California's State Constitution. Until someone brings a challenge to, for example, the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the Supreme Court will likely not become involved in the issue of gay marriage.
As I pointed out above, what's Constitutional and Un-Constitutional can be remedied by changing words in the law. In fact, that's what happens most of the time.
Gay "Marriage" in California was only "constitutional" because of the failure to grant a different name than "marriage" to heterosexual unions. Change the law to call them "domestic partnerships" and voila, prohibiting gay "marriage" is no longer un-constitutional. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 05:10:52 PM · #668 |
Originally posted by JMart:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Clear enough? |
Uh... Yes, perfectly clear Doc. And entertaining too. If only the government had just steered clear of the hunting license business and just given people those secular "predator permits" ;) |
I try. ;) It may be possible to restate another argument I had above. Before I argued that the "liberty argument" doesn't seem to stand as an argument for gay marriage. I would argue, in hunting terms, as follows:
Those for the liberty argument would say that hunting is hunting and one should be able to hunt whatever they wanted. However, to be philosophically robust, the argument relies on people being able to hunt everything. One could then bring for examples of what Louis called aptly a "parade of horribles" which caused people to react negatively. Let's say some people want to hunt cute baby seals or endangered spotted owls or even people. At some point we can get most people to say, "hold it! I'm for hunting, but I'm not for that kind of hunting!" My argument was that if you draw a line somewhere as to what one can hunt and what one can't hunt then you are right back to arguing that some actions are acceptable and others aren't. The "liberty argument" has then gone out the window and a new argument has taken its place (based on whatever rules now discriminate between what is "ok" and "not ok").
I like this analogy. :) It helps remove some of the emotion and polarization involved in the topic and lets one more clearly see the underlying philosophic principles employed with any particular argument. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 05:25:13 PM · #669 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I like this analogy. :) It helps remove some of the emotion and polarization involved in the topic and lets one more clearly see the underlying philosophic principles employed with any particular argument. |
It's certainly convenient and easier to talk about it in the abstract. It is probably easier than explaining directly to Mousie why you believe or not that his new family should be ripped apart?
Given that the discussion is fundamentally about love and who gets to express that and how, trying to take the emotion out of it seems like maybe the wrong direction to go.
Message edited by author 2008-11-11 17:26:58. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 05:26:15 PM · #670 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
People were only allowed to hunt white birds up until forty years ago.
Black birds weren't even really considered birds then.
Black and white birds were especially prohibited from being hunted at all.
the definitions of hunting have changed quite often over the years, rather than having always been meant to mean one thing.
the argument from history or tradition doesn't make a lot of sense really, given that it isn't true. Loving vs Virgina wasn't so long ago. |
Hey, thanks for the link. Good education. I think my argument would be more eloquently stated by the quoted text from the New York Court of Appeals at the bottom of that wiki article:
[T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. Racism has been recognized for centuries ΓΆ€” at first by a few people, and later by many more ΓΆ€” as a revolting moral evil. This country fought a civil war to eliminate racism's worst manifestation, slavery, and passed three constitutional amendments to eliminate that curse and its vestiges. Loving was part of the civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s, the triumph of a cause for which many heroes and many ordinary people had struggled since our nation began. It is true that there has been serious injustice in the treatment of homosexuals also, a wrong that has been widely recognized only in the relatively recent past, and one our Legislature tried to address when it enacted the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act four years ago (L 2002, ch 2). But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.
Message edited by author 2008-11-11 17:28:01. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 05:26:55 PM · #671 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I like this analogy. :) It helps remove some of the emotion and polarization involved in the topic and lets one more clearly see the underlying philosophic principles employed with any particular argument. |
It's certainly convenient and easier to talk about it in the abstract. It is probably easier than explaining directly to Mousie why you believe or not that his new family should be ripped apart? |
I haven't shied away from talking to Mousie. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 05:29:12 PM · #672 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I like this analogy. :) It helps remove some of the emotion and polarization involved in the topic and lets one more clearly see the underlying philosophic principles employed with any particular argument. |
Unfortunately for you and your analogy, life doesn't occur in a sterile environment, it's lived by real people with real emotions and dissecting it via your sterile analogy does everyone a disservice. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 05:33:09 PM · #673 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I like this analogy. :) It helps remove some of the emotion and polarization involved in the topic and lets one more clearly see the underlying philosophic principles employed with any particular argument. |
Unfortunately for you and your analogy, life doesn't occur in a sterile environment, it's lived by real people with real emotions and dissecting it via your sterile analogy does everyone a disservice. |
Not any more than involving passion and emotion. Those can get in the way of one side understanding the other side's view. I'm trying to bridge gaps. I'm trying to let one side see "behind the curtain" of the other side. I'm trying to show that neither side is populated exclusively by monsters.
Message edited by author 2008-11-11 17:33:28. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 05:39:36 PM · #674 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. Racism has been recognized for centuries ΓΆ€” at first by a few people, and later by many more ΓΆ€” as a revolting moral evil. This country fought a civil war to eliminate racism's worst manifestation, slavery, and passed three constitutional amendments to eliminate that curse and its vestiges. Loving was part of the civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s, the triumph of a cause for which many heroes and many ordinary people had struggled since our nation began. It is true that there has been serious injustice in the treatment of homosexuals also, a wrong that has been widely recognized only in the relatively recent past, and one our Legislature tried to address when it enacted the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act four years ago (L 2002, ch 2). But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude. |
There was a time when it was an accepted truth that the earth was flat.
Life changes. Fortunately, it's changing again. We're not there yet, but we will get there. |
|
|
|
11/11/2008 05:46:58 PM · #675 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
There was a time when it was an accepted truth that the earth was flat.
Life changes. Fortunately, it's changing again. We're not there yet, but we will get there. |
So are you saying the side that doesn't agree with you is exclusively inhabited by people who are irrational or bigots or both? |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 03:41:27 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 03:41:27 PM EDT.
|
