|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 12/19/2013 : 11:35:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Kil
Bill. You are using the slippery slope argument. Don't even try to deny it. The things you think will become legal because gay marriage is becoming legal isn't on anyones radar but yours and the people who believe as you do. So let's cut to the chase. What is the real reason behind your opposition to gay marriage? I mean, really. Gay marriage is not something that will change your marriage, invade your privacy, change the tax code for you or hinder you in any other way. So what is the bug that has crawled so far up your ass that you would deny a substantial minority in this country the right to marry someone of the same sex?
|
Based on your logic for granting marriage status to gay couples one could make the same argument for granting it to bisexual polygamists and bowling teams. Are you ready to grant marriage status to these groups of people, kil? Yes or no... And if no than why not?
|
So you're not going to answer my question. Got it.
|
Pot meet the kettle
Now again: Based on your logic for granting marriage status to gay couples one could make the same argument for granting it to bisexual polygamists and bowling teams. Are you ready to grant marriage status to these groups of people, kil? Yes or no... And if no than why not?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2013 : 12:04:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Kil
Bill. You are using the slippery slope argument. Don't even try to deny it. The things you think will become legal because gay marriage is becoming legal isn't on anyones radar but yours and the people who believe as you do. So let's cut to the chase. What is the real reason behind your opposition to gay marriage? I mean, really. Gay marriage is not something that will change your marriage, invade your privacy, change the tax code for you or hinder you in any other way. So what is the bug that has crawled so far up your ass that you would deny a substantial minority in this country the right to marry someone of the same sex?
|
Based on your logic for granting marriage status to gay couples one could make the same argument for granting it to bisexual polygamists and bowling teams. Are you ready to grant marriage status to these groups of people, kil? Yes or no... And if no than why not?
|
So you're not going to answer my question. Got it.
|
Here is your little dilemma, kil. Based on your logic for giving marriage status to homosexual couples one could make an equally compelling case for giving legal marriage status to bisexual polygamists or even a Friday night bowling team.
Yet you refuse to offer your support in giving legal marriage status to the bisexual polygamists because in your mind, and in the minds of others on this forum, you realize how idiotic, silly and counterproductive to society it would be. Why do you hate bisexual polygamists so much and why must you force your moral judgments on them by refusing to condone their rights to marriage? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2013 : 12:29:10 [Permalink]
|
Bill:
Now again: Based on your logic for granting marriage status to gay couples one could make the same argument for granting it to bisexual polygamists and bowling teams. Are you ready to grant marriage status to these groups of people, kil? Yes or no... And if no than why not? |
I'm not going to legitimize your absurd slippery slope argument by responding to it. I've gone to some lengths to explain why this form of argumentation is fallacious. And no matter how I were to answer your question, it's not a dilemma for me because it will not have a bearing on why it's okay to deny same sex couples the right to marry, which is what you are arguing for. It just doesn't follow. That's why a slippery slope argument is fallacious. If you want to play chicken little, you will need to present some evidence on how same sex marriage will be harmful for you and society. It's as simple as that.
Here. I'll do it again. Not that it will help you to understand the irrelevance of your questions to the issue of same sex marriage:
slippery slope
You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.
The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.
Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys. |
I don't believe for a second that your slippery slope argument is the basis of your objection to same sex marriage. And that also renders your argument irrelevant. So what is it, Bill? What's your real objection to it? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2013 : 13:24:05 [Permalink]
|
| And no matter how I answer the question, it's not a dilemma to me because it will not have a bearing on why it's okay to deny same sex couples the right to marry, |
Why is it OK to deny bisexual polygamists the right to marry?
| I don't believe for a second that your slippery slope argument is the basis for your objection to same sex marriage. And that also renders it irrelevant. So what is it, Bill? What's your real objection to it? |
What's your real objection to bisexual polygamists right to marry? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2013 : 13:34:06 [Permalink]
|
Bill:
Why is it OK to deny bisexual polygamists the right to marry? |
Irrelevant.
Bill:
What's your real objection to bisexual polygamists right to marry? |
Irrelevant. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2013 : 13:42:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Bill:
Why is it OK to deny bisexual polygamists the right to marry? |
Irrelevant.
Bill:
What's your real objection to bisexual polygamists right to marry? |
Irrelevant.
|
You are making this much more difficult than it needs to be, kil You have two options here:
1. You can either acknowledge that by using your same logic to make a case for gay marriage one can make an equally strong case for the right for bisexual polygamists to marry. If you really believe your own logic than condoning bisexual polygamists right to marry would validate this.
or
2. You can object to giving marriage rights to bisexual polygamists and explain to us on what basis you made this decision.
Refusing to answer by going off on some rambling tangent about slippery slope fallacies is, quite frankly, easily recognized as nothing more than a lame attempt by you to sneak out from behind the rock and hard place in which you currently find yourself. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2013 : 14:00:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Bill:
Why is it OK to deny bisexual polygamists the right to marry? |
Irrelevant.
Bill:
What's your real objection to bisexual polygamists right to marry? |
Irrelevant.
|
I must admit I am a little stunned at how you refuse to condone the rights of bisexual polygamists. It's akin to someone who fights for the civil rights of black people but then refuses to condone these same civil rights when it comes to Mexicans.
Just as one might ask why are you so concerned with the civil rights of one minority instead of them all I am interested in why you are only interested in the rights of one sexual orientation and not them all? The bisexual polygamists are saying that your silence and refusal to condone their rights is deafening and hurtful. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2013 : 14:02:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Well I thought I said giving marriage privileges to bisexual polygamists. For starters what a mess it will be for the IRS, divorce court etc... divvying up work benefits and deciding who is an eligible spouse as well as any benefits from the government and and who gets what, who gets what when someone in the union dies or when someone wants divorced from from the union who gets child support, who pays child support, who is the primary parent(s), who gets visitation rights etc... etc.... etc.... This just the tip of the iceberg. |
How are any of those things "destructive to society?" You're saying the tax code would have to get more complex and that divorce courts would have to answer more complex questions. Considering the fact that the tax code gets modified every year and divorce courts have to address new situations constantly, you're merely complaining about the amount of work people would have do to, and not the kind of work. You're just engaging in demagogery: "more questions on our tax forms would destory our society!" Sorry, Chicken Little, but that's just ridiculous.| That fact that you would even ask what destructive result it would have on society demonstrates that you are not even qualified to have this discussion. |
You're just begging the question, now, instead of answering it.| But just as laws banning sodomy were pushed to the wayside by progressive social evolving so one day will these equally discriminating and archaic laws be pushed to the wayside through progressive social evolution. |
This is historically, legally and psychologically ignorant.
Psychologically and legally: Children and animals cannot consent to either marriage or sex. It's not because the law says so, it's because they don't comprehend the concept of consent, and so cannot consent. The laws against pedophilia and beastiality were written to unambiguously protect those who cannot consent, not because some old white men just arbitrarily decided that having sex with kids should be prevented. Conversely, the laws against sodomy were written for no good, objective reasons, since sodomy between consenting adults harms no one.
And historically: Pedophiles and beastialists (?) do not have friends among the general populace willing to advocate for them. Gays and lesbians have had such friends for hundreds of years. That's why the legalization of same-sex marriage in all fifty states is inevitable, and the continued criminality of statutory rape and beastiality is assured. NAMBLA is a joke with no political power and no outside grassroots support. There is no such group for people who want to legally diddle sheep.| Murder, rape, robbery etc.... etc.... are all legal problems... |
No, murder and rape are violent violations of consent, not "legal problems." Prohibiting polygamy prevents consenting adults from engaging in behavior that would harm no-one else. Analogy fail.| Where is it in the bible that God condones polygamy? |
Where in the Bible were Abraham, Moses, David or Solomon punished by God specifically for taking multiple wives? Exodus 21:10 insists that a man who owns a female slave can't give her less food or clothing "if he takes another wife..." God could have forbidden polygamy in amongst the 613 Commandments, but did not. Therefore, God condones it.| So are you ready to give marital status to bisexual polygamists and/or bowling teams? |
Sure, why not? It isn't "destructive to society." Unlike busybodies like you, I don't care how consenting adults organize their own families.| Never afraid to jump to conclusions is Dave. I get to this website when I can and that's about it. It's simple not a top priority of mine. At times I am away for weeks or months and that is simple because I am busy. But on an occasion and when I get a chance I will visit from time to time. Please don't correlate "low priority" with "vanished and hiding." |
That you refuse to recognize your own behavioral patterns is not my concern.| But that is exactly my point. Look how clogged up and chaotic divorce court is now. Look how complex and chaotic it gets when trying to settle spousal support, child support, child custody etc... etc... now. Are employers and the government obligated to give the same benefits they give to the spouse in a couples marriage to all the spouses in a polygamist marriage? etc... etc... etc... This new dynamic just complicates and confuses things on an exponential level. |
Yes, Bill, we are all aware that you are afraid of change and complexity, but your cowardice shouldn't prevent other consenting adults from behaving as they want, should it?
Really, if it's divorce you're worried about, why aren't you advocating to prohibit divorce entirely? That'd simplify things, wouldn't it? No need for spousal support , custody hearings, etc., at all. Simple, simple, simple.
As for employee benefits, the answer to that is easy, and is already being implemented by many companies: instead of offering group insurance plans, companies are instead giving employees money to go buy their own insurance. Every employee gets the same allowance, whether married or single, and no matter how many kids they've got. It's a simple and fair system which wouldn't become any more complex if polygamy were legalized.| 20 years ago it was said that gay marriage every being legal in the US was, quite frankly, ridiculous. |
Who said that? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2013 : 14:13:17 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| How are any of those things "destructive to society?" |
So are you willing then to condone giving marriage rights to bisexual polygamists and bowling teams, as long as they are all consisting adults? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2013 : 14:14:26 [Permalink]
|
| And now that I think about it a little more, the answer to your IRS-related concerns about multple marriage, Bill, is easy and a bit ironic. The solution is to simplify the tax code: stop taxing married people at a different rate than single people. Problem solved. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2013 : 14:15:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
So are you willing then to condone giving marriage rights to bisexual polygamists and bowling teams, as long as they are all consisting adults? |
I already answered this question, in no uncertain terms. Was I not clear enough, or did you just quit reading? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2013 : 14:29:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Bill scott
So are you willing then to condone giving marriage rights to bisexual polygamists and bowling teams, as long as they are all consisting adults? |
I already answered this question, in no uncertain terms. Was I not clear enough, or did you just quit reading?
|
Maybe I quit reading so give it another shot in certain terms. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 12/19/2013 14:30:45 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2013 : 14:32:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Bill:
Why is it OK to deny bisexual polygamists the right to marry? |
Irrelevant.
Bill:
What's your real objection to bisexual polygamists right to marry? |
Irrelevant.
|
I like how everyone on this forum is all open minded when it comes to giving homosexual couples the right to marry. They call me discriminatory and close minded blah blah blah..... but yet all of these open minded non-discriminatory progressives grow deafening silent and refuse to condone the rights of other sexual orientations. Why do you guys hate bisexual polygamists so much that you would refuse to condone their rights as you do for the homosexual couples? You are not open minded and non-discriminatory. You just choose to draw your line in the sand in a different place than do I. While I have drawn my line and have refused to condone gay marriage you are OK with that. While you will condone gay marriage you draw your line at the next level and refuse to condone bisexual polygamist the right to marry without even saying why. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2013 : 15:20:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
...yet all of these open minded non-discriminatory progressives grow deafening silent and refuse to condone the rights of other sexual orientations. |
I did, but you were too lazy to read it.| Why do you guys hate bisexual polygamists so much that you would refuse to condone their rights as you do for the homosexual couples? |
I'm all for consenual multiple marriage.| You are not open minded and non-discriminatory. |
I am.| You just choose to draw your line in the sand in a different place than do I. |
Yes, I choose to draw the line such that I stay out of other people's consenual business, while you scribble your line over top of their lives, loves and children. You're a butt-inski, Bill, with dreams of limiting other people's freedom despite no potential harm to you or your family. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2013 : 15:51:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Originally posted by Boron10 |
| Is this supposed to be a correction? |
It is a correction of you. |
Huh?| Are you actually implying that bisexual polygamists are somehow more destructive to your delicate social construct than ordinary, run-of-the-mill polygamists? |
What I actually said was that giving marriage status to bisexual polygamists would be destructive to society, no? |
Please correct me if I'm wrong, then. You are saying the act that is destructive to society is the granting of marriage rights, not the polygamy? If this is not what you're saying, your "correction" seems trivial at best, and essentially meaningless.| These are all legal problems, not necessarily elements of social destruction. This is why we pay lawyers, to handle this stuff and figure it out. |
Murder, rape, robbery etc.... etc.... are all legal problems where lawyers are hired and they contribute to the destruction of society. Just like giving marriage status to bisexual polygamist would be. |
Dave W. effectively addressed this incorrect analogy.| My request remains: Please provide evidence that polygamy is "destructive to society." |
I did but you dismissed that with a hand wave saying legal problems are not destructive to society and that lawyers will save us all. |
You most definitely did not provide evidence. You provided some conjecture about how complicated it could become legally. There is a difference.
The fact that you seem to consider polygamy, homosexuality, and murder on similar ground is somewhat disturbing.| Aww, how cute: an arrogant dismissal of my request for evidence! |
There is nothing cute about you failing to comprehend how granting marriage status to bisexual polygamist would be destructive to our society. |
Then please. Explain it to me.
Pretend, for the sake of eliminating any possible confusion or ambiguity, that I don't believe that tax complications will cause the destruction of civilization, and that I don't see the moral problems with polygamy, bisexuality, or bowling that you seem to feel are self-evident. Moreover, pretend that I need evidence (not pure conjecture) or well-reasoned arguments to change my mind. Please allow me to use your words in a more coherent manner:
The fact that you would not even provide a scrap of evidence for your assertion demonstrates that you are not even qualified to have a rational discussion. |
The fact that you fail to recognize how granting marriage status to bisexual polygamists would have a negative effect on our society demonstrates that you are not even qualified to discuss how our society works. |
There it is again! That adorably arrogant dismissal of my request for evidence!
If you refuse to employ reason or evidence these discussions will continue to go nowhere. | Are you honestly comparing sodomy to statutory rape? |
Yes. |
Wow. Perhaps there will never be any reason employed in your arguments....There are two problems with your "argument" here:
1) Sodomy occurs between consenting adults. |
Not always. |
Then it is rape. Rape is illegal and immoral. Sodomy is just a name for various types of intercourse that you don't seem to like.| 2) Your slippery slope from repealing sodomy laws to repealing statutory rape laws is, quite frankly, ridiculous. |
20 years ago it was said that gay marriage every being legal in the US was, quite frankly, ridiculous. |
By whom?| So to say that granting marriage status to bisexual polygamists in the US is ridiculous is not based on any merit. |
Who is claiming "that granting marriage status to bisexual polygamists in the US is ridiculous" here?
I am calling your argument ridiculous. You employ hyperbole, conjecture, and fallacious reasoning without bothering to provide evidence or even logic. Do you not see why this is ridiculous?| I believe Kil already pointed out slippery slope fallacy anyway. |
His slippery slope fallacy is nothing but a fallacy in and of itself. |
Will you please explain where the fallacy is in Kil's reasoning? Clearly I don't see what you see.| Huh? To which "same thing" are you referring? That people who used rhetoric comparing homosexuality to pedophilia were being silly and counterproductive? That's very true. Unsurprisingly, that slippery slope still doesn't exist. |
Again, 20 years ago or less it was considered ridiculous to think that gay marriage would ever be legal in the US. So for you to say that it is ridiculous to believe bisexual polygamists will ever be given martial status in the US is, quite frankly, ridiculous. |
Then it's a good thing I never said that.
I would also like to point out that you failed to address one of my points:Originally posted by B10:
Here's a crazy suggestion: we can both stop being dicks and start engaging in a productive discussion, employing things like facts and evidence. |
How about it, Bill scott? I'm game if you are!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
I told you so.....
