Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

May 9, 2012 Full story: politix.topix.com 26,178

It's a historic day for gay rights activists: Obama has just announced his support for gay marriage.

Full Story

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24421 Dec 27, 2012
Imprtnrd wrote:
<quoted text>ahhhh poor baby. You have NO argument. What a dope you are!
Skip the dopey ad hominem jackass.

You rebut my arguments with silly ad hominem about babies. Then say I have no argument.

Priceless!

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#24422 Dec 27, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
The slippery slope is a valid argument. If we allow marriage to mean everything it will mean nothing. Having said that I don't think it is a reason to deny same sex marriage.
I am truly interested in marriage equality despite your paranoia. Equality meaning what it says. Equal for all. Same sex marriage is not more valid than poly. That's hypocrisy.
If you disagree with poly, I suggest you counter poly arguments with intelligent rebuttals, not complaints of off topic or calling valid arguments fallacies.
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/marriage.pdf
The slippery slope is a fallacy.

There is no reason to believe that extending marriage rights to same sex couples has any connection to the legalization of polygamy.

For example. Same sex marriage has been legalized in several states. Has that altered the fact that bigamy is against the law?

By falsely attempting to divert attention to polygamy, which is unconnected, you have presented a typical red herring argument which is also a fallacy.

Get it dufus?

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#24423 Dec 27, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
The slippery slope is a valid argument. If we allow marriage to mean everything it will mean nothing. Having said that I don't think it is a reason to deny same sex marriage.
I am truly interested in marriage equality despite your paranoia. Equality meaning what it says. Equal for all. Same sex marriage is not more valid than poly. That's hypocrisy.
If you disagree with poly, I suggest you counter poly arguments with intelligent rebuttals, not complaints of off topic or calling valid arguments fallacies.
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/marriage.pdf
Ok let me deal with this.

Personally, I don't care about polygamy one way or the other. It is an entirely separate legal issue. From a global perspective, I doubt polygamy has any legal legs because of two driving and restraining forces. A driving force would be one of discriminatory practices. A restraining force would be one of dealing with all the government regulations around inheritance, immigration, and taxation. I doubt many would favor altering these so drastically. What's more, polygamy has a great deal of negative baggage around the impregnation of underage women and also the exploitation of women as well. Finally, what man would want the responsibility of having to support some many women and children. I doubt polygamy has any future.

Getting back to the slippery slope argument, which is if A (Same sex marriage) occurs, then B (Polygamy) will follow, is a fallacy because, given the driving and restraining forces as well as the legal differences between the two, it is safe to assume that the legalization of same-sex marriage will have no impact on the legalization of polygamous marriages.

Do you like this approach better?

Damn. What a lot of work. Your Hofstraw link, which I have seen before, is of interest but not definitive.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#24424 Dec 27, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
The slippery slope is a valid argument. If we allow marriage to mean everything it will mean nothing. Having said that I don't think it is a reason to deny same sex marriage.
I am truly interested in marriage equality despite your paranoia. Equality meaning what it says. Equal for all. Same sex marriage is not more valid than poly. That's hypocrisy.
If you disagree with poly, I suggest you counter poly arguments with intelligent rebuttals, not complaints of off topic or calling valid arguments fallacies.
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/marriage.pdf
BTW, Hofstraw only shows a different approach to the slippery slope argument. It would not fly in a serious court decision yet might well be included in a court's opinion pointing out the obvious fallacy. Red herring arguments are the stock and trade of many lawyers. They are weak and should be avoided.

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#24425 Dec 27, 2012
Big Old Bad Ass Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
No you didn't jackass!
But I rebut your argument showing how it does not lack legal connectivity.
Nana!Nana!Nana!
What a shifty-eyed scalawag!
What are you? Eight years old?

Answer this question. Have any states where same sex marriage has been legalized also legalized polygamy? Would it be possible for them to do so?

See where I'm going with this?

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24426 Dec 27, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
The slippery slope is a fallacy.
There is no reason to believe that extending marriage rights to same sex couples has any connection to the legalization of polygamy.
For example. Same sex marriage has been legalized in several states. Has that altered the fact that bigamy is against the law?
By falsely attempting to divert attention to polygamy, which is unconnected, you have presented a typical red herring argument which is also a fallacy.
Get it dufus?
The slippery slope is NOT a fallacy, although it is not significant and therefore not preventative for same sex marriage. Please read the professor's paper.

Please rebut intelligent annotated arguments with the same. Blanket statements like "the slippery slope is a fallacy" without any back up just won't cut it toots. I have provided good arguments on it, you have provided nothing.

Please at least skim over the professors paper on the slippery slope then perhaps you won't be so ignorant and afraid of it.

And please rebut arguments for polygamy with less paranoia and hostility. Poly marriage is as valid as any other marriage and deserves the same respect.

And finally please stop being such a big bigoted jackass regarding poly.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24427 Dec 27, 2012
LuLu Ford wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you? Eight years old?
Answer this question. Have any states where same sex marriage has been legalized also legalized polygamy? Would it be possible for them to do so?
See where I'm going with this?
Not yet. And it won't hurt anyone when they do. Stop being a bigot and a hypocrite.

See where I went with that?

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24428 Dec 27, 2012
LuLu Ford wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you? Eight years old?
Answer this question. Have any states where same sex marriage has been legalized also legalized polygamy? Would it be possible for them to do so?
See where I'm going with this?
You got mad enough to become LuLu, toots! Where's the stupid parrot?

Squawk! I Hate Poly people! Squawk! Off topic! Squawk! Red herring! Squawk!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24429 Dec 27, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW, Hofstraw only shows a different approach to the slippery slope argument. It would not fly in a serious court decision yet might well be included in a court's opinion pointing out the obvious fallacy. Red herring arguments are the stock and trade of many lawyers. They are weak and should be avoided.
Polygamy is marriage. It's not a fish.

It won't fly in court to dismiss it as a fish.

The same arguments for SSM apply to poly.

You are oozing hostility towards poly. Why?

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24430 Dec 27, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok let me deal with this.
Personally, I don't care about polygamy one way or the other. It is an entirely separate legal issue. From a global perspective, I doubt polygamy has any legal legs because of two driving and restraining forces. A driving force would be one of discriminatory practices. A restraining force would be one of dealing with all the government regulations around inheritance, immigration, and taxation. I doubt many would favor altering these so drastically. What's more, polygamy has a great deal of negative baggage around the impregnation of underage women and also the exploitation of women as well. Finally, what man would want the responsibility of having to support some many women and children. I doubt polygamy has any future.
Getting back to the slippery slope argument, which is if A (Same sex marriage) occurs, then B (Polygamy) will follow, is a fallacy because, given the driving and restraining forces as well as the legal differences between the two, it is safe to assume that the legalization of same-sex marriage will have no impact on the legalization of polygamous marriages.
Do you like this approach better?
Damn. What a lot of work. Your Hofstraw link, which I have seen before, is of interest but not definitive.
Why do you call it a "Hofstraw" link? Prof Volokh is at UCLA School of Law.

There is no reason to dismiss the slippery slope as a fallacy. It is much more honest and convincing an argument for marriage equality deal with it and explain it's insignificance. People do not come easily to consider your opinion favorably when you lie to them.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#24431 Dec 27, 2012
There exists a compelling governmental interest in prohibiting legalized poly marriages, any limit beyond one spouse per person at a time would be arbitrary and indefensible thus interfering with the state's ability to regulate the contract. Sorry. But any fear that same sex marriage would somehow make plural marriage an inevitability that we would have to discuss first is an absurd distraction from the subject at hand.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24432 Dec 27, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
There exists a compelling governmental interest in prohibiting legalized poly marriages, any limit beyond one spouse per person at a time would be arbitrary and indefensible thus interfering with the state's ability to regulate the contract. Sorry. But any fear that same sex marriage would somehow make plural marriage an inevitability that we would have to discuss first is an absurd distraction from the subject at hand.
Polygamy is no more an "absurd distraction" than SSM. Sorry Ricky.

I have no fear that SSM will "somehow make plural marriage an inevitability" and neither should you.

Polygamy is not less valid than SSM. Sorry Ricky.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#24433 Dec 27, 2012
There's that whole compelling state issue you failed to address, but that was expected. The chance of any form of legal plural marriage EVER being recognized as an extension of the individual's right to be legally married, none whatsoever. It is nothing more than an absurd and irrelevant distraction. Sorry.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#24434 Dec 27, 2012
How does this prove I ever said I was loving, compassionate, and whatever the hell else you attributed to me?

I can certainly be loving, etc--for those who deserve it. You don't.
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
My point - meet proof^.
Thanks for playing sir.
It's been fun jerking on your hateful chain.
You verify my point.
<smile>

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#24435 Dec 27, 2012
It means that, since polygamy isn't a gender/orientation issue, it isn't part of the clubhouse to begin with. They are free to work on their own issues.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So does that mean you won't let them in the clubhouse, or wave the rainbow flag at next week's rally?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#24436 Dec 27, 2012
Your little slip speaks volumes about your view of women.

Woman hater? Must be why I've worked for women's rights as well as gay rights over the years.

You've never seen sisters fight over a man, I take it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay sparky, the women share a husband. Feel better now?
"Sexism"?! This from the President of the local chapter of the he man woman hater's club.
Of course both women would related to the children regardless of marital status. The point is, there is less jealousy, and competition WITHIN the marriage because of the blood ties.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#24437 Dec 27, 2012
The word "gay" has referred to gays, among others, for centuries.

Every civil right is viewed in terms of the subjects' "small corner of the world." Society doesn't have to call SSM anything, but the LAW is subject to the constitution.

Tradition is meaningless, unless you want to bring back slavery.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
......and for the umpteenth time, you're laying the groundwork for them. The challenge is, you're only looking at this from your small corner of the world, not viewing it as a matter of public policy. Why in the year of Our Lord two thousand twelve, does our society need to call an intimate personal relationship between two men, or two women, marriage? How have we functioned all these thousands, or hundreds in the U.S. without doing so?
Granted, and I agree words do change over time. After all at done time, gay was understood to mean "happy", gay man was a womanizer, a gay woman, a prostitute. However, "marriage" throughout time and place, with the exception of a few scattered historical examples of recognized same sex unions, was understood to be a union of husband and wife/wives. So now we have to "expand" it?
The SSM cause and plural marriage cause are both included under one big rainbow colored umbrella. Marriage equality for any and all. All for one, and one for all.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#24438 Dec 27, 2012
I think he needs to conflate the two because he wants three husbands.
Imprtnrd wrote:
<quoted text>Notice how he won't make up his own thread? He wants to keep his BS going in this one....maybe he can't read the headline of this thread . He tried the same thing in the Judge throws out prop 8 thread.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#24439 Dec 27, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
The slippery slope is NOT a fallacy, although it is not significant and therefore not preventative for same sex marriage. Please read the professor's paper.
Please rebut intelligent annotated arguments with the same. Blanket statements like "the slippery slope is a fallacy" without any back up just won't cut it toots. I have provided good arguments on it, you have provided nothing.
Please at least skim over the professors paper on the slippery slope then perhaps you won't be so ignorant and afraid of it.
And please rebut arguments for polygamy with less paranoia and hostility. Poly marriage is as valid as any other marriage and deserves the same respect.
And finally please stop being such a big bigoted jackass regarding poly.
Sure it's a fallacy. When same sex couples are allowed to marry, it makes absolutely no difference to the legal possibilities of poly marriage. I already looked at it. If A is legalized, then B will follow. There are several counter arguments. If A is OK but B is not OK, then the person in favor of A must show B is not going to happen or impossible. If A and B is not OK, then there is no possible argument which works. If A is not OK but B is, then B can be used to validate A. Then there are various emotional hot buttons which can be played. The bottom line is still all BS because of the simple fact that A and B are separate issues which will only be resolved separately. The slippery slope will never fly in the Supreme Court but may be used as part of an opinion to placate the masses.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#24440 Dec 27, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
There's that whole compelling state issue you failed to address, but that was expected. The chance of any form of legal plural marriage EVER being recognized as an extension of the individual's right to be legally married, none whatsoever. It is nothing more than an absurd and irrelevant distraction. Sorry.
Yep. It is a red herring argument.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Pastors opposed to gay marriage swear off all c... 5 min Wondering 43
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 8 min Wondering 5,491
Bill Would Let Michigan Doctors, EMTs Refuse To... 11 min Wondering 153
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 17 min Static Charge 26,698
Supreme Court allows same-sex marriages in Florida 28 min barefoot2626 3
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 30 min Pietro Armando 5,004
Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition 43 min TomInElPaso 1,216
Supreme Court won't stop gay marriages in Florida 56 min Rick in Kansas 14
TOWIE boys say Balls to Cancer by stripping NAK... 1 hr Mikey 14
More from around the web