Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

May 9, 2012 Read more: politix.topix.com 26,169

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

Read more

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#24553 Dec 29, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Because Poly is prone to eating crackers in bed?
Exactly.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24554 Dec 29, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Go ask Judge Scalia about that.
I asked you.

Anyway, me and Tony are on the outs.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24555 Dec 29, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly.
Speaking of Polly, where's is that jackass parrot? Is it coming out today? Squawk!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#24556 Dec 29, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked you.
Anyway, me and Tony are on the outs.
Funny stuff.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#24557 Dec 29, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked you.
Anyway, me and Tony are on the outs.
How did it go that for him the last time he used the Slippery Slope argument?

Let me explain it too you. Scalia believes that we have a right to legislate morality. He argues it to the point of ridiculousness (his own words.) Should we allow murder because we have no willingness to enforce ethics? The big problem with such an argument is the logical fallacy. Murder has a victim where as other types of moral/ethical behaviors do not. What's more, ethics and morals have traditionally been legislated (turned into law) on the basis of acceptable social standards. These standards change over time and from place to place. Not long ago we had such standards which justified racial discrimination. Our Constitution requires us to give all citizens equal protection and due process. Two people are allowed to marry. Man and woman equals two. Man and man equals two. Woman and woman equal two. Each can be married as a couple, one at a time. It is a contract between two people regulated by our laws. Poly is more than two people and is against our current laws. One plus one plus another is greater than two. It is a separate legal issue. The slippery slope fails because it is both a fallacy and a hypothetical.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24558 Dec 29, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
How did it go that for him the last time he used the Slippery Slope argument?
Let me explain it too you. Scalia believes that we have a right to legislate morality. He argues it to the point of ridiculousness (his own words.) Should we allow murder because we have no willingness to enforce ethics? The big problem with such an argument is the logical fallacy. Murder has a victim where as other types of moral/ethical behaviors do not. What's more, ethics and morals have traditionally been legislated (turned into law) on the basis of acceptable social standards. These standards change over time and from place to place. Not long ago we had such standards which justified racial discrimination. Our Constitution requires us to give all citizens equal protection and due process. Two people are allowed to marry. Man and woman equals two. Man and man equals two. Woman and woman equal two. Each can be married as a couple, one at a time. It is a contract between two people regulated by our laws. Poly is more than two people and is against our current laws. One plus one plus another is greater than two. It is a separate legal issue. The slippery slope fails because it is both a fallacy and a hypothetical.
If we allow same sex marriage what will we say to other groups who demand equal consideration for their reform of marriage?

I say we should respect and consider them. You say we should flat deny them equal rights because their cause is "not valid".

The end.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#24559 Dec 29, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
If we allow same sex marriage what will we say to other groups who demand equal consideration for their reform of marriage?
I say we should respect and consider them. You say we should flat deny them equal rights because their cause is "not valid".
The end.
Doesn't matter does it. That is a hypothetical. Each case must be considered upon it's own legal merits. I agree but it remains a separate legal issue. Their cause is valid should they wish to pursue it. Hypothetical arguments have no place in an interpretation of the law.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24560 Dec 29, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't matter does it. That is a hypothetical. Each case must be considered upon it's own legal merits. I agree but it remains a separate legal issue. Their cause is valid should they wish to pursue it. Hypothetical arguments have no place in an interpretation of the law.
Law schmaw!

Just asked if poly deserves equal consideration. Didn't expect you to get all lawyer on me, tell me to ask Tony and sh!t. Sheeesh toots!

Anyway you're not a lawyer and I certainly am not qualified nor do I wish to discuss the intricacies of the law.

Allowing polygamy will cause you no harm. You won't even notice it the numbers are so small. That's why the slippery slope does not matter.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24561 Dec 29, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
If we allow same sex marriage what will we say to other groups who demand equal consideration for their reform of marriage?
The same thing that we would say to any group: make the case.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#24562 Dec 29, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Law schmaw!
Just asked if poly deserves equal consideration. Didn't expect you to get all lawyer on me, tell me to ask Tony and sh!t. Sheeesh toots!
Anyway you're not a lawyer and I certainly am not qualified nor do I wish to discuss the intricacies of the law.
Allowing polygamy will cause you no harm. You won't even notice it the numbers are so small. That's why the slippery slope does not matter.
We are discussing same sex marriage as the law. Nothing else is relevant. I don't care about polygamy one way or the other. Do you?

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24563 Dec 29, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
We are discussing same sex marriage as the law. Nothing else is relevant. I don't care about polygamy one way or the other. Do you?
I don't see Law in the title of the thread. That stuff is boring to me.

My point is the slippery slope is real and should be dealt with honestly.
And it's easy to do that and much better than insisting it's not real. People don't come to see your point of view when you bullsh!t them.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24564 Dec 29, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
The same thing that we would say to any group: make the case.
My point is the slippery slope is real and should be dealt with honestly.
And it's easy to do that and much better than insisting it's not real. People don't come to see your point of view when you bullsh!t them.

The case for polygamy is the same as for SSM. Marriage equality.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24565 Dec 29, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
We are discussing same sex marriage as the law. Nothing else is relevant. I don't care about polygamy one way or the other. Do you?
You are so juiced on the success of using judicial fiat to advance SSM that you don't care about popular support. And that's arrogant.

There has never been a state to allow SSM due to a popular support. There should be. If there were detractors will accept it while they justifiably resent judicial fiat.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24566 Dec 29, 2012
Woops. Forgot to add "before the 2012 election" SSM hasn't been by popular vote.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24567 Dec 29, 2012
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.

Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24568 Dec 29, 2012
The same thing that we would say to any group: make the case.
Mike DiRucci wrote:
My point is the slippery slope is real and should be dealt with honestly.
It's a real fallacy. And one deals with it by pointing out that nothing in the legal recognition of same-sex marriage implies that it should be in the state's interest to give legal recognition to multiple simultaneous marriages.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24569 Dec 29, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
The case for polygamy is the same as for SSM. Marriage equality.
The case for polygamy isn't about marriage "equality". It's about giving legal recognition to *multiple* simultaneous marriages. Quite a different issue from "equality".

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24570 Dec 29, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
The case for polygamy isn't about marriage "equality". It's about giving legal recognition to *multiple* simultaneous marriages. Quite a different issue from "equality".
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.

Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24571 Dec 29, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
The same thing that we would say to any group: make the case.
<quoted text>
It's a real fallacy. And one deals with it by pointing out that nothing in the legal recognition of same-sex marriage implies that it should be in the state's interest to give legal recognition to multiple simultaneous marriages.
Why do you say it's a fallacy?

If we drop the gender part of "one man one woman" why can't we drop the number part? Asking that question is not a fallacy.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24572 Dec 29, 2012
At least you lunkheads dropped the silly notion that polygamy is a fish! We're making slight progress.

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 5 min Mychihuahuawillbite 309,581
News Ben Carson plans May 4 Detroit announcement 7 min Responsibility 107
News US senator says it's time to put a woman on the... 7 min xxxrayted 17
News Huckabee to reveal presidential plans on May 5 ... 8 min Mykro 1
News Race creeps into debate over stalled nomination... 13 min JCJ 5
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 15 min Teaman 1,216,374
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 17 min Chimney1 159,206
News Poll: Hillary Clinton most admired woman 6 hr Quirky 495
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 6 hr Quirky 323,136
News Stop Hillary marketing victory: GOP generates $... 8 hr Shinichiro Takizawa 123
More from around the web