6 ms·

> I think you're saying that you're ok with gay marriage if gay marriage is legal, which kind of doges the main question of whether or not it should be legal.

> I think you're saying that you're ok with gay marriage if gay marriage is legal, which kind of doges the main question of whether or not it should be legal. No, again: If opposite-sex marriage is legal, then I think any other type of partnership should be allowed to become married as well, whether its same-sex with two men, 20 women, a whole family, ... > I'd find your opposition to the legal recognition of any marriages more credible if you divorced your wife in solidarity :) Why do you assume I'm married to a woman? I'm married because we get the most benefits out of it and my partner is kind of sentimental and has a different opinion about that topic, so I'm doing them a favor as well. Like with every other human being, my views and actions aren't always consistent. For example I also don't like child labour, but here I am typing this on a machine that likely made quite a few children suffer.

foldr 6y ago
I assume you're married to a woman (or a man, if you're a woman) because you responded negatively to a comment that said voting for prop 8 wasn't an action that was harmful to gay people. If you are in fact in a same sex relationship, then shame on you.
- wander_homer 6y ago
  > I assume you're married to a woman (or a man, if you're a woman) because you responded negatively to a comment that said voting for prop 8 wasn't an action that was harmful to gay people. I didn't respond negatively to that comment. I provided an explanation, that those people who object to the idea of gay marriage do the same thing as almost everyone else, even many who are in favor of gay marriage: They have a certain image or ideal in their head, of how a marriage has to look like, and everything that doesn't fit that image feels wrong to them and shouldn't be legal. Hence almost everyone wants to exclude certain types of relationships from getting married. I explicitly focused on that argument: > They very explicitly wanted to take a right away from other people, even though they suffered no plausible harm from those people exercising that right. from the comment, which IMHO is a misleading argument, since I don't believe that many gay marriage supporters take it seriously. So you should finally answer my question, so I know where you stand: Do you believe that that argument is valid, i.e. are you also fine with a mother (50) marrying her son (30) or 12 people getting married? According to that argument it should be legal as well, since they don't harm anyone, but I have a strong feeling that even most gay marriage proponents wouldn't support such a type of marriage. So they're line would just be somewhere else.
  - foldr 6y ago
    Oh man, it's 2020, a gay marriage thread...do we still have to talk about incest, polygamous marriage, owners marrying their dogs, and what ever other red herrings your imagination can supply? We can, if you really want to, but that line of argument has been debunked so many times that I'd have to question the sincerity of anyone who brings it up nowadays. If you are genuinely interested, see p. 208 of the following paper: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1178&context=faculty_articles https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=...
    - wander_homer 6y ago
      The paper already starts of with multiple premises that don't apply to any of my arguments. 1. I never put forward an argument against gay marriage, yet the paper is all about debunking arguments against gay marriage. 2. I don't consider it a bad effect if other types relationships were allowed to get married, it's the opposite, I'd consider it a huge improvement to what we have right now. Yet the paper assumes someone said: "If we allow gay marriage, we will also have to allow [policy X], which would unquestionably be bad." Hence I must assume, that you either didn't read or understand anything I wrote, or you didn't read the paper.
      - foldr 6y ago
        Your argument was that everyone believes that marriage should be restricted in some ways, so that believing it should be restricted to opposite sex couples is no worse than believing it should be restricted in any other way. If you read it, the paper addresses that kind of slippery slope argument. It explains that it is not at all difficult to find good reasons for expanding marriage to include same sex couples without expanding it in every other conceivable way. Hence, there is no prima facie case to be made that every other still-existing restriction is a violation of anyone's rights.
        wander_homer 6y ago
        > Your argument was that everyone believes that marriage should be restricted in some ways, so that believing it should be restricted to opposite sex couples is no worse than believing it should be restricted in any other way. No, my point is that if someone brings forward the argument that same-sex marriage is fine because it doesn't harm anyone, but they then oppose other types of marriages that don't harm anyone, they obviously don't take their own argument seriously. Hence they shouldn't be surprised if others don't take it seriously as well, but they actually criticize them for doing so. > It explains that it is not at all difficult to find good reasons for expanding marriage to include same sex couples without expanding it in every other conceivable way. Which is completely irrelevant to this discussion, because the reason that was brought forward for expanding marriage was "it's fine if it does no harm to anyone", not some other reasons which prevent a slippery slope. You're basically saying, that if the other user had brought up a better argument, my critique wouldn't apply. Edit: But just out of curiosity, what argument would logically allow a same-sex marriage of men or women, who aren't closely related to each other, but exclude two brothers or sisters from marrying each other?

foldr 6y ago

I assume you're married to a woman (or a man, if you're a woman) because you responded negatively to a comment that said voting for prop 8 wasn't an action that was harmful to gay people. If you are in fact in a same sex relationship, then shame on you.

wander_homer 6y ago
> I assume you're married to a woman (or a man, if you're a woman) because you responded negatively to a comment that said voting for prop 8 wasn't an action that was harmful to gay people. I didn't respond negatively to that comment. I provided an explanation, that those people who object to the idea of gay marriage do the same thing as almost everyone else, even many who are in favor of gay marriage: They have a certain image or ideal in their head, of how a marriage has to look like, and everything that doesn't fit that image feels wrong to them and shouldn't be legal. Hence almost everyone wants to exclude certain types of relationships from getting married. I explicitly focused on that argument: > They very explicitly wanted to take a right away from other people, even though they suffered no plausible harm from those people exercising that right. from the comment, which IMHO is a misleading argument, since I don't believe that many gay marriage supporters take it seriously. So you should finally answer my question, so I know where you stand: Do you believe that that argument is valid, i.e. are you also fine with a mother (50) marrying her son (30) or 12 people getting married? According to that argument it should be legal as well, since they don't harm anyone, but I have a strong feeling that even most gay marriage proponents wouldn't support such a type of marriage. So they're line would just be somewhere else.
- foldr 6y ago
  Oh man, it's 2020, a gay marriage thread...do we still have to talk about incest, polygamous marriage, owners marrying their dogs, and what ever other red herrings your imagination can supply? We can, if you really want to, but that line of argument has been debunked so many times that I'd have to question the sincerity of anyone who brings it up nowadays. If you are genuinely interested, see p. 208 of the following paper: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1178&context=faculty_articles https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=...
  - wander_homer 6y ago
    The paper already starts of with multiple premises that don't apply to any of my arguments. 1. I never put forward an argument against gay marriage, yet the paper is all about debunking arguments against gay marriage. 2. I don't consider it a bad effect if other types relationships were allowed to get married, it's the opposite, I'd consider it a huge improvement to what we have right now. Yet the paper assumes someone said: "If we allow gay marriage, we will also have to allow [policy X], which would unquestionably be bad." Hence I must assume, that you either didn't read or understand anything I wrote, or you didn't read the paper.
    - foldr 6y ago
      Your argument was that everyone believes that marriage should be restricted in some ways, so that believing it should be restricted to opposite sex couples is no worse than believing it should be restricted in any other way. If you read it, the paper addresses that kind of slippery slope argument. It explains that it is not at all difficult to find good reasons for expanding marriage to include same sex couples without expanding it in every other conceivable way. Hence, there is no prima facie case to be made that every other still-existing restriction is a violation of anyone's rights.
      - wander_homer 6y ago
        > Your argument was that everyone believes that marriage should be restricted in some ways, so that believing it should be restricted to opposite sex couples is no worse than believing it should be restricted in any other way. No, my point is that if someone brings forward the argument that same-sex marriage is fine because it doesn't harm anyone, but they then oppose other types of marriages that don't harm anyone, they obviously don't take their own argument seriously. Hence they shouldn't be surprised if others don't take it seriously as well, but they actually criticize them for doing so. > It explains that it is not at all difficult to find good reasons for expanding marriage to include same sex couples without expanding it in every other conceivable way. Which is completely irrelevant to this discussion, because the reason that was brought forward for expanding marriage was "it's fine if it does no harm to anyone", not some other reasons which prevent a slippery slope. You're basically saying, that if the other user had brought up a better argument, my critique wouldn't apply. Edit: But just out of curiosity, what argument would logically allow a same-sex marriage of men or women, who aren't closely related to each other, but exclude two brothers or sisters from marrying each other?