4 ms·

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 pa

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
    What the OP actually said is the following: "They [prop 8 supporters] very explicitly wanted to take a right away from other people, even though they suffered no plausible harm from those people exercising that right." This isn't presented as an argument for the legality of gay marriage; rather, it already presupposes that gay couples have the legal right to get married (as indeed they did in California before proposition 8 passed). It's uncharitable and implausible to assume that the OP would be able to present no argument for the legalisation of gay marriage other than "it wouldn't harm anyone". It certainly doesn't advance the discussion to attribute to them a weak argument that they didn't even make. >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? What argument would logically allow an opposite sex marriage of a man and a woman who aren't clearly related to each other but exclude brothers or sisters from marrying each other? Unless you think that there's some kind of analogy between same sex relationships and incest, then same sex marriage is totally irrelevant here. Can't think of a reason to ban incestuous marriages? Then the slippery slope starts from opposite sex marriage, not from same sex marriage.
    - wander_homer 6y ago
      Why do you avoid my answering my question? > What argument would logically allow an opposite sex marriage of a man and a woman who aren't clearly related to each other but exclude brothers or sisters from marrying each other? I can't think of one, which is why I never claimed there are good reasons to not allow such type of marriages, unlike you. I said multiple times that I'm completely fine with all types of marriages and relationships that don't exploit or harm people. > Can't think of a reason to ban incestuous marriages? Then the slippery slope starts from opposite sex marriage, not from same sex marriage. Yes, which is why I'd allow such type marriages. You however claimed there are good reasons that the slippery slope either stops after same-sex marriage or doesn't even start in the first place. So would you just answer my question and give me one of those good reasons, why for example sibling marriages are bad and normal same sex marriages are fine?
      - 6y ago

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
  What the OP actually said is the following: "They [prop 8 supporters] very explicitly wanted to take a right away from other people, even though they suffered no plausible harm from those people exercising that right." This isn't presented as an argument for the legality of gay marriage; rather, it already presupposes that gay couples have the legal right to get married (as indeed they did in California before proposition 8 passed). It's uncharitable and implausible to assume that the OP would be able to present no argument for the legalisation of gay marriage other than "it wouldn't harm anyone". It certainly doesn't advance the discussion to attribute to them a weak argument that they didn't even make. >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? What argument would logically allow an opposite sex marriage of a man and a woman who aren't clearly related to each other but exclude brothers or sisters from marrying each other? Unless you think that there's some kind of analogy between same sex relationships and incest, then same sex marriage is totally irrelevant here. Can't think of a reason to ban incestuous marriages? Then the slippery slope starts from opposite sex marriage, not from same sex marriage.
  - wander_homer 6y ago
    Why do you avoid my answering my question? > What argument would logically allow an opposite sex marriage of a man and a woman who aren't clearly related to each other but exclude brothers or sisters from marrying each other? I can't think of one, which is why I never claimed there are good reasons to not allow such type of marriages, unlike you. I said multiple times that I'm completely fine with all types of marriages and relationships that don't exploit or harm people. > Can't think of a reason to ban incestuous marriages? Then the slippery slope starts from opposite sex marriage, not from same sex marriage. Yes, which is why I'd allow such type marriages. You however claimed there are good reasons that the slippery slope either stops after same-sex marriage or doesn't even start in the first place. So would you just answer my question and give me one of those good reasons, why for example sibling marriages are bad and normal same sex marriages are fine?
    - 6y ago