Slippery Slope Predicted?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
It says they want to be treated the same as the other couples…currently polygamy is illegal.
[/quote]

Well the first step to being treated the same as other couples is to remain a couple.[/quote]

Not sure what you mean, in Utah and Idaho alone there are thousands of families with one husband and many “wifes”…what legal reason is there that they should not be able to be married?[/quote]

I think it was a joke. Like, if you want to be treated like a couple (2) you probably should remian a couple (2). [/quote]

The slippery slope that was discussed earlier, is that now virtually anybody has a legal argument on why they should be able to be married.[/quote]
But even when gay marriage wasn’t an issue, polygamy was. So if gay marriage were to be shot down, polygamists would still complain. [/quote]

Yes but they would not have newly passed LEGAL precedent on their side…as they do now.

Lets not forget the pedo perverts who are going to argue that they should be able to marry their underage paramours.

Slippery slope.[/quote]

You will have a point once the law starts letting “pedo perverts” marry underage partners. Saying someone has an argument for something doesn’t mean a law will change. Some states have allowed gay marriage for over ten years. And crazily enough those states aren’t allowing a 30 year old to marry a 9 year old.

Having a “legal” argument doesn’t mean anything will change. One can argue anything they want in court.

You know who’s ruining marriage? Red states. 8 of the top 10 divorce rate states voted for Mitt Romney (speaking of polygamists). And some of the lowest ones? States that allow gay marriage. I guess Christian conservatives have a hard time keeping vows to the Lord :slight_smile:

22

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
It says they want to be treated the same as the other couples…currently polygamy is illegal.
[/quote]

Well the first step to being treated the same as other couples is to remain a couple.[/quote]

Not sure what you mean, in Utah and Idaho alone there are thousands of families with one husband and many “wifes”…what legal reason is there that they should not be able to be married?[/quote]

I think it was a joke. Like, if you want to be treated like a couple (2) you probably should remian a couple (2). [/quote]

The slippery slope that was discussed earlier, is that now virtually anybody has a legal argument on why they should be able to be married.[/quote]
But even when gay marriage wasn’t an issue, polygamy was. So if gay marriage were to be shot down, polygamists would still complain. [/quote]

Yes but they would not have newly passed LEGAL precedent on their side…as they do now.

Lets not forget the pedo perverts who are going to argue that they should be able to marry their underage paramours.

Slippery slope.[/quote]

You will have a point once the law starts letting “pedo perverts” marry underage partners. Saying someone has an argument for something doesn’t mean a law will change. Some states have allowed gay marriage for over ten years. And crazily enough those states aren’t allowing a 30 year old to marry a 9 year old.

Having a “legal” argument doesn’t mean anything will change. One can argue anything they want in court.
[/quote]

So you are saying that judges will make MORAL decisions on who can and cannot marry?

I thought that all liberal thinkers were against such things?

23

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
It says they want to be treated the same as the other couples…currently polygamy is illegal.
[/quote]

Well the first step to being treated the same as other couples is to remain a couple.[/quote]

Not sure what you mean, in Utah and Idaho alone there are thousands of families with one husband and many “wifes”…what legal reason is there that they should not be able to be married?[/quote]

I think it was a joke. Like, if you want to be treated like a couple (2) you probably should remian a couple (2). [/quote]

The slippery slope that was discussed earlier, is that now virtually anybody has a legal argument on why they should be able to be married.[/quote]
But even when gay marriage wasn’t an issue, polygamy was. So if gay marriage were to be shot down, polygamists would still complain. [/quote]

Yes but they would not have newly passed LEGAL precedent on their side…as they do now.

Lets not forget the pedo perverts who are going to argue that they should be able to marry their underage paramours.

Slippery slope.[/quote]

You will have a point once the law starts letting “pedo perverts” marry underage partners. Saying someone has an argument for something doesn’t mean a law will change. Some states have allowed gay marriage for over ten years. And crazily enough those states aren’t allowing a 30 year old to marry a 9 year old.

Having a “legal” argument doesn’t mean anything will change. One can argue anything they want in court.
[/quote]

So you are saying that judges will make MORAL decisions on who can and cannot marry?

I thought that all liberal thinkers were against such things?

[/quote]

I’m pointing out that the fallacy behind your thinking. It isn’t like it’s a new thing in many states so where exactly is it? Where are all these gay marriage states that allow your example to happen?

Oh wait…they don’t exist. Continue on though with the gay marriage will cause X, X, X to happen. Even if we can prove you wrong, continue to argue.

24

Ahhhh the classic Zep way of arguing…I have proven you wrong (you haven’t) so I am proven right. (you’re not).

The basis is, gay marriage is legal.

Why are other illegal forms of marriage going to remain that way if somebody uses gay marriage as a logical argument for overturning the ban on their particular form of union?

25

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Ahhhh the classic Zep way of arguing…I have proven you wrong (you haven’t) so I am proven right. (you’re not).

The basis is, gay marriage is legal.

Why are other illegal forms of marriage going to remain that way if somebody uses gay marriage as a logical argument for overturning the ban on their particular form of union?[/quote]

Alcohol is a drug and is legal. Therefore heroin will be legal because you can logically argue along the same lines. Well sure you can argue that, but heroin isn’t legal.

Why would you assume they would be overturned? This hasn’t happened in any of the states that have allowed gay marriage yet so why would you assume that this will change in the future? Slippery slope is a logical fallacy that assumes because one thing happens something else will happen. Yet in the states that it has happened, your scenario hasn’t yet. And you think I should plausibly assume that this will change soon?

No I AM proven right. You can’t come up with one single example of where you are correct in a state that allows gay marriage. The one state that HAS had polygamy based issues the most currently doesn’t allow gay marriage. You honestly have nothing going for you at this point, all you can do is say, but in the future it will be different!

I’m more interested in figuring out why Christian conservative states can’t keep vows to the Lord than watching you try and play crystal ball based on what you hope happens so you can say “told ya we shouldn’t let queers marry!”

26

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Ahhhh the classic Zep way of arguing…I have proven you wrong (you haven’t) so I am proven right. (you’re not).

The basis is, gay marriage is legal.

Why are other illegal forms of marriage going to remain that way if somebody uses gay marriage as a logical argument for overturning the ban on their particular form of union?[/quote]

Alcohol is a drug and is legal. Therefore heroin will be legal because you can logically argue along the same lines. Well sure you can argue that, but heroin isn’t legal.

Why would you assume they would be overturned? This hasn’t happened in any of the states that have allowed gay marriage yet so why would you assume that this will change in the future. Slippery slope is a logical fallacy that assumes because one thing happens something else will happen. Yet in the states that it has happened, your scenario hasn’t yet. And you think I should plausibly assume that this will change soon?

No I AM proven right. You can’t come up with one single example of where you are correct in a state that allows gay marriage. The one state that HAS had polygamy based issues the most currently doesn’t allow gay marriage. You honestly have nothing going for you at this point, all you can do is say, but in the future it will be different!

[/quote]

I’m NOT SAYING IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED…can you quote me where I said it had already happened?

I’m saying the legal groundwork has been laid.

27

[quote]H factor wrote:
Alcohol is a drug and is legal. Therefore heroin will be legal because you can logically argue along the same lines. Well sure you can argue that, but heroin isn’t legal.
[/quote]

This is my opinion on the matter. The slippery slope isn’t fallacious because it contains contradictions, it’s fallacious because it is far, far too promiscuous. By that I mean, essentially everything is a slippery slope. SNAP, voter ID, driver’s license, standing military. Law itself. Everything.

28

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Alcohol is a drug and is legal. Therefore heroin will be legal because you can logically argue along the same lines. Well sure you can argue that, but heroin isn’t legal.
[/quote]

This is my opinion on the matter. The slippery slope isn’t fallacious because it contains contradictions, it’s fallacious because it is far, far too promiscuous. By that I mean, essentially everything is a slippery slope. SNAP, voter ID, driver’s license, standing military. Law itself. Everything.[/quote]

Drinking age, driving age, age of sexual consent, BAC laws, etc.

29

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Ahhhh the classic Zep way of arguing…I have proven you wrong (you haven’t) so I am proven right. (you’re not).

The basis is, gay marriage is legal.

Why are other illegal forms of marriage going to remain that way if somebody uses gay marriage as a logical argument for overturning the ban on their particular form of union?[/quote]

Alcohol is a drug and is legal. Therefore heroin will be legal because you can logically argue along the same lines. Well sure you can argue that, but heroin isn’t legal.

Why would you assume they would be overturned? This hasn’t happened in any of the states that have allowed gay marriage yet so why would you assume that this will change in the future. Slippery slope is a logical fallacy that assumes because one thing happens something else will happen. Yet in the states that it has happened, your scenario hasn’t yet. And you think I should plausibly assume that this will change soon?

No I AM proven right. You can’t come up with one single example of where you are correct in a state that allows gay marriage. The one state that HAS had polygamy based issues the most currently doesn’t allow gay marriage. You honestly have nothing going for you at this point, all you can do is say, but in the future it will be different!

[/quote]

I’m NOT SAYING IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED…can you quote me where I said it had already happened?

I’m saying the legal groundwork has been laid.

[/quote]

The legal groundwork to argue anything was laid long ago. You do realize you can argue anything you want in court correct?

Now, considering gay marriage has been legal in some states for a decade and none of the scenarios you are presenting have came to fruition…well, I guess we will keep waiting for the sky to fall chicken little.

30

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Alcohol is a drug and is legal. Therefore heroin will be legal because you can logically argue along the same lines. Well sure you can argue that, but heroin isn’t legal.
[/quote]

This is my opinion on the matter. The slippery slope isn’t fallacious because it contains contradictions, it’s fallacious because it is far, far too promiscuous. By that I mean, essentially everything is a slippery slope. SNAP, voter ID, driver’s license, standing military. Law itself. Everything.[/quote]

Even more hilarious is that the state he is from is the one which has had the biggest history of polygamy and it doesn’t even allow gay marriage.

31

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Alcohol is a drug and is legal. Therefore heroin will be legal because you can logically argue along the same lines. Well sure you can argue that, but heroin isn’t legal.
[/quote]

This is my opinion on the matter. The slippery slope isn’t fallacious because it contains contradictions, it’s fallacious because it is far, far too promiscuous. By that I mean, essentially everything is a slippery slope. SNAP, voter ID, driver’s license, standing military. Law itself. Everything.[/quote]

Even more hilarious is that the state he is from is the one which has had the biggest history of polygamy and it doesn’t even allow gay marriage. [/quote]

You are right…totally hilarious. TROLOLOLOLOLOLO

It is also the state that subtly tolerates polygamy and all the disgusting things that it brings, because the public allows it. And now those freaks are going to take their case up the legal chain.

If you agree that gays should be able to marry (which I happen to agree with) as a judge what is your reasoning that Polygamy should not also be legal?

Just because?

32

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Ahhhh the classic Zep way of arguing…I have proven you wrong (you haven’t) so I am proven right. (you’re not).

The basis is, gay marriage is legal.

Why are other illegal forms of marriage going to remain that way if somebody uses gay marriage as a logical argument for overturning the ban on their particular form of union?[/quote]

Alcohol is a drug and is legal. Therefore heroin will be legal because you can logically argue along the same lines. Well sure you can argue that, but heroin isn’t legal.

Why would you assume they would be overturned? This hasn’t happened in any of the states that have allowed gay marriage yet so why would you assume that this will change in the future. Slippery slope is a logical fallacy that assumes because one thing happens something else will happen. Yet in the states that it has happened, your scenario hasn’t yet. And you think I should plausibly assume that this will change soon?

No I AM proven right. You can’t come up with one single example of where you are correct in a state that allows gay marriage. The one state that HAS had polygamy based issues the most currently doesn’t allow gay marriage. You honestly have nothing going for you at this point, all you can do is say, but in the future it will be different!

[/quote]

I’m NOT SAYING IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED…can you quote me where I said it had already happened?

I’m saying the legal groundwork has been laid.

[/quote]

.well, I guess we will keep waiting for the sky to fall chicken little.

[/quote]

Ah grade school insults…what wit!

33

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

The slippery slope that was discussed earlier, is that now virtually anybody has a legal argument on why they should be able to be married.[/quote]

The government also now has a massive precedent that it can force you to purchase what it pleases, and from whom it pleases.

And guys, it isn’t gay marriage, it is same sex marriage. Just because homosexuals will likely partake in same sex marriage more often than heterosexuals doesn’t mean the government sudden now has a “sexuality checklist” on the marriage license. Stop inviting government into your bedroom with this.

34

Any argument that strays from the concept of consenting adults is seriously flawed. The argument on that slope isn’t adults marrying kids but kids being given the same rights as adults. I think that would require its own slope to slip down.

35

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Alcohol is a drug and is legal. Therefore heroin will be legal because you can logically argue along the same lines. Well sure you can argue that, but heroin isn’t legal.
[/quote]

This is my opinion on the matter. The slippery slope isn’t fallacious because it contains contradictions, it’s fallacious because it is far, far too promiscuous. By that I mean, essentially everything is a slippery slope. SNAP, voter ID, driver’s license, standing military. Law itself. Everything.[/quote]

Even more hilarious is that the state he is from is the one which has had the biggest history of polygamy and it doesn’t even allow gay marriage. [/quote]

You are right…totally hilarious. TROLOLOLOLOLOLO

It is also the state that subtly tolerates polygamy and all the disgusting things that it brings, because the public allows it. And now those freaks are going to take their case up the legal chain.

If you agree that gays should be able to marry (which I happen to agree with) as a judge what is your reasoning that Polygamy should not also be legal?

Just because?[/quote]

What is the reason its not legal currently? Modern marriage is defined as 2 people so going by that definition polygamy doesn’t fit.

36

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Alcohol is a drug and is legal. Therefore heroin will be legal because you can logically argue along the same lines. Well sure you can argue that, but heroin isn’t legal.
[/quote]

This is my opinion on the matter. The slippery slope isn’t fallacious because it contains contradictions, it’s fallacious because it is far, far too promiscuous. By that I mean, essentially everything is a slippery slope. SNAP, voter ID, driver’s license, standing military. Law itself. Everything.[/quote]

Even more hilarious is that the state he is from is the one which has had the biggest history of polygamy and it doesn’t even allow gay marriage. [/quote]

You are right…totally hilarious. TROLOLOLOLOLOLO

It is also the state that subtly tolerates polygamy and all the disgusting things that it brings, because the public allows it. And now those freaks are going to take their case up the legal chain.

If you agree that gays should be able to marry (which I happen to agree with) as a judge what is your reasoning that Polygamy should not also be legal?

Just because?[/quote]

What is the reason its not legal currently? Modern marriage is defined as 2 people so going by that definition polygamy doesn’t fit.[/quote]

Who made the definition of modern marriage? A judge, congress, popular opinion?

Religious folk defined it as a union between a man and a woman, and that did not seem to make any difference.

37

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Alcohol is a drug and is legal. Therefore heroin will be legal because you can logically argue along the same lines. Well sure you can argue that, but heroin isn’t legal.
[/quote]

This is my opinion on the matter. The slippery slope isn’t fallacious because it contains contradictions, it’s fallacious because it is far, far too promiscuous. By that I mean, essentially everything is a slippery slope. SNAP, voter ID, driver’s license, standing military. Law itself. Everything.[/quote]

Even more hilarious is that the state he is from is the one which has had the biggest history of polygamy and it doesn’t even allow gay marriage. [/quote]

You are right…totally hilarious. TROLOLOLOLOLOLO

It is also the state that subtly tolerates polygamy and all the disgusting things that it brings, because the public allows it. And now those freaks are going to take their case up the legal chain.

If you agree that gays should be able to marry (which I happen to agree with) as a judge what is your reasoning that Polygamy should not also be legal?

Just because?[/quote]

What is the reason its not legal currently? Modern marriage is defined as 2 people so going by that definition polygamy doesn’t fit.[/quote]

Who made the definition of modern marriage? A judge, congress, popular opinion?

Religious folk defined it as a union between a man and a woman, and that did not seem to make any difference.
[/quote]

It became a non-religious issue once the government started using it, once that happened their definition no longer mattered.

38

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Alcohol is a drug and is legal. Therefore heroin will be legal because you can logically argue along the same lines. Well sure you can argue that, but heroin isn’t legal.
[/quote]

This is my opinion on the matter. The slippery slope isn’t fallacious because it contains contradictions, it’s fallacious because it is far, far too promiscuous. By that I mean, essentially everything is a slippery slope. SNAP, voter ID, driver’s license, standing military. Law itself. Everything.[/quote]

Even more hilarious is that the state he is from is the one which has had the biggest history of polygamy and it doesn’t even allow gay marriage. [/quote]

You are right…totally hilarious. TROLOLOLOLOLOLO

It is also the state that subtly tolerates polygamy and all the disgusting things that it brings, because the public allows it. And now those freaks are going to take their case up the legal chain.

If you agree that gays should be able to marry (which I happen to agree with) as a judge what is your reasoning that Polygamy should not also be legal?

Just because?[/quote]

What is a judges reasoning for keeping heroin illegal? You keep acting as if this “has” to happen or something because you could make some arguments for it. You can make an argument for owning a nuclear weapon as a person, but if you get one and are caught you’ll get in trouble. This really isn’t complicated.

39

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

Ah grade school insults…what wit![/quote]

Grade school intelligence is displayed by the person who believes that because one thing happens then something else has to happen.

40

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

Ah grade school insults…what wit![/quote]

Grade school intelligence is displayed by the person who believes that because one thing happens then something else has to happen.
[/quote]

Please quote me where I said it HAS TO HAPPEN…go ahead I’ll wait.

You are good at making stuff up H.

I only said it has legal precedent for some to try.

And it will be a case of what a judge thinks is right…waddya know, a moral decision.