Gay marriage thread

[ahinton]

I like it Pabs Very clear. I've wanted to deploy that argument many times in real life, and failed to do so as clearly as that. I'm going to print that out and learn it by heart!

You could indeed do a whole lot worse than that!

[scottycelt]

I do hope you don't include me as a 'usual suspect', Scotty. But you have said you are challenging something 'on the grounds of simple logic'. No you are not; in fact you're raising a logical fallacy - the 'slippery slope' or 'camel's nose' fallacy. (If you let the camel poke its nose into the tent, the rest of the camel will follow.)

This has long been regarded as a fallacy, and thus a 'bad' argument, since the assumption is that something is wrong because it is next to something that is wrong. Or, it is wrong because it could slide towards something that is wrong. Neither says much about the quality of the substantive argument, but they do say something about the proponent. The fallacy is closely related to the 'straw man' fallacy (where I exaggerate your argument and then spend the time demolishing the exaggeration).

No-one is proposing anything but extending the idea of marriage to any two humans of legal age. To argue on the basis that something else might happen in the future is unhelpful. Anything might happen one day, but that has nothing at all to do with the current proposal.

And that, Scotty, is logic.

Not at all, Pab ... I would never suspect you of anything at all apart from your regular tendency to keep disagreeing with me.

However, the time-honoured 'slippery slope' is far from being 'a straw man' argument and I've already highlighted two recent cases where it has been fully vindicated. There are many, many more, but there is little point in simply adding to already indisputable evidence. If you let the camel poke its nose into the tent, not only may the greedy animal end up tearing down that tent, but you may well find a pride of watchful desert lions eagerly following its example in the future.

Of course I am not saying that it is certain that demand for polygamous marriage may follow in the UK, but that has already happened in Canada and polygamous marriage is now 'all but legal' in the Netherlands.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301.

Pro-gay-marriage groups frequently point to other 'more enlightened' countries as an example of the way forward. Do you honestly think that other groups will not soon do the same and demand the same 'equal rights' when it comes to marriage?

I cannot think of a single reason why they should not do so. Their demands will have the full strength of simple logic and therefore will be almost impossible to resist.

It is no good then crying that this wasn't the original intention especially when others have constantly pre-warned that this was precisely the likely and logical outcome.

Only time will tell, Pab, only time will tell. I wonder if my canny local bookmaker will give me nice long odds against future demands for polygamous marriage. ...

[Ferretfancy]

I suppose it's reassuring in a way to see that some contributors to these threads are just as dim and confused on the subject as members of the House of Peers --"Who down the years. did nothing in particular and did it very well "( Iolanthe )

Of course, I am not referring to YOU! ( Whoever you are )

[amateur51]

Your omniscience as to the thinking of 'others' is truly impressive, Beefy...

[amateur51]

Not at all, Pab ... I would never suspect you of anything at all apart from your regular tendency to keep disagreeing with me.

However, the time-honoured 'slippery slope' is far from being 'a straw man' argument and I've already highlighted two recent cases where it has been fully vindicated. There are many, many more, but there is little point in simply adding to already indisputable evidence. If you let the camel poke its nose into the tent, not only may the greedy animal end up tearing down that tent, but you may well find a pride of watchful desert lions eagerly following its example in the future.

Of course I am not saying that it is certain that demand for polygamous marriage may follow in the UK, but that has already happened in Canada and polygamous marriage is now 'all but legal' in the Netherlands.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301.

Pro-gay-marriage groups frequently point to other 'more enlightened' countries as an example of the way forward. Do you honestly think that other groups will not soon do the same and demand the same 'equal rights' when it comes to marriage?

I cannot think of a single reason why they should not do so. Their demands will have the full strength of simple logic and therefore will be almost impossible to resist.

It is no good then crying that this wasn't the original intention especially when others have constantly pre-warned that this was precisely the likely and logical outcome.

Only time will tell, Pab, only time will tell. I wonder if my canny local bookmaker will give me nice long odds against future demands for polygamous marriage. ...

It must be getting a bit sweaty down in the bunker at scottytowers - oh the horror! the horror!

[Pabmusic]

Not at all, Pab ... I would never suspect you of anything at all apart from your regular tendency to keep disagreeing with me. ..

I am relieved, Scotty - and I have agreed with you before. It was on ... oh! I can't find the date, but it definitely happened.

Of course I understand what 'slippery slope' arguments are and why they are emotionally popular, but to have a real point you would need to show that what is happening now would necessarily lead to what you fear even more.

Take a very obvious example. The fact that heterosexual couples were allowed to have sex (provided they met with the conditions about age and consent) did not actually lead to demands that gay couples should do likewise. For most of history, it was treated as a a wholly unlawful act anyway. It had to wait until our overall 'morality' changed (some might say until we grew up) before such demands were listened to. There are as yet no demands, as far as I know, for lawful sex with minors or animals just because hetero- and homo- couples can themselves have lawful sex. And even if there were, I doubt they'd be listened to very seriously.

As to polygamous marriage, I detect no serious calls for it, but if they come the arguments for and against can be addressed then.

[Pabmusic]

I like it Pabs Very clear. I've wanted to deploy that argument many times in real life, and failed to do so as clearly as that. I'm going to print that out and learn it by heart!

I'll test you on it.

Seriously, though, teaching logic has disappeared from schools completely, hasn't it? It's as if clear thinking were not considered important any more.

[Beef Oven]

Your omniscience as to the thinking of 'others' is truly impressive, Beefy...

Nothing omniscient about it Cali. Most back-slaps and silly emoticons go to posts that are agreed, even if they are talking crap.

[Nick Armstrong]

Nothing omniscient about it Cali. Most back-slaps and silly emoticons go to posts that are agreed, even if they are talking crap.

[Flosshilde]

Nothing omniscient about it Cali. Most back-slaps and silly emoticons go to posts that are agreed, even if they are talking crap.

Originally Posted by Mr Pee View Post
Why indeed? One might ask its advocates the same question. It is, to them, a campaign issue which in practice means virtually nothing since civil partnerships were ratified. But to others, it represents a degradation and cheapening of the the very concept of marriage itself.

Hence the "fuss".

Exactly! Well put the Pee-geezer

[scottycelt]

I am relieved, Scotty - and I have agreed with you before. It was on ... oh! I can't find the date, but it definitely happened.

Of course I understand what 'slippery slope' arguments are and why they are emotionally popular, but to have a real point you would need to show that what is happening now would necessarily lead to what you fear even more.

Take a very obvious example. The fact that heterosexual couples were allowed to have sex (provided they met with the conditions about age and consent) did not actually lead to demands that gay couples should do likewise. For most of history, it was treated as a a wholly unlawful act anyway. It had to wait until our overall 'morality' changed (some might say until we grew up) before such demands were listened to. There are as yet no demands, as far as I know, for lawful sex with minors or animals just because hetero- and homo- couples can themselves have lawful sex. And even if there were, I doubt they'd be listened to very seriously.

As to polygamous marriage, I detect no serious calls for it, but if they come the arguments for and against can be addressed then.

I think we once agreed on the issue of capital punishment, Pab ... one tends to remember these one-off, celebratory events.

Back to normality! I'm not sure what you mean by 'emotionally popular' in regard to the 'slippery slope' case. Unlike the opposing view it would appear to be wholly devoid of both emotion and any great degree of popularity (indeed the latter is frequently cited) and is based entirely on realism gleaned from past human experience. 'Opening the floodgates' is yet another phrase that has been coined thanks to this vast wealth of experience. All these phrases mean much the same thing. One thing leads to another ... ah, there's another one!

You say 'there as yet no demands ..' which kind of suggests that you don't actually rule out future calls for further extensions to the definition of marriage? I agree that the Great British Public is most unlikely to lend enthusiastic support for marriage which includes minors and animals, but the next step (polygamy) is a whole different matter, as it could easily be justified on similar 'equality' and 'human rights' grounds. That's exactly what has happened elsewhere, as I've already illustrated. Why shouldn't men have 26 wives if they wish and vice-versa? And what about our bisexual friends? Surely they should be entitled to the same 'rights' as everyone else and be permitted a partner(s) of each sex? If not, why not?

Your last paragraph refers to 'addressing' any future demands if and when they happen. It is difficult to see how they can be addressed other than by conceding to the demands on similar grounds of 'fairness' and 'equality'. 'Marriage' will by then get mightily, mightily complicated which will be really super news for those who tend to believe it is already quite complicated enough!

Ever heard that other silly phrase about "the first skittle to fall", Pab ... ?

[MrGongGong]

You say 'there as yet no demands ..' which kind of suggests that you don't actually rule out future calls for further extensions to the definition of marriage? I agree that the Great British Public is most unlikely to lend enthusiastic support for marriage which includes minors and animals, but the next step (polygamy) is a whole different matter, as it could easily be justified on similar 'equality' and 'human rights' grounds. That's exactly what has happened elsewhere, as I've already illustrated. Why shouldn't men have 26 wives if they wish and vice-versa? And what about our bisexual friends? Surely they should be entitled to the same 'rights' as everyone else and be permitted a partner(s) of each sex? If not, why not?
:

I don't believe that those forwarding this rather confused "argument" (tortoise Tebbit was rambling on about marrying his brother or some such nonsense as well ?) really believe this.
Yes, it's true that "one thing leads to another"
but that doesn't mean that "any thing leads to any other"
is there a campaign to get the under 5s allowed to drive HGV's ?

Did you realise that after the development of serialism the incidence of Bubonic Plague dropped considerably in Europe ?
Perfectly logical in the same way

and look what has happened to the world since we allowed women to vote

It's easy to dress intolerance and bigotry up in clothes of "logic"

[Pabmusic]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'emotionally popular' in regard to the 'slippery slope' case.

I mean popularity based on emotion (what feels right) rather than rationalism. Unhappily, too many 'emotional' arguments lead to disaster ("It's that group over there that's responsible for this..." Insert Jews, Blacks, Immigrants or whatever as appropriate.

You say 'there as yet no demands ..' which kind of suggests that you don't actually rule out future calls for further extensions to the definition of marriage?...

Yes (see - another agreement!). But future calls will not succeed because of what has happened already, but will have to stand on their own merits (or else we should already have succumbed to allowing sex with minors and animals simply because of precedence).

'Marriage' will by then get mightily, mightily complicated which will be really super news for those who tend to believe it is already quite complicated enough!

Ah! So you fear the complexity of it! Well that's understandable. The answer is to take steps to understand it, not to ban it because you can't grasp it.

...Ever heard that other silly phrase about "the first skittle to fall", Pab ... ?

No, afraid not.

[Mr Pee]

Did you realise that after the development of serialism the incidence of Bubonic Plague dropped considerably in Europe ?
Perfectly logical in the same way

No it isn't.

[Pabmusic]

No it isn't.

Oh yes it is (children join in). It demonstrates the non sequitur fallacy, which Mr GG's post did very well. The fact that something happens does not mean that an earlier thing caused it.