Politics...

[justin]

I offer a clear and cogent argument in favor of a tolerant and compassionate cause, and everybody thinks I'm joking. What oh what did I do to deserve that...

justin

 

[statler]

Mostly because polygamy is often used as a lead-in to the slippery slope argument. I was assuming that is where you were going. I was just trying to head it off at the pass.
You mention 'other non-traditional family units'. What other units did you have in mind?

 

[justin]

Mostly because polygamy is often used as a lead-in to the slippery slope argument. I was assuming that is where you were going. I was just trying to head it off at the pass.

One man's modus ponens is another man's modus tolens...

You mention 'other non-traditional family units'. What other units did you have in mind?

I mentioned at least two types in my previous post.

justin

 

[Patrick]

I offer a clear and cogent argument in favor of a tolerant and compassionate cause, and everybody thinks I'm joking. What oh what did I do to deserve that...

justin

I am inclined to think you are writing more to be ostentacious and evoke contradictory responses than to make a point.

 

[justin]

I am inclined to think you are writing more to be ostentacious and evoke contradictory responses than to make a point.

Moi, ostentacious?! Ya lol, dude, ya lol.

I'm being anything but ostentatious; and I am, in fact, making a simple point. One of the main arguments for extending marriage rights to gay couples was that respect for individual choice trumps tradition as a criterion for the state's deciding on whom to confer the benefits of marriage. If that is the operating principle, it applies just as well to incest and poligamy, so long as the arrangement in question really is the individual choice of all the parties involved (i.e. no coercion). In fact, fundamentalist Mormons or very old-fashioned Sunnis have a religious freedom argument to boot, so their claim to marriage rights is even stronger than the gays'.

Until we take the lovely principle of the primacy of choice to its logical extreme and replace binary marriage with some sort of general state-decreed guidelines for cohabitation contracts , we will merely have shifted the prejudice, not abolished it.

As for me wanting to 'evoke contradictory responses', the two I have evoked so far, yours and statlers, don't seem to particularly contradict one another. If you meant to say that I aim to animate the debate, well yeah, there's nothing more boring in life than agreement.

justin

 

[atlrvr]

I think I'm buying into Justin's arguement. I don't particularly have a problem with gay marriage, though I do think a "civil union" or pick any other word would be preferable, because I think the word marriage has historical implication of man+woman. However, I think his arguement is logical, which is the reasoning for allowing gay marriage is flawed by the courts. A more limiting definition of who should be allowed to "marry" (1 man + 1 woman, 1 man + 1 man, 3 women, 1 man + 1 goat, etc.) The problem is why relyed on tradition to answer this question in the past, and now it is obvious tradition isn't the leading consideration.

 

[Patrick]

I am inclined to think you are writing more to be ostentacious and evoke contradictory responses than to make a point.

Moi, ostentacious?! Ya lol, dude, ya lol.

I'm being anything but ostentatious; and I am, in fact, making a simple point. One of the main arguments for extending marriage rights to gay couples was that respect for individual choice trumps tradition as a criterion for the state's deciding on whom to confer the benefits of marriage. If that is the operating principle, it applies just as well to incest and poligamy, so long as the arrangement in question really is the individual choice of all the parties involved (i.e. no coercion). In fact, fundamentalist Mormons or very old-fashioned Sunnis have a religious freedom argument to boot, so their claim to marriage rights is even stronger than the gays'.

Until we take the lovely principle of the primacy of choice to its logical extreme and replace binary marriage with some sort of general state-decreed guidelines for cohabitation contracts , we will merely have shifted the prejudice, not abolished it.

As for me wanting to 'evoke contradictory responses', the two I have evoked so far, yours and statlers, don't seem to particularly contradict one another. If you meant to say that I aim to animate the debate, well yeah, there's nothing more boring in life than agreement.

justin

I meant responses which contradict your point of view, not each other's. before your last post, I had a hard time buying that you actually believed what you were saying. It almost seemed as if you were being sarcastic. That's why i asked if you were joking.

 

[DudeUrSistersHot]

^justin