Replies

Actually, I’ve suggested we stop using the word “marriage,” which has religious connotations, to describe civil unions, which don’t. The state shouldn’t be in the business of declaring things sacred, should it? Wouldn’t you prefer that be left to religious institutions?

You seem to be suggesting there’s only one definition of civil marriage. At the moment, there are many, and the definitions vary by state. Same-sex marriage is a reality in several countries, and now two U.S. states. It doesn’t matter what you or I propose, because “same-sex pairings” already qualify as marriages in some parts of the country. That ship has sailed.

The first part of the first paragraph is just nonsense. Yours was a very funny circular argument. So much that I thought you must be joking. Apparently you weren’t, but you still get credit for making me laugh.

I see you’re very keen on making a case for kangaroo marriage. Do you know what a “slippery slope fallacy” is? You just constructed an absolutely perfect example, so read about it, and pat yourself on the back:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Actually, I’ve suggested we stop using the word “marriage,” which has religious connotations, to describe civil unions, which don’t.

Evidently you've never heard of people being married by justices of the peace and seaship captains. Not to mention that civil unions are simply marriages in all but name.

The state shouldn’t be in the business of declaring things sacred, should it? Wouldn’t you prefer that be left to religious institutions?

You're not leaving them up to religious institutions if you replace marriages with civil unions which have the same function as marriages.

That's pretty funny coming from someone who lectured us about Sharia law earlier. Following your reasoning, since Sharia law is already practiced in some jurisdictions, we may as well import it here. After all, that ship has sailed.

Well, you might want to save some of that laughter for yourself since you made the fatal error of accusing a debate rival of both circular reasoning and a slippery slope argument in the same post. So let's take a look at this logically (I'm doing this for the benefit of any lurkers, because I don't think you'll get it):

I said people of the same sex can't marry because marriage is defined as being the bonding of people of the opposite sex. You said that was a circular argument since the definition of marriage can be changed. You then said that it's a "slippery slope" erroneous argument to suggest that we might one day have human-animal "marriage" because such pairings don't fit the definition of marriage. Why not? Well, uh, well, you know, because marriage is between two people, not a person and an animal, and because marriage requires both parties to consent. But if that's the case, then why can't the definition of marriage be changed to include animals and non-consensual members? Are you suggesting that the definition of marriage can't be changed? If so, according to you, that's a circular argument.

You see, when you start defining things in ways that are contradictory to legitimate meaning, you open yourself up to a steady stream of Big Brotherish redefinitions. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Marriage is whatever the state says it is as of this morning.

I'm very well aware of what a slippery slope fallacy is. I should be since I was here at FR when the Lawrence sodomy ruling was handed down. I was accused by people like yourself of employing a slippery slope argument when I said it would lead to same-sex "marriage". Damn, it's a good thing I was wrong, huh?