If Marriage Is a Fundamental Right, Then?

[Phatscotty]

Looks like we're trapped by different definitions of "marriage."

Phatscotty, in stateless society, would you be opposed to gay couples* obtaining a 'civil union'?

*assuming they are consenting, 'normal' adults. (Normal as in no abnormal mental impairments and the like).

No. I fully support civil unions for whatever 2 people want them, gay or straight. I've only said that like a million times tho. I would vote for that.

Of course there are different definitions of marriage now. That's what this is all about. redefining marriage.

So because you also put down (or I believe you said it, dont quote me on that) that you dont care if they get the same rights and all that married couples get, that you just think they should be named different? I dont know if that's what your saying, but thats what Im putting together.

Marriage has a definition. Basically you are asking me why I don't agree with changing the definition. There are plenty of reasons, but for now I'll just stick with "because we don't have to". Whatever they claim they are being denied (which is a separate discussion) can be accomplished on a state level, without changing the definition of marriage.

I just say let nature take it's course. When people are ready for it, they will have it. That's how most people who hold my position on the issue see it. The problem is the other side goes crazy if anyone disagrees with them. They can't accept if votes don't go their way. I can accept a vote that doesn't go my way. I am tolerant.

They are intolerant and many of them repeatedly resort to bullying and slander, and their main objective is to kill or distort any discussion on the issue. Just look at a lot of page 1, 2, and 3.

This isn't aimed at you, but at the conversation in general. It's like the people who support traditional marriage (which always has been male/female since marriage began) are the ones that are forced into the closet...

[BigBallinStalin]

Looks like we're trapped by different definitions of "marriage."

Phatscotty, in stateless society, would you be opposed to gay couples* obtaining a 'civil union'?

*assuming they are consenting, 'normal' adults. (Normal as in no abnormal mental impairments and the like).

No. I fully support civil unions for whatever 2 people want them, gay or straight. I've only said that like a million times tho. I would vote for that.

Of course there are different definitions of marriage now. That's what this is all about. redefining marriage.

Oh I know, PS, and thanks for replying. I felt it necessary to clarify your stance for everyone.

Now, the debate should be about "redefining marriage"/ "the consequences of changes to the meaning of marriage".

[new guy1]

I can see from the point of view in the picture. But I dont call people bigots or anything if they dont believe in gay rights, I just try to convince them that it really is okay if someone is like that.

[Phatscotty]

I can see from the point of view in the picture. But I dont call people bigots or anything if they dont believe in gay rights, I just try to convince them that it really is okay if someone is like that.

of course it's okays. I love gays.

But remember they are only 1-3% of the population, and polls suggest that only about 10% of those want to get married. That's not an argument point, but are we really supposed to fundamentally transform something like marriage? I understand the monetary benefits aspect, just wish people were more honest about i

And also, this isn't just about gay marriage. This is about recognizing the differences in gender. Many people think it's just LBGT. Well, it isn't anymore. It's LBGTtQUNAAPX, with a recent ruling out of California that pedophilia is a gender (in a very confusing way concerning forced psychological help for "gender confusion"), and another case in Massachusetts where incest is being defended with "it's all about who you love" and if you think consent wasn't there, consent from the daughter was there, and since this is in Mass., it's going to get interesting. The guy is an Ivy League professor, and he is taking this argument ALL THE WAY. and btw, the incest case meets every criteria of the earlier "person X" and Person Y" situation.

It's not a slippery slope when it's happening in real time. It's where those places are now

[new guy1]

I can see from the point of view in the picture. But I dont call people bigots or anything if they dont believe in gay rights, I just try to convince them that it really is okay if someone is like that.

of course it's okays. I love gays.

But remember they are only 1-3% of the population, and polls suggest that only about 10% of those want to get married. That's not an argument point, but are we really going to fundamentally transform something like marriage based on some kind of marriage fantasy that is being denied? (I understand the monetary benefits aspect, just wish people were more honest about it)

And also, this isn't just about gay marriage. This is about recognizing the differences in gender. Many people think it's just LBGT. Well, it isn't anymore. It's LBGTtQUNAAPX, with a recent ruling out of California that pedophilia is a gender, and another case in Massachusetts where incest is being defended with "it's all about who you love" and if you think consent wasn't there, it was, and I don't even like talking about NAMBLA and what they are hoping for in all this.

Well why were we fighting earlier if we agree on my main point . Im going to bed XD. I can see why you wouldnt necessarily want (per say) this particular bill to be passed if all those other groups were on the list, as you dont agree with some of them and theres some that I dont really agree with on there. We have common ground is what Im trying to say.

[Phatscotty]

I can see from the point of view in the picture. But I dont call people bigots or anything if they dont believe in gay rights, I just try to convince them that it really is okay if someone is like that.

I commend you for this. They are way out of line calling people that just for disagreeing. I mean, it's not like history is on their side, it's on ours. Of course some people really are bigots, but really I think it's all on the other side.

They don't realize this is strictly in "creed" territory, and they are discriminating based on creed big time. I think abusing the word bigot and using it so often without reason is a form of hatred and certainly intolerance and bullying. I don't want to really convince anyone, as I know most people's minds are made up, and for most it's as simple as "I know someone who is gay" and that's the end of it. I only wish to have an actual discussion, to introduce the points clearly, outside of the closet, to look at the intended consequences, explore some of the unintended consequences etc. It's a lot harder than it sounds.

In France, they are trying to ban the words "mother" and "father". In Massachussets, Catholic Orphanages were forced to close their doors for refusing to give orphans to same sex couples. In Denmark, the Church is forced to marry gay people in church. In Ontario, transgenders can choose whatever bathroom and locker room they want (transgender only means you "feel" like the opposite sex/means boys can go in girls bathrooms. In California, girls can wear tuxedos and boys can wear dresses to formal dances. It might turn out incest is okay in Massachussets. I could go on. Of course this isn't what most people who just want it to be about love have intended, but it is they who refused to use their minds, and only use their hearts. The formula of feeling your way through an issue, without any thought, is a recipe for disaster

Personally, I think there is a national brainwash on the issue underway, and it start in kindergartens of public schools all across the USA. That's why the kids keep saying "just wait until we are older and in control. gay marriage is just a matter of time" because, of course, children know everything about marriage.....it's a textbook indoctrination

[BigBallinStalin]

Good post, PS. Edmund Burke is deemed the father of conservativism--properly understood, and he insisted on prudence when carrying out reform or any kind of legislative or even violent changes which would conflict with tradition, custom, etc. He sought a balance between liberty and the stability from tradition. If prudence requires us to examine the potential (un)intended consequences and the motives, then so be it. That is what the discussion ITT should be about.

[Phatscotty]

I can see from the point of view in the picture. But I dont call people bigots or anything if they dont believe in gay rights, I just try to convince them that it really is okay if someone is like that.

of course it's okays. I love gays.

But remember they are only 1-3% of the population, and polls suggest that only about 10% of those want to get married. That's not an argument point, but are we really going to fundamentally transform something like marriage based on some kind of marriage fantasy that is being denied? (I understand the monetary benefits aspect, just wish people were more honest about it)

And also, this isn't just about gay marriage. This is about recognizing the differences in gender. Many people think it's just LBGT. Well, it isn't anymore. It's LBGTtQUNAAPX, with a recent ruling out of California that pedophilia is a gender, and another case in Massachusetts where incest is being defended with "it's all about who you love" and if you think consent wasn't there, it was, and I don't even like talking about NAMBLA and what they are hoping for in all this.

Well why were we fighting earlier if we agree on my main point . Im going to bed XD. I can see why you wouldnt necessarily want (per say) this particular bill to be passed if all those other groups were on the list, as you dont agree with some of them and theres some that I dont really agree with on there. We have common ground is what Im trying to say.

maybe there was some conclusion jumping going on? not sure, but maybe. I have always said, just like with drugs and drug tests for welfare recipients and hopefully as many issues as possible, let the states decide.

My state is a lock for gay marriage, it's going to happen. I'm not going to move, or refuse to pay my taxes, or anything like that. I'm going to get involved in the issue, cast my vote, go home, and respect the outcome of Democracy and be tolerant, and I will be satisfied that Liberty has had it's day. My only hopes are that sometime soon the people on the other side of this issue can be respectful as well, even if everything doesn't go their way, and that we recognize we don't need to indoctrinate students on any issue.

[Phatscotty]

Good post, PS. Edmund Burke is deemed the father of conservativism--properly understood, and he insisted on prudence when carrying out reform or any kind of legislative or even violent changes which would conflict with tradition, custom, etc. He sought a balance between liberty and the stability from tradition. If prudence requires us to examine the potential (un)intended consequences and the motives, then so be it. That is what the discussion ITT should be about.

thanks!

[Donelladan]

I can tell you what marriage is, rather than go over a bunch of things that marriage isn't.

Marriage is a special bond between a man and a woman which recognizes the ability to create children.

That is one definition of the marriage. But not true. Or not complete.
I can say : Marriage is a contract. That is true. As a contract it has to be directed by the law of a state. And law always change, why not this one.

And as far as I remember, marriage has always been defined to me by something for life. This definition at least is not true - in your country like in mine at least. Why? Because it has changed. Definition can change. So can the one that says, for you, that marraige is a special bond between a man and a woman. And to be sure in the dictionary I checked it has already changed - ( was written, had to be translated I read definition in my mother-tongue, "between a man and a woman - and in certain country between two people of same sex" ) .

You said, we don't have to change that definition. We also don't have not to change it. If it is your only argument it is clearly not enough.
So far I read only 2 argument from you, we don't have to change it and we change keep the ideal family structure ( if I missed some feel free to remember them to me ).

Well as for the ideal family structure, that something you are defining but I am quite sure you can prove that 1 man 1 woman and childrens is the ideal family structure. This one also strongly change during the years. Not so long ago what was call family - if we speak as family as the environment in which you are living - was children, parents, grand-parents.
But it has also been very different in some culture and children have not always been raised by their 2 parents since humanity exists.
I see no reason to define this family has ideal, and I saying ideal family is a man a woman and children just because I am taking it the expression. I would not have define ideal family like that.

And if you speak of how should be raised children when you are talking about ideal family, and that is something we have to consider I fully agree with you, then I would say that stability should be something essential. It seems it is for children. Speaking about a man and a woman, we have in my country, dunno for yours but should be similar I guess if your country is speaking about gay marriage it means we are at the same point, we are having around 240 000 marriage and around 140 000 divorce. I would not say what you called ideal family can be defined as a being stable. And therefore is definitely not ideal.


I also read you are saying that why do they need to have marriage? Why cannot they have another contract name for their marriage.
Well if your "special union for them" would have exactly all the same right and duty, would be defined exactly the same in regard to the law than the marriage. Then calling it differently would be kind of a discrimination. I would rather just suppress the term marriage in the law then
Since we recognize homosexuality as being nothing more than a choice, as being 100% legal and normal, then homosexual should have same option than heterosexual. ( but I think you agree on that since you want them to have same thing than marriage but with different name).

Well to be sure if there is really 0% of homophobia in your position against marriage for homosexual. Then I cannot understand it. It will not ruin the society, this has been done by other things already.



edit : you had that while I was writing

and that we recognize we don't need to indoctrinate students on any issue.

We DO need to indoctrinate them of being tolerant - at least but not only.

[crispybits]

I told you already the answer. You can plug in the information from the top of this page to your equation. Sorry the quotes were getting out of hand

No worries, that's why I kept reminding you.

OK, I've asked person X and person Y everything I'm legally allowed to ask them from your description. Unfortunately one of them was born infertile (I can't tell you which for legal reasons), so they will never be able to have kids together, but apart from that they do share a special, loving committed emotional bond, they are financially stable, etc. Everything I am legally allowed to ask them which could be used as a legally valid reason to prevent them entering a legal contract has provided no red flags at all. So I can now assume that there should be no legal reason they should not be allowed to marry each other right?

Okay well like I already said, having children is not the only reason to get married, especially over the last couple generations.

All I am saying is that there is a name for the bond that a male and a female makes to become parents and create a child and to put something above themselves that can help survive the struggle through the hard times when people want to give up. That term is marriage, and I truly believe that the weaker marriage becomes, the more society will suffer as more and more children are raised without a father and born out of wedlock etc; raised in less than ideal situations. That isn't to say there aren't problems and circumstances beyond people's control, but it is to say we should hold up the ideal family structure as something to strive towards, but not imposed, and certainly not abandoned.

I think as long as person X is a male, and person Y is a female, and they are not related beyond a certain extent, and they are of legal consenting age, of course they should be able to marry. Why wouldn't they?

as an aside, do you believe that it is good advice for a couple to get married before they have children? why or why not?

And I am saying that bond is love, trust and commitment. Marriage is the name of the contract the two enter into in order to legally or socially or culturally or in some cases religiously affirm that bond to wider society, it's nothing to do with the bond itself. Or do you believe that when two people get married it somehow magically ties them together emotionally in a way that isn't possible without it? Emotionally, what is the difference in the actual relationship between a marriage and two people simply privately or publicly promising each other, with all their hearts, that they are there for life?

I can't ask person X or person Y their gender or I would be committing an act of illegal sexual discrimination. By law gender is irrelevant when entering a legal contract. I can check they are over the legal age of consent no problem, and they are. I can check that they aren't blood relatives, and they are not.

You say the ideal family unit (ideal by whose standards by the way) is something to strive towards, but not to impose, and yet you are imposing your own definition of both family and marriage in this debate. And we call that intolerant because you are discriminating based on legally protected charcteristics, on things that a person is born with and has no control over and which it is well established that it would not be fair in any way to deny them legal rights based on those characteristics. Not because you don't agree with us, but because you are acting illegally (or would be if you were in a positon of power and enforced that opinion on someone else.)

Take the legally protected characteristic out of your assertion "marriage is between a man and a woman" and it becomes "marriage is between a person and a person". The slippery slope you seem so fond of isn't particularly slippery. Multiple marriage is still banned. Incest is still banned. Bestiality is still banned. Paedophilia (through law about age of consent to form a contract) is still banned. You haven't redefined anything, except to remove the inherent gender discrimination that society has established is a bad thing and should be prevented. It's not even about sexuality, it's about gender.

I believe it is good advice for a couple to get married before having kids for legal reasons sure, as the legal benefits alone (ignoring the financial ones) are many and varied and I can foresee things like a pregnancy going wrong and the husband needing legal next of kin status over the wife to be able to make emergency medical decisions, rather than waiting for blood relatives to show up. I don't believe it's essential. I could walk about a mile from my house and show you the most in love couple you're ever likely to meet and their daughter, and they would be able to explain very eloquently why they have chosen never to get married, but also that they are with each other for life and that they love each other as deeply as any married couple. But I don't know where you're going with this as you've already said child production isn't essential to your definition (even though every time you give your definition it seems to include some reference to it).

[Phatscotty]

So, since incest and beastiality and multiple marriage and pedophilia were not instantly made legal....the slippery slope doesn't exist? I think that's just a knee-jerk response, and you might want to dwell on that a bit.

I already showed how and where in earlier posts and I'm not gonna sit and repeat myself so if you want to talk about the slippery slope that you deny and I can easily show you is already here. If you are just gonna deny the consequences of what has happened where gay marriage has been legalized, then we won't be able to have a constructive discussion.

[crispybits]

Pretty much yeah - because you're not redefining marriage, just removing the illegal gender discrimination from it. It still has to be between two people of consenting legal age. So no animals, no multiples, etc. And outlawing incest isn't about gender either - you could have any gender combination in an incestual relationship so banning that isn't discrimination based on a protected characteristic.

[Phatscotty]

Pretty much yeah - because you're not redefining marriage, just removing the illegal gender discrimination from it. It still has to be between two people of consenting legal age. So no animals, no multiples, etc. And outlawing incest isn't about gender either - you could have any gender combination in an incestual relationship so banning that isn't discrimination based on a protected characteristic.

I like how you put that. I vote that changing a term that has always been opposite sex, to also be same sex, qualifies as redefining the term.

There is what marriage means, and then there is what you want it to mean. Your personal opinion on something does not have power over the definition of a word.

[crispybits]

I'm not changing a term to include any sex at all - I'm following the principles of many equality laws by removing the gender requirement entirely, as people cannot choose which gender they are born into, so to tell someone that they can't form legal contracts based solely on their gender would be immoral (always) and illegal in many cases depending what country you're in.

You do realise that an appeal to tradition is a well established logical fallacy right?

[Woodruff]

I can see from the point of view in the picture. But I dont call people bigots or anything if they dont believe in gay rights, I just try to convince them that it really is okay if someone is like that.

I commend you for this. They are way out of line calling people that just for disagreeing. I mean, it's not like history is on their side, it's on ours.

No it isn't. Just because you want to ignore the majority of human history doesn't mean that human history no longer actually exists.

I think abusing the word bigot and using it so often without reason is a form of hatred and certainly intolerance and bullying.

What about when it's not being abused and is being rather accurately used?

I only wish to have an actual discussion, to introduce the points clearly, outside of the closet, to look at the intended consequences, explore some of the unintended consequences etc. It's a lot harder than it sounds.

I would suggest that, for you, it's actually impossible. But it would be nice to see you do it.

In France, they are trying to ban the words "mother" and "father".

You keep coming back to this. First of all, so what? They're words. Secondly, are you sure that they're actually trying to ban the use of those words entirely? Because I don't think that's what is actually happening.

In Massachussets, Catholic Orphanages were forced to close their doors for refusing to give orphans to same sex couples.

Good. Bigots should be taken out of the picture.

In Denmark, the Church is forced to marry gay people in church.

So that means the U.S. is headed there? Is that actually the implication you're trying to hamhandedly make? And if that's not the implication you're trying to make, then why bring it up?

In California, girls can wear tuxedos and boys can wear dresses to formal dances.

So what? How does this harm ANYTHING AT ALL?

It might turn out incest is okay in Massachussets.

Typical throw-the-bullshit-at-the-wall-to-see-what-sticks.

I could go on.

There's no doubt you will, while simultaneously ignoring all rational opposing arguments.

Of course this isn't what most people who just want it to be about love have intended, but it is they who refused to use their minds, and only use their hearts. The formula of feeling your way through an issue, without any thought, is a recipe for disaster

"feeling your way through an issue, without any thought"...it's funny you would use that particular set of words, given your positions on the subject.

Personally, I think there is a national brainwash on the issue underway, and it start in kindergartens of public schools all across the USA.

Of COURSE! Those damn teachers and their teachers unions are absolutely to blame for the nationwide recognition of RIGHTS FOR A GROUP WHICH DID NOT PREVIOUSLY EXIST. Well if that's the case, and I think this is an idiotic statement on your part, good for the teachers. Well done!

That's why the kids keep saying "just wait until we are older and in control. gay marriage is just a matter of time" because, of course, children know everything about marriage.....it's a textbook indoctrination

Speaking of indoctrination, how is your anti-homosexual-marriage campaign going?

[Woodruff]

So, since incest and beastiality and multiple marriage and pedophilia were not instantly made legal....the slippery slope doesn't exist?

The slippery slope does not exist.

I think that's just a knee-jerk response, and you might want to dwell on that a bit.

Your bringing up incest, beastiality, multiple marriages and paedophilia into the discussion is more of a knee-jerk response, but I wouldn't expect you to dwell on it given your past schedule of self-reflection.

I already showed how and where in earlier posts and I'm not gonna sit and repeat myself so if you want to talk about the slippery slope that you deny and I can easily show you is already here. If you are just gonna deny the consequences of what has happened where gay marriage has been legalized, then we won't be able to have a constructive discussion.

Yes, that's certainly what stops you from having constructive discussions. Definitely.

[Woodruff]

Pretty much yeah - because you're not redefining marriage, just removing the illegal gender discrimination from it. It still has to be between two people of consenting legal age. So no animals, no multiples, etc. And outlawing incest isn't about gender either - you could have any gender combination in an incestual relationship so banning that isn't discrimination based on a protected characteristic.

I like how you put that. I vote that changing a term that has always been opposite sex, to also be same sex, qualifies as redefining the term.

Except it HASN'T "always been opposite sex". That's the reality.

There is what marriage means, and then there is what you want it to mean. Your personal opinion on something does not have power over the definition of a word.

YOUR personal opinion on something does not have the power over the definition of the word. YOUR willingness to ignore history does not create what a thing is.

[Symmetry]

You do realise that an appeal to tradition is a well established logical fallacy right?

If Scotty understands more than 50% of that sentence, it will be a miracle.

[BigBallinStalin]

You do realise that an appeal to tradition is a well established logical fallacy right?

It depends on how the appeal is worded.

(A) If it's something simple like "gay marriage? NO because it's not how we've been doing it (appeal to tradition).

There's a logical fallacy.

But say we're discussing the good times right before the French Revolution.

(B) "Hey guise, maybe we shouldn't be ripping apart the social order to such a degree. Such drastic steps from tradition (custom, convention, etc.) is a heavy lifter in maintaining social order (appeal to tradition?). By tearing it asunder, things would get worse (slippery slope?)."

If I added several more sentences for a proper defense of (B), I wouldn't conclude that I committed two logical fallacies.

If we admit that (B) contains two logical fallacies, and since the French Revolution and its consequences were freakin' terrible, then what exactly was the benefit of accepting the two logical fallacies? We would have discarded a reasonable argument and seemingly allowed for a devastating event....
(perhaps it's a limit of logic/reason).

[crispybits]

Except that for it not to be an appeal to tradition, there has to be evidence showed that the tradition has stood up to mulitple challenges similar to this and not changed at all. The modern nuclear family concept that he is hanging the argument around is a relatively recent invention (culturally speaking) - even as little as a couple of hundred years ago families were generally extended way beyond the bounds of just "mother, father and children" and would have included other relatives and non-related stakeholders all living in the same place and all being responsible for raising the children, working, etc. And in modern times there have been other major shifts in how family units operate, with a rise of single parent families for just one example. This 1950s dream of mum, dad, 2 kids and the white picket fence isn't the only working model (and it wasn't even then) and to try and shoehorn definitions into fitting it at the expense of the people in society who through accident of birth could never fit it, that's naive at best and bigoted at worst.

The slippery slope argument remains a fallacy unless it can be shown, through a causal/probabilistic chain of events, that the end of the slope is likely. Now all PS has done is point to a court case currently ongoing about incest, and made vague references to cases involving polygamy. Firstly, these cases are happening without gay marriage being recognised, they don't need the slippery slope to happen to get these other things happening. There is no causal link between gay marriage being recognised and polygamy or incest or whatever being recognised, especially with the argument the way I put it, which keeps marriage between two people with all the other rules in place but just stops illegal gender discrimination.

Secondly, it wrongly states that gay marriage would be at the top of this slippery slope. MARRIAGE is at the top of this slippery slope. Once you allow people to start marrying people, then what's to stop people marrying animals, or toasters, or the moon? If PS is really serious about ridding the world of this horrible slippery slope, he should be arguing that we get rid of all forms of marriage entirely (not just the government recognition of them, but the concept itself), because that's the start of a line of events that will lead to people marrying all sorts of things surely? If he can describe how gay marriage causally or probabilistically leads to any of these things in a way that straight marriage cannot, then he can get around this, but I'd like to see him try.

[Phatscotty]

Let nature take it's course.

The beastiality stuff is just a distraction that shuts the mind down the moment the word is heard.

I am for getting the government out of marriage. While I don't think that is realistic in the near term (unless we finally admit we are broke and nobody get's a check/"right" from the gov't) and government certainly isn't getting out overnight. All we can try to do try to reduce government involvement, or try to get the government more involved. You know which way I am trying to move.

Overall, I just wanted to discuss if marriage is a "right" or not. The OP was to show that even liberal justices of the supreme court have orally argued "marriage cannot be a right"

[azezzo]

I say homosexuals should be just as happy/miserable as heterosexuals that being said, no long term commitment should be entered into lightly, the ramifications last long afterwards

[crispybits]

Overall, I just wanted to discuss if marriage is a "right" or not. The OP was to show that even liberal justices of the supreme court have orally argued "marriage cannot be a right"

I don't think too many (read: any, at least on here) people are arguing that marriage is a fundamental right. Equality and the civil rights of all people is a fundamental right though.

[BigBallinStalin]

Except that for it not to be an appeal to tradition, there has to be evidence showed that the tradition has stood up to mulitple challenges similar to this and not changed at all. The modern nuclear family concept that he is hanging the argument around is a relatively recent invention (culturally speaking) - even as little as a couple of hundred years ago families were generally extended way beyond the bounds of just "mother, father and children" and would have included other relatives and non-related stakeholders all living in the same place and all being responsible for raising the children, working, etc. And in modern times there have been other major shifts in how family units operate, with a rise of single parent families for just one example. This 1950s dream of mum, dad, 2 kids and the white picket fence isn't the only working model (and it wasn't even then) and to try and shoehorn definitions into fitting it at the expense of the people in society who through accident of birth could never fit it, that's naive at best and bigoted at worst.

The slippery slope argument remains a fallacy unless it can be shown, through a causal/probabilistic chain of events, that the end of the slope is likely. Now all PS has done is point to a court case currently ongoing about incest, and made vague references to cases involving polygamy. Firstly, these cases are happening without gay marriage being recognised, they don't need the slippery slope to happen to get these other things happening. There is no causal link between gay marriage being recognised and polygamy or incest or whatever being recognised, especially with the argument the way I put it, which keeps marriage between two people with all the other rules in place but just stops illegal gender discrimination.

Secondly, it wrongly states that gay marriage would be at the top of this slippery slope. MARRIAGE is at the top of this slippery slope. Once you allow people to start marrying people, then what's to stop people marrying animals, or toasters, or the moon? If PS is really serious about ridding the world of this horrible slippery slope, he should be arguing that we get rid of all forms of marriage entirely (not just the government recognition of them, but the concept itself), because that's the start of a line of events that will lead to people marrying all sorts of things surely? If he can describe how gay marriage causally or probabilistically leads to any of these things in a way that straight marriage cannot, then he can get around this, but I'd like to see him try.

Okay, we're on the same page.