Phatscotty wrote:Just curious, in your support for same-sex marriage, did you ever consider that prom and other casual high school dances would be redefined also? Or did you just say that was a stupid slippery slope argument that wouldn't happen and was just scaremongering?
Curiousity #2: do you think this stops at prom dances? Do you realize there are virtually unlimited other "slippery slope" areas as well? How far do you think this will go? Or is everything you called a slippery slope going to also be blown off by you when it comes to pass?
Hmm... Let me answer your questions and then pose some questions back at you.
(1) Curiousity #1, Part 1 - I did not consider that proms and other casual high school dances would be redefined by gay marriage since, way back in 1997, a gay couple came to my high school prom in central Pennsylvania, which caused quite a stir. I had no point of view on gay marriage in 1997 and I'm pretty sure it wasn't legal anywhere (and was not in Pennsylvania), so gay marriage did not redefine my prom. Rather, a gay couple redefined my prom.
(2) Curiousity #1, Part 2 - The use of "they ruined prom" as a slippery slope example of how the legality of gay marriage would ruin traditions is a poor one simply because gay couples go to proms regardless of whether gay marriage is legal or illegal. In sum, find a better example.
(3) Curiousity #2, Part 1 - No, I think we'll have gay couples on television, in movies, in politics, in... oh wait, we already have those things and gay marriage isn't legal.
(4) Curiousity #2, Part 2 - Yes, I do realize there are virtually unlimited slippery slope arguments, which is why they're stupid. For exampe, "If we allow gay people to get married, people will want to marry trees."
(5) Curiousity #2, Part 3 - I think gay marriage will be recognized by the federal government and our traditions relative to marriage will change, but not because gay marriage is recognized by the federal government. Frankly, gay couples are already recognized by most of society, so this is merely a financial and legal thing. Which is kind of what I've been trying to tell you. You guys already lost. Our culture and traditions already changed. Sorry.
(6) Curiousity #2, Part 4 - Most slippery slope arguments will be blown off by me, yes. I like direct causation or at least correlation. For example, if you told me that gay marriage recongition would result in additional government funds being paid out, that would be more concerning that whether or not proms (which already have the gay couple issue, long before gay marriage debates came to the forefront) would be "ruined."
My questions:
(1) Do you see any correlation at all between your slippery slope arguments and the arguments made by people against interracial marriage? To caveat, I'm not labelling you a racist or a bigot.
(2) Is your position that "traditions will change" if gay marriage becomes legal? Or is your position that "religious freedom will be violated" if gay marriage becomes legal? Or is it both? If it's the latter, please address my points. If it's the former, then please address the points in this post, namely that the traditions you mean to defend are already under assault and mostly gone without the recognition of gay marriage by the federal government.
(3) Other than slippery slope arguments, what, specifically, will happen negatively if gay marriages are recognized by the federal government?
