Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I answered your question, and tried to give you insight so to help put u in another's shoes.. if u missed it..or don't wish to do that.. I understand.. and posts will sound the same, because the argument stays the same... your stance on the issue is the one that is saying.. "well what about this" what about this" and "what about that" I merely say the same thing.. with a different approach.. and they seem to work for all of your questions.. if you do not see that.. or disagree.. then that is fine...
the point is.. this side of the argument is not hard... proving why it should not be allowed is....
Okay, I understand. Just put me down as unconvinced by what seems to you obvious...
Clean and simple. If we allow a change in the law to allow for two people of the same gender to marry, it will only open up doors for more "changes."
Again, we should never resist expanding a freedom because of the consequences of *possible* future groups wanting to have expanded freedoms themselves. When the man-goat love lobby comes agitating for man-goat love, fight them THEN. Until then, there are millions of gay people out there who want to be able to live their one life freely, without apologies, and with the one they love in the same manner as straight people.
The founders didn't think, "Gee, we shouldn't codify and grant freedom of the press because someday terrorists will hide behind freedom of the press to publish stuff we don't like."
And we certainly didn't think, "Gee, we shouldn't grant women the right to vote because kids will want the vote, or people will want to allow their dogs to vote."
The founders didn't think, "Gee, we shouldn't codify and grant freedom of the press because someday terrorists will hide behind freedom of the press to publish stuff we don't like."
And we certainly didn't think, "Gee, we shouldn't grant women the right to vote because kids will want the vote, or people will want to allow their dogs to vote."
These two points are both true--however, at the time these societal reforms were enacted, no one worried about where the ACLU would "run" with the idea. Now that has become a valid concern....just something to think about.
These two points are both true--however, at the time these societal reforms were enacted, no one worried about where the ACLU would "run" with the idea. Now that has become a valid concern....just something to think about.
That’s right, fear the group that is trying to protect the inalienable rights of man against the limited authority of government. Do you often live in fear that some group will try to defend a goats right to consent to marriage? The ACLU was around when the Supreme Court banned laws against interacial marriages. At the time there were 16 states with laws against interacial marriages. Did those states see an increase in man/goat marriage licenses after their laws were deemed unconstitutional? No, in the last 40 years nothing on the slipper slope has occurred.
That’s right, fear the group that is trying to protect the inalienable rights of man against the limited authority of government. Do you often live in fear that some group will try to defend a goats right to consent to marriage? The ACLU was around when the Supreme Court banned laws against interacial marriages. At the time there were 16 states with laws against interacial marriages. Did those states see an increase in man/goat marriage licenses after their laws were deemed unconstitutional? No, in the last 40 years nothing on the slipper slope has occurred.
Some people would argue that the gay marriage debate IS the next step on the slippery slope from miscegenation law repeals.
Of course, the potential for gays 40 years later to agitate for marriage rights in no way should have entered the equation as to whether people of differing races should be able to marry.
Some people here say, "There is no discrimination against gays because any gay man can marry any gay woman"... but wasn't it true that any "black man could marry any black woman?"
Some people would argue that the gay marriage debate IS the next step on the slippery slope from miscegenation law repeals.
So you consider the idea of two consenting adults wishing to make a lifelong committment to each other a negative and supports your slipery slope idea?
So you consider the idea of two consenting adults wishing to make a lifelong committment to each other a negative and supports your slipery slope idea?
Haha, not at all. I think you'll find I'm quite outspoken FOR it. I'm just saying that the slippery slope is invalid as an argument, because we've ignored it in the past.
Haha, not at all. I think you'll find I'm quite outspoken FOR it. I'm just saying that the slippery slope is invalid as an argument, because we've ignored it in the past.
Sorry then, I misread your point. I agree, the slippery slope argument is not only invalid but displays a lack of comprehension by those who like to use it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
