I don’t think you’ve read what I’ve been writing. I have responded to everything you’ve asked somewhere in this thread, most within my last dozen posts.
That’s to Cwthree.
Now we’ve entered fantasyland. You have the nerve to accuse me of debasement of the language, then you come out with that?!!? You’ve become a lexicographer, and can tell me authoritatively what definitions of words I’m allowed to use?
Genetic normality is hardly irrelevant while people continue to use it to withhold equal rights. You really are going a bit too far here when you declare that “homosexuality is normal, SSM is not”.
And by the way, I question that “Devil’s advocate” thingy. Your emotional investment is showing.
I didn’t make up a new definition at all. I am using it entirely appropriately. I am utterly astounded that you can’t understand my point. At any given point in the past it was once the present, and events hadn’t occurred yet, and for them our present was the future toward which they were slipping down the slope. That this baffles you is just astounding.
They would have said it’s a slippery slope to increased promiscuity and a relaxation of sexual mores, yes. They might not have been specific, but they would have recognized the potential.
Under the NEW definition of marriage yes it would increase the number of marriages. I doubt it would affect the number of marriages in the current definition of marriage.
They’ll make the same sort of argument that homosexuals make when presented with the ‘pedophilia’ argument. That not every polyamorous relationship should be judged by the FLDS standard.
:rolleyes:
If you deny that context has a place in the discussion we cannot continue.
Yes, I know, others have accused me of lying too. It’s a cheap ad hominem now just as when they did it before. I’m sorry that being able to empathize with a position you are unwilling to stand in support for is not a talent that you have. shrugs
What astounds me is how you can suppose an ancient historic “ideal” that never actually existed, roll it down some slope toward what you call degeneration that has nothing to do with the actual course of history for marriage (by whatever definition), wind up at today with marriage as it is actually practiced, and then use that illusory historic ideal as the definitive argument for preventing an expansion of equal rights.
It passeth all understanding.
50 years is ancient history? People are still alive who lived then. Some people have even been married since the 50s.
I’ve read your last dozen posts and then some. I see no answer to the question I asked you in my last post. Either man up and answer it, or admit that you don’t have a good answer that doesn’t undermine your assertions regarding SSM.
I agree with CannyDan, as well:
I doubt that Dan is accusing you of lying, at least not of lying to him. I simply wonder if your motives are as pure as you’d like to believe they are.
It doesn’t baffle me. You’re just wrong.
Even being very generous in the use of “slippery slope”, I’m rather unmoved by you accusing me (wrongly) of using it today by invoking a ridiculous slippery slope somebody hypothetically might have made in 1950.
Sure, gay marriage was a preposterous concept to Americans in 1950 (well, except to gay couples who were already living as though married). So what? That still doesn’t establish the link between hetero divorce then and gay marriage now. You may as well have described some dire 1950 warning that continued U2 flights over the USSR would lead to gay marriage. That Elvis would lead to gay marriage. That 3D movies would lead to gay marriage.
Well, maybe Elvis…
So there won’t be an effect on hetero marriages? Well, I guess that makes all of this “ideal” stuff moot.
Well, let them try. They can petition the courts and file lawsuits. I believe that’s in the constitution, too.
Your insistance that “homosexuality is normal, SSM is not” is not about context, it is the heart of the debate!!
I do NOT accuse you of lying; I won’t let you off so easily. I do though doubt that you are as free of subjectivity as you claim.
All these posts, and still not a suggestion (beyond unsupported claims) that SSM would present or precipitate any societal harm. But heck, let the hand waving continue. I’m enjoying the breeze.
No one married in the 1950s with procreation as the sole intent - and the sole test - of their marriage.
SSM isn’t normal. It’s not a debate worth having because you are trying to say that the opinion that it’s normal is a valid position it’s not! SSM is not normal. Homosexuality is genetically normal, but that has nothing to do with what is normal culturally. Your argument is not even wrong it’s just useless.
Who claimed I was free of subjectivity Dr. Freud?
Incorrect. Many people got married with the intent of starting a family. This is another one that’s not even worth arguing about.
No, I’m not. This is becoming pointless.
I answered it already more than ten times. Re-read until you get it.
I don’t care how many euphemisms you couch it in.
Argument by assertion, devoid of any supporting material. Why didn’t you just say this at the outset and save yourself a lot of typing?
In other words, you’ve run out of arguments about the biological “naturalness” of heterosexual marriage, and now you’re trying to argue that SSM is just too different to be integrated into American culture.
Not even an argument, just name-calling.
Based on the dictionary definition already posted.
No I haven’t. I never said any of the things you are claiming here.
Great minds think alike I guess.
Then your point escapes me, and since I’m a reasonably intelligent person, I suspect it’s because you’re not explaining it well. By the logic you present, any bad situation today could be said to be the result of an unheeded slippery-slope argument decades ago.
As such, I’m unmoved by you accusing me of using a slippery-slope argument until such time as you explain your reasoning in a more coherent fashion. Since I was already unmoved by those “agenda” accusations, I guess I’m not going anywhere for a while.
You’ve cherry picked the allowable definitions of normal, as I demonstrated with a dictionary citation. Then you make your own authoritative declaration of the inevitable conclusion of the argument, deciding who and what can be normal. Finally you reject my argument as useless because you cannot otherwise reply to it.
Wasn’t it Forrest Gump who said “Usless is as useless does”?
I said **sole **intent, and **sole **test of marriage. Because you keep coming back to procreation as the underlying prerequisite. But no one’s marriage was ever invalidated because it was barren. Keep up the hand waving though.
In 1950, as today, many people got married with the two marriage partners as the only family desired.
I am saying yesterday’s slippery slope is today’s ‘facts on the ground’. I don’t know how to simplify it.
I am saying that you are using the post-hoc slippery slope. “Heterosexuals already devalued marriage, so why shouldn’t we allow homosexuals a shot?”
Agenda isn’t an accusation. It’s just a word.