Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
Laugh all you want. It doesn't change the fact of the matter.
Even though you tried, this argument ignores the fact that some group of men/women had the ability to marry another group of women/men they "loved" (I don't really want to use that word, but I will), respectively, while another group didn't. And unless there was a valid reason for denying the second group the same ability as the first, then the restrictions on the second group must have be inherently discriminatory. Indeed, since those restrictions were based on race-- Which is considered to be a fully protected class under the 14th Amendment-- Then those restrictions were discriminatory and, therefore, unconstitutional.
The entire problem with your argument is that you first assume marriage is a right; that sexuality is a class protected by the Constitution; and by denying gays the ability to enter in same-sex marriages that we're discriminating against gays, when we're not. A heterosexual looking to enter into a same-sex marriage will be denied the ability to do so just as a gay person looking to enter in a same-sex marriage will be denied the ability to do so. Yeah, scoff at that argument as you will, but this fact alone keeps it from being an issue of discrimination.
To claim discrimination, a subset of the population must first be allowed the ability to do something while another subset of the population restricted. If you don't have that to begin with, then there-- By definition and by law-- Cannot be discrimination. Gays aren't disallowed from marrying because they're gay. They're disallowed from entering into same-sex unions because they are not consisting of one man and one woman. And until you realize this, then your argument becomes, essentially, moot because you're arguing something which is simply untrue.
See my response to Hektore.
|
There is absolutely nothing in the 14th amendment that makes race a "protected class" while denying the same for sexual orientation. As such, the first part of your answer is false.
The second part of your answer is not only false, but silly. The whole "but straight people can't enter into a gay marriage either" wins the cake as silliest reasoning. Following that same reasoning, we can not only outlaw interracial marriages, but we can ban anything that affects any group disproportionately, as long as it affects other groups as well. According to this line of thinking, we can outlaw the yarmulke (the Jewish skullcap), for example, and it wouldn't be discriminatory because gentiles wouldn't be able to wear it either.
The third part is not only false, but dishonest. To claim that it is not discrimination because a marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman is circular reasoning, especially in the context of the approval of an amendment that defines it that way.
Quote:
You asked a question and I answered it. And, for the record, there's nothing wrong with there, either. Not only are slippery slopes not always a fallacy, but you're ignoring the fact that there's no reason the courts would have to determine one arbitrary distinction to be any more or less arbitrary than another distinction.
So let me ask you a question, specifically. Which is more arbitrary? Gender of the person you're looking to wed or the number of persons you're looking to wed. And why?
I'm going to reiterate this once more. A slippery slope is not always a fallacy. Understand? Just because you can throw out the term doesn't invalidate an argument.
But, anyway, it's not up to me to prove why same-sex marriage should be illegal, but you to show why it should be legal, since it is you who is trying to change the proverbial status quo. And, so far, the only reason you seem to have is "Because heterosexuals can get married!" which kinda' ignores the fact that gays can get married to-- Just not in the way they'd most like :P
|
not all slippery slopes are fallacies, but this particular slippery slope is a major fallacy with capital F. You have not answered my question: if the problem is not gay marriage itself, but that it might lead to polygamy, why not an amendment that outlaws polygamy, and not gay marriage? What pisses me off is this transparent attempt to hide one's own bigotry: "you know, I have nothing against them gays, but if they get married the polygamists win." Fess up to your own reasons why you don't want gay marriage. No need to resort to "but it will lead to bigotry" arguments as that is the precise definition of a slippery slope fallacy.
And again with the dishonesty (or at least short memory): it was prop 8 that changed the definition of marriage. It was prop 8 that changed the proverbial status quo.