FoolThemAll, it's a demand, not a request. They aren't requesting that gay people don't get married, they're outlawing it. How can you possibly translate that to "you shouldn't do that"? It's "you can't do that", and therein lies the bigotry. Therein lies the intolerance.

If there is a way of making a non-bigoted argument against gay marriage, why not make that? THAT is the point of pointing out the ridiculousness of the slippery slope fallacy often used.

Because this whole slippery slope fallacy is nothing more than a way of hiding one's bigotry. It is a way of avoiding having to make a case against gay marriage itself, which either means that the person has no problem with gay marriage, just a problem with basic logic, or that the person has an argument against gay marriage, but refuses to make it in public.

Because all states already have laws against incest and polygamy, so adding amendments against gay marriage to ban those things is redundant and irrelevant as far as the slippery slope goes.

That was just one part of my point, though, that a simple prohibition in the Bible != bigotry.

Another part of that post, reiterated: then who in politics ISN'T a bigot? Who HASN'T said "you can't do that" to a group of people? Could you refine your concept a little more?

---------- Post added at 11:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:12 AM ----------

Slippery slope arguments certainly are poor arguments, but they're not uniformly bigoted. It's usually said that gay marriage will lead to worse things, not equally worse things. While these arguments often mention pedophilia or bestiality, they seldom put them on the same moral level.

What exactly do you mean when you call those arguments bigoted? How do they show bigotry?

You're guessing.

While I'll by no means claim that there's any good argument against gay marriage, a reminder seems warranted that slippery slope isn't the only argument out there.

Which wouldn't necessarily involve bigotry, no?

Just like simply confining women to the roll of mother and relegating them to second-class position isn't bigotry?
You can change political beliefs, you can't change your sexual orientation.

Ignoring your hastily thrown-in characterization of such roles, yes, just like that.

Uh, probably true. But this doesn't answer or even address my question.

Actually, it's why your comparison doesn't hold up at all. One decides one's own politics, and those politics can change. Because one decides on one's own politics, one can be held accountable for the decision making process leading to said politics. You can question the logic of a conclusion or delve into the legitimacy of the evidence. I feel this directly addressed your question.

Because one does not choose to be gay or straight, judging someone based on that is completely different. It's like judging someone based on something they're born as like skin color, which is widely considered to be bigotry.

Oh, I get it now. No, that's not what my question meant.

I'm not saying "I hate your political positions" = "I hate your orientation". I'm saying "I want to outlaw your marriage" =, for instance, "I want to outlaw smoking in your bar". Virtually all those involved in politics seek to use the law to prevent groups of people from doing something they want to do. So far, under what you've shown me of your working 'bigotry' concept, the politcally active fit. That's why you need to refine it.

Your distinction isn't much of a distinction, anyway. Homosexuals and smokers alike are perfectly capable of changing their smoking behavior and it's the behavior, rather than the preference, that is potentially affected by such legislation.

Are you saying that it only counts as bigotry if the target can't be changed to better suit the bigots?

I never said that slippery slope arguments are universally bigoted, and I never said that the slippery slope argument is the only one.

But, so far, it is the only one that has been made in this thread, and is the one that is most prevalent out there. And that is the point. If anyone is making the slippery slope argument exclusively (which, again, is a fallacy), there are two positions we can infer: either the person is relying on the slippery slope argument exclusively because they don't have a problem with gay marriage, only what it might lead to; or they are relying on it exclusively because they have a problem with gay marriage, but don't want to say why in public. I think most people who rely on the slippery slope argument fit in the second category, and I think they do so because they are aware of the consequences if they display their thinking regarding homosexuality publicly.


So, once again, people who rely on the slippery slope fallacy while avoiding giving their opinion on gay marriage itself, as opposed to some improbable slippery slope, are generally just trying to cover up their bigotry with false logic. If that is not the case, they are invited and have had ample opportunity to make a non bigoted case against gay marriage, one that doesn't include a well known type of faulty logic.

---------- Post added at 01:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:31 PM ----------

That is very faulty logic. Smoking bans are restricted to a few places, and smoke use has harmful effects on people around the user. I disagree with them strongly, because I don't think the state should regulate it, but they are nothing like a ban on gay marriage, which harms absolutely no one and affects all parts of one life, and not just when it is at a bar or other place.

I don't see how you can say "Opposition to gay marriage just doesn't require intolerance toward other groups or opinions," without performing some impressive feats of intellectual acrobatics. I mean, on the surface, you don't have to be intolerant of gays to not want them to marry. On the surface, you don't need to be intolerant of blacks to not want them to marry whites either. That doesn't mean that in reality these types of perspectives aren't dependent on bigotry.

So I see what you're saying, but I don't think it's a meaningful distinction to make.

Smoking is a developed habit. Homosexuality is a way of being which one does not choose. You're welcome to list other laws, but I'm pretty sure that if you find a law against a way of being instead of a choice we'll have found a prejudiced law.
The question isn't that of behavior, but rather an attack (in the form of legislation) on people simply because they are inherently different. I'm afraid the smoking analogy doesn't fit as one does not continue to be a smoker if they stop smoking. Also, people aren't born smokers. As I said, it's a developed habit.
I'm saying that in this case, it's bigotry because homosexuals are inherently homosexual, it's as much a part of them as having 10 fingers or a talent for music. Or having a certain color of skin, which is what sparks "bigotry" in my mind.

Ah, there's the keyword: Generalization. Speculation's a good one here, too.

It's a little more well-known as a type of logic than as a type of faulty logic. There's a lot of myspacers out there.

Not in the context, at the least. I'm trying to pin down willravel's concept of bigotry. As of that post, it fit.

Are you making a correlative generalization, or are you arguing something more substantive? If the latter, you need to elaborate. If the former, well, that sounds suspiciously like guilt by association to me.

Gay marriage laws prevent a specific kind of behavior, they don't prevent homosexuality. But I'll take the more important point below.

Smokers, fat people, illicit drug users, Republicans, Democrats, the poor, the rich, union members, abortion providers, abortion seekers, muslims, christians, jews, scientologists, vegans, bikers, Carlos Mencia fans...

Anyone else I should add to the list of groups you can hate without being bigoted?

Wait... are you saying homosexuality is like a lifestyle choice, a religion, or a fanclub?

No. Take a closer look at the exchange.

Okay, I think I see where you're coming from now. I'm still uncertain where you're going. Is it not different to be bigoted against smokers than it is against homosexuals? (I don't deny that smoking bans are bigoted against smokers. But "bigot" is a loaded word, in my opinion.)

So what you are saying is that there is a large segment of people who have a good type of argument against gay marriage that doesn't involve a slippery slope, but refuse to make that argument publicly? I never said that all people who are anti gay marriage are bigots, and not even that all who use the slippery slope are bigots. Just that I suspect that the reason so many people cling so fervently to slippery slope arguments without saying a single thing about gay marriage do so because they can't come up with a justifiable, rational reason to oppose it.

Which is effectively why I would deny it. You don't have to be a bigot to advocate for private property smoking laws. It's enough of an impetus to see medical harm in smoking.

And to get right down to an eventual point, you don't have to be a bigot to advocate against even homosexual relationships, let alone gay marriage. It's enough of an impetus to see spiritual harm in them. You don't need "I'm better than that" or "I hate those guys" to make the jump from 'looks harmful' to 'let's make it illegal'.

Granted, for both parts of this comparison, you do have to be overly paternalistic and, well, wrong. :)

---------- Post added at 10:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:34 AM ----------

Well, no, I never said 'good' argument. I don't actually think there is a 'good' argument.

It's fine to suspect a majority and you may even be right. I just didn't like the phrasings that seemed to suggest a wealth of evidence for your guess.

I'll push again the alternate possibility that what some slippery slopers are hiding is some argument that's theocratic in nature. And frequently such arguments are useless when the others in the conversation are secular or strident believers in complete separation of church and state. If such an argument is presented, it'll likely be rejected without much discussion and tones might even turn hostile or condescending. Thus, people would rather prefer sticking with the belief that doesn't invoke religious doctrine and might sound pretty sturdy on its superficial face. It's even possibly an amicable attempt to find common debating ground.

There's lots of wrong in that, but not necessarily any bigotry.

I'm making an educated guess based on the fact that I've yet to come across an argument against gay marriage that wasn't more than a convenient falsehood.

How do you determine that these falsehoods you see are 'convenient'? Is that another 'educated guess'?

"Given that I am innocent of this bigotry, sir, I find it decidedly inconvenient that my argument was a falsehood."

I would tell you if I thought it would bring an end to your questions, but seeing as how I know that it won't, and also seeing as how it doesn't matter to me at all if you see the wisdom of my perspective, I will respond thusly:

I just know.

Oh, okay then.

Apparently, former Vice President Dick Cheney supports gay marriage. Who knew?

Cheney on gay marriage: 'Freedom for everyone' - washingtonpost.com

Freedom for everyone. Take that, California! You and your freedom-hating Prop 8!

For the record, Cheney believes it's a state issue.

he conveniently kept that quiet for the 8 years he was in the White House, eh?

I know.... weird.

Maybe he did it for his daughter's sake.

Prop 8 is irritating, but it's only delaying the inevitable. Writing bigotry into a constitution is not a novel idea, it's just sad that people are still doing it in 2008. It'll be repealed by 2015.