i criticize someone i admire

[corplinx]

I often post links to articles by GMU professor Walter E. Williams. This week in a new article he addresses gay marriage (sort of). (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/04/married.html)

His mistake is a slippery slope fallacy. You cannot have a legal union between a person and an animal since the animal can not legally enter into a mutually binding contract. This is also why the man/boy comparison does not work.

His viewpoint is one that many americans have, I can only attribute it to cognitive dissonance on the part of some and intellectual dishonesty on the part of others. I hope that Dr. Williams is the former and not the latter.

[Tmy]

You could habe a man/boy marriage. (Not 10 year olds, but 16 yr olds may be possible) Many places you can marry someone under 18. You might need parental OK but you can do it.

Look at Elvis Presly. That was a man/girl marriage.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by corplinx
I often post links to articles by GMU professor Walter E. Williams. This week in a new article he addresses gay marriage (sort of). (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/04/married.html)

His mistake is a slippery slope fallacy. You cannot have a legal union between a person and an animal since the animal can not legally enter into a mutually binding contract. This is also why the man/boy comparison does not work.

His viewpoint is one that many americans have, I can only attribute it to cognitive dissonance on the part of some and intellectual dishonesty on the part of others. I hope that Dr. Williams is the former and not the latter.

I'm an admirer of Walter Williams as well. Have you attempted to contact him with you criticisms of his article? I'd be curious about what type of response you would receive.

[Kodiak]

I hate to muddy the water, but I received this e-mail today from 20/20's John Stossel:

"Hello,

This Friday I start the broadcast with a look at cousins who marry. Many Americans believe this is dangerous — incestuous. If the couple has children, their kids will be deformed, or stupid. Yet Albert Einstein's parents were cousins, as were FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt. I talk to some married "kissing cousins" examine the laws, and look at a groundbreaking study that reveals most worries about cousins reproducing are unfounded..."

[Tmy]

Heres my question. Why dont people address the slippery slope arguments? Instead they just say "Thats not the issue" and ignore the question because its damaging to the pro-gay marriage side.

Specifically the the bigamy question. The arguments against bigamy are pretty weak. How can you justify being for gay marriage and yet be against bigamy, without being a hypocrite.

[corplinx]

If two legally consenting adults would like to enter a legal contract it is fine with me, even I find the contract deplorable.

If cousins or siblings of the age of consent want to marry then that is their business. Their sexual habits are none of mine or the governments business.

The fact is, incest can happen whether its legal for them to be in a legal union (which is pointless if they are in the immediate family). Just look at Arkansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia.

[GroundStrength]

Originally posted by Tmy
Specifically the the bigamy question. The arguments against bigamy are pretty weak. How can you justify being for gay marriage and yet be against bigamy, without being a hypocrite.

I think because they consider it apples and oranges.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tmy


Specifically the the bigamy question. The arguments against bigamy are pretty weak. How can you justify being for gay marriage and yet be against bigamy, without being a hypocrite.

Marriage is way to obtain a legal union currently in the united states. Now, if someone obtains a second union without the knowledge of their partner from the first union, this is a sort of fraud and that is what bigamy is.

An open marriage of more than one person is none of my business if some preacher wants to marry them. However, I think it is perfectly reasonable for the government to not recognize more than one of those marriages since it imposes a greater burden on our civil courts when they want to end that union.

Think about gun laws, we say that some gun laws won't work since criminals don't obey the law. Now, my guess is you could find some sick religion where you can marry a sheep. There is nothing preventing you from marrying that sheep and cohabitating with the sheep. However, the government will not recognize it as a legal union.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Tmy
Heres my question. Why dont people address the slippery slope arguments? Instead they just say "Thats not the issue" and ignore the question because its damaging to the pro-gay marriage side.

Specifically the the bigamy question. The arguments against bigamy are pretty weak. How can you justify being for gay marriage and yet be against bigamy, without being a hypocrite.
Sorry I can resist:
"Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same." ---Oscar Wilde

"I have two wives, and don't you think its big o me to admit it."---unknown (sounds like Groucho to me)

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Tmy
Specifically the the bigamy question. The arguments against bigamy are pretty weak. How can you justify being for gay marriage and yet be against bigamy, without being a hypocrite. Easy. No one group is denied bigamy. EVERYONE is. No special treatment there. However with marriage we have some people who can, and some people who can't get married to who they want to. Hence special privilige for heteros.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by corplinx


Marriage is way to obtain a legal union currently in the united states. Now, if someone obtains a second union without the knowledge of their partner from the first union, this is a sort of fraud and that is what bigamy is.

An open marriage of more than one person is none of my business if some preacher wants to marry them. However, I think it is perfectly reasonable for the government to not recognize more than one of those marriages since it imposes a greater burden on our civil courts when they want to end that union.


Gay marriage/divorce wont be a burden to our courts?

There are people who are fine with bigamy. Whats wrong with requiring the first spouce to know about it. Many contracts have more than one party. Many familes have more than one child. Is having another child "fraud" on the first one.

Bigamy also has Freedom of Religion issues backing it.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Easy. No one group is denied bigamy. EVERYONE is. No special treatment there. However with marriage we have some people who can, and some people who can't get married to who they want to. Hence special privilige for heteros.

Uhhh bigamists are being denied! If you wantto play symantics then gays arent being denied cause they can marry......somone of the opposite sex.

Its easy to create a group. Bi-couples can marry that poly-groups can not. Hence a special privlege for bi-couplings.

Or better yet! Christiains can mary accordingto their religion but Mormans cant have their bigamy marriages according to their religion.


Why is 2 people limit any more proper than a male/female limit?

[Clancie]

Posted by Tmy

Look at Elvis Presly. That was a man/girl marriage.
No. They -met- when she was 14, but they -married- when she was almost 22.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Easy. No one group is denied bigamy. EVERYONE is. No special treatment there. However with marriage we have some people who can, and some people who can't get married to who they want to.

Im sorry but this is weak. Everyone is denied homosexual marriage right now, just like bigamy.

[Otther]

Easy. No one group is denied bigamy. EVERYONE is. No special treatment there. However with marriage we have some people who can, and some people who can't get married to who they want to. Hence special privilige for heteros.
Tony hit it on the head.

Everyone is being allowed to marry... it's just not everyone is being allowed to marry those of their gender. Adding samesex unions under the "tent" of marriage is no different than adding polygamous relationships. By changing the rules now we impower ourselves. And that power gives us a duty to change things completely so it is as inclusive as possible.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Tmy
Heres my question. Why dont people address the slippery slope arguments?

Because 'slippery slope' is a logical fallacy.

We don't address slippery slope arguments for the same reason we don't address:

ad hominem arguments
post ergo propter hoc arguments
one true scottsman arguments
etc etc etc.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Tony

Im sorry but this is weak. Everyone is denied homosexual marriage right now, just like bigamy.

Nope, Hexxen hit it right on the head.

Heteros can marry the adults they love.

Homosexuals are NOT allowed to marry the adults they love.

To claim that 'if we change marriage now, we have to alter it for everyone' is a disengenous argument, one which conveniently ignores thousands of years of history where marriage laws have changed and altered over time in different societies.

To claim that 'marriage has always been this way' is a LIE.

It is being changed right now, just like it has changed countless times before. The slippery slope argument is a fallacy, because "X then Y" DOES NOT apply. The people who want Y will ALWAYS try to get Y, as well as the people who want Z, WHETHER or NOT X is ever granted.

If your argument against Y and Z is the same argument that you use against X, then NOTHING on the planet will ever change! And if your argument against Y and Z is because "marriage has always been this way"...., see above.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Tony


Im sorry but this is weak. Everyone is denied homosexual marriage right now, just like bigamy. There's no such thing as "homosexual marriage" like its different thing from regular marriage. It's not a category. Gays want "marriage" just like straights. Gays are denied "marriage" (to who they want, of course Bush would probably love it if they all married opposite sex people and pretended to be straight). Right now some people can marry, and some can't. Bigamy is out for everyone straight across the board. Gays, straights, hermaphrodites, no one can be married to more than one person.

Does that make sense now?

I know you're for gay marriage Tony. How would you counter that argument?

[Tony]

Originally posted by bignickel


Nope, Hexxen hit it right on the head.



Uhh no he didn't. EVERYONE is denied homosexual marriage. I can't marry a man, are you saying I can?

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Tmy
Why is 2 people limit any more proper than a male/female limit? I'm not saying it's more proper. I'm saying it's not an arguement against gay marriage. The two are seperate issues.

[Otther]

To claim that 'marriage has always been this way' is a LIE. What were the last two changes in US laws concerning marriage that can be compared to same sex marriages?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Bigamy is out for everyone straight across the board. Gays, straights, hermaphrodites, no one can be married to more than one person.

Does that make sense now?


With that wording, yes.

But I don't think that changes the fact that everyone is denied a homosexual marriage. I can't have a homosexual marriage.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tony


Uhh no he didn't. EVERYONE is denied homosexual marriage. I can't marry a man, are you saying I can?

Yes you can. Unfortunately, that marriage won't be recognized by the government.

If some preacher marries two gay people, they are married in the religious sense. However, they will not be able to get government benefits for "married" people.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by bignickel


Nope, Hexxen hit it right on the head.

Heteros can marry the adults they love.

Homosexuals are NOT allowed to marry the adults they love.

To claim that 'if we change marriage now, we have to alter it for everyone' is a disengenous argument, one which conveniently ignores thousands of years of history where marriage laws have changed and altered over time in different societies.



Whats disengenous is keeping one traditional marriage limit (2 people) and at the same time argue that another marriage limit (man/women) should be cast out because its unfair.

Marriage has no love requirement. Even if it did, what about the man who loves 2 women??? Human nature is to have more than one partner. Many people go through life loving more than one person, and even marrying more than one person. Why restrict to one and one?

[Ed]

Originally posted by bignickel


To claim that 'marriage has always been this way' is a LIE.

It is being changed right now, just like it has changed countless times before.

I would like to be apprised of, say, half a dozen ways the notion of marrage between a man and a woman has changed since 1400.

[Ed]

Originally posted by corplinx
I often post links to articles by GMU professor Walter E. Williams. This week in a new article he addresses gay marriage (sort of). (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/04/married.html)

You cannot have a legal union between a person and an animal since the animal can not legally enter into a mutually binding contract. This is also why the man/boy comparison does not work.



Is that not precisely the issue? The problem with a man/boy contract is that it is not legal. Nor is a homosexual marriage. The solution to both is to change the law.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Ed

I would like to be apprised of, say, half a dozen ways the notion of marrage between a man and a woman has changed since 1400.

Marriage ages.

Kidnapping the bride-to-be and paying the acceptable ransom.

Interracial marriages.

Concubines.

Slave-owners selling married slaves to different owners.

And here's a neat one: in many states, if when a man and woman have been married, one of them changes their sex (sexual re-assignment operation), they are STILL considered to be legally married.

Didja know about that last one, Ed?

It seems we already HAVE same-sex marriages. And yet: where's the landslide of polygamists we'er supposed to be expierencing?

[Ed]

Originally posted by bignickel


Because 'slippery slope' is a logical fallacy.

We don't address slippery slope arguments for the same reason we don't address:

ad hominem arguments
post ergo propter hoc arguments
one true scottsman arguments
etc etc etc.

Sometimes an authority is appealed to properly. Sometimes a slope is slippery.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
I'm not saying it's more proper. I'm saying it's not an arguement against gay marriage. The two are seperate issues.

Are they really separate issues? Depends on how you look at things. If your arguing that there is no right to limit the marriage laws, then arent you opening the gates.

Isnt that like saying that a Xmas display on town hall property is a Christian issue not a jewish issue. While that is an accurate statement , It'll still effect Christians as well Jews.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Ed


Is that not precisely the issue? The problem with a man/boy contract is that it is not legal. Nor is a homosexual marriage. The solution to both is to change the law.

Lets be clear about what we mean by marriage. A government marriage is currently a legal contract signed by two parties.

In other words, a minor is off limits.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by bignickel



It seems we already HAVE same-sex marriages. And yet: where's the landslide of polygamists we'er supposed to be expierencing?

If we ALREADY have same sex marriages then whats all the hub bub Im seeing in the news?

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Ed

Sometimes an authority is appealed to properly. Sometimes a slope is slippery.

Only if X DOES logically lead to Y.

And since we already have people of the same sex married to each other in several states (see above), and since we haven't seen polygamists leaping out of the woodwork, it seems that Y does NOT come after X.

The people who want Y and Z and W want it regardless of whether X happens or not. If X never happens, Y, Z and W could all happen anyway.

Thus: slippery slope.

But I've already addressed this before, notwithstanding T's baseless assertion of 'no one wants to address this...'

[Tricky]

I'm not sure of the answer to this (and it may differ from place to place), but can a man who has gotten a sex change marry another man? If so, it means that the "nobody can marry their homosexual partner" argument is wrong. It just means that you have to be wealthy enough to afford it and willing to go through the sacrifice. After all, a person who has gotten a sex change is still the same person inside, right? Or is this all about genetalia?

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Tmy

Whats disengenous is keeping one traditional marriage limit (2 people) and at the same time argue that another marriage limit (man/women) should be cast out because its unfair.

You want to go to bat for the polygamists? Be my guest.

But since Y does not follow X, but can occur whether X happens or not, NO SLIPPERY SLOPE.


Marriage has no love requirement.

Seems like a reason to ban marriage altogether, rather than limiting it to 'your team'. Why? So it can stay a 50% success joke to such an exclusive club?

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Tmy


Are they really separate issues? Depends on how you look at things. If your arguing that there is no right to limit the marriage laws, then arent you opening the gates.
I never argued marriage couldn't be limited. I just think the playing field needs to be leveled. So they are seperate issues.

[Ed]

Originally posted by bignickel


Marriage ages.

Kidnapping the bride-to-be and paying the acceptable ransom.

Interracial marriages.

Concubines.

Slave-owners selling married slaves to different owners.

And here's a neat one: in many states, if when a man and woman have been married, one of them changes their sex (sexual re-assignment operation), they are STILL considered to be legally married.

Didja know about that last one, Ed?

It seems we already HAVE same-sex marriages. And yet: where's the landslide of polygamists we'er supposed to be expierencing?

They all refer to the union of a man and a woman. The core attribute of marriage is that. You refer to legal nuances on the core definition.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by bignickel

Because 'slippery slope' is a logical fallacy.


When dealing with political movements 'slippery slope' is NOT a logical fallacy.

It's a time-tested method of achieving extreme ends. It's called 'gradualism'.

I support same-sex marriage, but I can't get all worked up about being 'denied' a right I never had, nor even considered until recently.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by bignickel


Only if X DOES logically lead to Y.

And since we already have people of the same sex married to each other in several states (see above), and since we haven't seen polygamists leaping out of the woodwork, it seems that Y does NOT come after X.

The people who want Y and Z and W want it regardless of whether X happens or not. If X never happens, Y, Z and W could all happen anyway.

Thus: slippery slope.

But I've already addressed this before, notwithstanding T's baseless assertion of 'no one wants to address this...'

BUT X Y and Z are related. The way our marriage laws are written they say "X Y and Z" cant happen. (say X is gay marriage, Y is bigamy, and Z is incest.)

If you get a court to say you must allow X because to not is discriminatory to X's. THen you set a precedent for Y and Z to come in.

Dont kid yourself that it wont happen. Utah was founded by bigamists. How many states were founded by gays? ( Ok Ok California and New Mexico, you got me.:p )

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Ed

They all refer to the union of a man and a woman. The core attribute of marriage is that. You refer to legal nuances on the core definition.

You ask for half a dozen: I give them to you. You say the core has not changed. I say that 'women as property' is a core part, and has changed.

You fail to notice the significance of my last example

God can not be pleased.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Tmy

BUT X Y and Z are related. The way our marriage laws are written they say "X Y and Z" cant happen. (say X is gay marriage, Y is bigamy, and Z is incest.)

If you get a court to say you must allow X because to not is discriminatory to X's. THen you set a precedent for Y and Z to come in.

No. no. and no. There are marriage laws that prohibit X. Another part prohibits Y. Another part prohibits Z.

X is already happening. Why aren't the people who want Y and Z jumping out of woodwork? To discriminate against X is unconstitutional. If there are arguments to be made for Y and Z let them be made. But they are not X's arguments, since X's arguments is 'MARRYING THE ADULT YOU LOVE, no matter what gender'.

The precedent thing is ONCE AGAIN slippery slope. 'if we allow blacks to vote, then some crowd will be baying to allow dogs to vote!' NON SEQUITUR.

I could go on and on saying non sequitor, but someone's not listening. So why bother.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Tricky
I'm not sure of the answer to this (and it may differ from place to place), but can a man who has gotten a sex change marry another man?In a state that allows people who have undergone a sex change to change their gender registration, yes. Of course. It would be a heterosexual marriage in the eyes of the law. The people involved will most likely also characterise their relationship as heterosexual. A homosexual is not likely to consider a male to female transsexual attractive, and a male to female transsexual is not going to want a relationship with a homosexual man.If so, it means that the "nobody can marry their homosexual partner" argument is wrong. It just means that you have to be wealthy enough to afford it and willing to go through the sacrifice.Somehow I doubt there are many homosexuals who are willing to go through surgery and live as females just to be able to get married.

A more likely scenario is when a male to female transsexual cannot get the final surgery (for example for medical reasons), leading to them being unable to be recognized as their chosen gender before the law, which means that they can get married to their lesbian partner.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Tmy


Dont kid yourself that it wont happen. Utah was founded by bigamists. How many states were founded by gays? ( Ok Ok California and New Mexico, you got me.:p )

Mass. also, Fla., The Dakotas come to mind, Penn, Texas, Wyoming, Colo., there are more that I can't recall.

[Ed]

Originally posted by bignickel


You ask for half a dozen: I give them to you. You say the core has not changed. I say that 'women as property' is a core part, and has changed.

You fail to notice the significance of my last example

God can not be pleased.

Marriage has been defined as the union of a man and a woman (or women) since forever. It has not changed repeatedly.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Ed

Marriage has been defined as the union of a man and a woman (or women) since forever.

Marriage has been defined that way by heterosexuals.

Kind of disengenious, considering that any gays that would have stepped forward to ask to be married would have been imprisoned, burned, hung, tortured, or otherwise killed for being 'sinful'?

"Alright, we shall define marriage as the act of joining a man and a woman together. Anyone have a better definition?"

"Uh, how about the act of joining two adults together?"

"What?! Are you a homo?!"

"Uh, of course not! Check out those, uh, hooters! Yarrgh! I want to go kill something, and uh, watch the games."

"Well, OK then. If there isn't anything further (glare), we'll go with the first definition."

[Ed]

Originally posted by bignickel


Marriage has been defined that way by heterosexuals.

Kind of disengenious, considering that any gays that would have stepped forward to ask to be married would have been imprisoned, burned, hung, tortured, or otherwise killed for being 'sinful'?

"Alright, we shall define marriage as the act of joining a man and a woman together. Anyone have a better definition?"

"Uh, how about the act of joining two adults together?"

"What?! Are you a homo?!"

"Uh, of course not! Check out those, uh, hooters! Yarrgh! I want to go kill something, and uh, watch the games."

"Well, OK then. If there isn't anything further (glare), we'll go with the first definition."

As I said.......

Look, I am not ready to take a position on Gay marriage one way or another. All I am pointing out is that throughout history, the notion that two men could be married is laughable. It is simply a question of the definition. You want to change the definition, cool.

[peptoabysmal]

I definitely think we are into the next "civil rights" movement.

I can't help but wonder how all this is affecting Vermont's tourism industry?

Edited: Gosh Darn It. I definately can't spell definitely.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Ed


As I said.......

Look, I am not ready to take a position on Gay marriage one way or another. All I am pointing out is that throughout history, the notion that two men could be married is laughable. It is simply a question of the definition. You want to change the definition, cool. Check out some native american cultures, gay marriage all over the place. I don't have references in front of me.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ed


As I said.......

Look, I am not ready to take a position on Gay marriage one way or another.

Maybe you should try it before you criticise it. I mean, there would be no problem with coming home after work, cracking a few beers open, and eating pizza in front of the footy every night. And you wouldn't ever hear those dread words "We have to talk".

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Maybe you should try it before you criticise it. I mean, there would be no problem with coming home after work, cracking a few beers open, and eating pizza in front of the footy every night. And you wouldn't ever hear those dread words "We have to talk".

Yeah, but redecorating weekly would wear on one:D

[Ed]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Check out some native american cultures, gay marriage all over the place. I don't have references in front of me.

Well, when you find some references, let me know.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Ed


Well, when you find some references, let me know. Here's a good article with anthropological references.
http://www.androphile.org/preview/Culture/NativeAmerica/amerindian.htm