4/3/2013 2:37 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 2:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 2:25:00 PM (view original):
I believe the liberal way is to get the door cracked open and then bumrush it with all the other things that want to be let inside.

I believe the conservative way is to close the door, lock it, bolt it and push some furniture in front of it.

I don't like either way.   I'm simply asking "OK, if I let you in, why won't I be forced to let those hundred other people in too?"
The slippery slope argument is a fallacy:

R. D. McIlwaine III, then Virginia's assistant attorney general, in Loving v. the State of Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court case that overturned miscegenation laws:

It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.

Cool.  A couple of things:

1.  Please point out a reference to same sex marriage.

2.  Assuming you can't find a reference to SS marriage, do you think polygamy(more than one man/one women) more resembles SS marriage(two men or two women) or interracial marriage(one man/one woman of different races)?

3.  Do you think the SC in 1967 even considered SS marriage?   Even further, do you think our forefathers in the 1770s even considered SS marriage?
4/3/2013 2:40 PM
Mike, you agree that sibling and polygamous marriages have issues and shouldn't be allowed.  You see no problem with gay marriage, in a vacuum.  Can't we be grown-ups and make grown-up decisions? Allow gay marriage, and recognize the flaws of sibling and polygamous marriages and don't allow them.

Tec, I'm confident gays don't want to get married for the sake of "political correctness." They want to get married because they're in a relationship with someone they love, and want to get married just like anyone else.
4/3/2013 2:45 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 2:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 2:25:00 PM (view original):
I believe the liberal way is to get the door cracked open and then bumrush it with all the other things that want to be let inside.

I believe the conservative way is to close the door, lock it, bolt it and push some furniture in front of it.

I don't like either way.   I'm simply asking "OK, if I let you in, why won't I be forced to let those hundred other people in too?"
The slippery slope argument is a fallacy:

R. D. McIlwaine III, then Virginia's assistant attorney general, in Loving v. the State of Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court case that overturned miscegenation laws:

It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.

Cool.  A couple of things:

1.  Please point out a reference to same sex marriage.

2.  Assuming you can't find a reference to SS marriage, do you think polygamy(more than one man/one women) more resembles SS marriage(two men or two women) or interracial marriage(one man/one woman of different races)?

3.  Do you think the SC in 1967 even considered SS marriage?   Even further, do you think our forefathers in the 1770s even considered SS marriage?
Heeeeeyyyy duuuuumbshit.

I'm showing you that the exact same arguments (polygamy and incest) were used in 1967 as a reason for not allowing interracial marriage. The AG said if we allow interracial marriage, how can we not allow polygamy and incest? 

Yet we allowed interracial marriage for no better reason than "they want to" and "it doesn't affect anyone else" and it didn't force us to allow polygamy or incest.
4/3/2013 2:46 PM
burns, I honestly don't know how we can allow SS marriage and not polygamy.    That would seem like random lawmaking and that just doesn't work for me.  
4/3/2013 2:48 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 2:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 2:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 2:25:00 PM (view original):
I believe the liberal way is to get the door cracked open and then bumrush it with all the other things that want to be let inside.

I believe the conservative way is to close the door, lock it, bolt it and push some furniture in front of it.

I don't like either way.   I'm simply asking "OK, if I let you in, why won't I be forced to let those hundred other people in too?"
The slippery slope argument is a fallacy:

R. D. McIlwaine III, then Virginia's assistant attorney general, in Loving v. the State of Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court case that overturned miscegenation laws:

It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.

Cool.  A couple of things:

1.  Please point out a reference to same sex marriage.

2.  Assuming you can't find a reference to SS marriage, do you think polygamy(more than one man/one women) more resembles SS marriage(two men or two women) or interracial marriage(one man/one woman of different races)?

3.  Do you think the SC in 1967 even considered SS marriage?   Even further, do you think our forefathers in the 1770s even considered SS marriage?
Heeeeeyyyy duuuuumbshit.

I'm showing you that the exact same arguments (polygamy and incest) were used in 1967 as a reason for not allowing interracial marriage. The AG said if we allow interracial marriage, how can we not allow polygamy and incest? 

Yet we allowed interracial marriage for no better reason than "they want to" and "it doesn't affect anyone else" and it didn't force us to allow polygamy or incest.
Heeeeeyyyy duuuuumbshit.

Way to not answer a single question.   Don't you pretend to be a lawyer?   If you're going to quote a court case, make your ******* argument.
4/3/2013 2:49 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 2:40:00 PM (view original):
Mike, you agree that sibling and polygamous marriages have issues and shouldn't be allowed.  You see no problem with gay marriage, in a vacuum.  Can't we be grown-ups and make grown-up decisions? Allow gay marriage, and recognize the flaws of sibling and polygamous marriages and don't allow them.

Tec, I'm confident gays don't want to get married for the sake of "political correctness." They want to get married because they're in a relationship with someone they love, and want to get married just like anyone else.
BTW, I can easily apply your response to tec to polygamists and bisexuals.    Easily.
4/3/2013 2:49 PM
You're still missing it.

Slippery slope arguments are a fallacy. Allowing gay marriage doesn't force us to allow polygamy any more than allowing interracial marriage did. Even though the exact same argument that you are using was used by the AG in 1967.
4/3/2013 2:54 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 2:36:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 2:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 2:26:00 PM (view original):
Responding to Tec:
But the change has already happened. There are gay married couples all over the country. What's the damage?
Those should never have happened.
But it's legal in several states. What's the damage?

Are you suggestion that just because something is legal in some places that it's the "right thing to do"?

If the state of South Dakota legalized DUI, should the other 49 states follow suit?  Should the federal government decree legalized DUI should now be the law of the land?

4/3/2013 2:55 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 2:50:00 PM (view original):
You're still missing it.

Slippery slope arguments are a fallacy. Allowing gay marriage doesn't force us to allow polygamy any more than allowing interracial marriage did. Even though the exact same argument that you are using was used by the AG in 1967.
Why are you OK with gay marriage and not polygamy?
4/3/2013 2:57 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 2:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 2:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 2:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 2:25:00 PM (view original):
I believe the liberal way is to get the door cracked open and then bumrush it with all the other things that want to be let inside.

I believe the conservative way is to close the door, lock it, bolt it and push some furniture in front of it.

I don't like either way.   I'm simply asking "OK, if I let you in, why won't I be forced to let those hundred other people in too?"
The slippery slope argument is a fallacy:

R. D. McIlwaine III, then Virginia's assistant attorney general, in Loving v. the State of Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court case that overturned miscegenation laws:

It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.

Cool.  A couple of things:

1.  Please point out a reference to same sex marriage.

2.  Assuming you can't find a reference to SS marriage, do you think polygamy(more than one man/one women) more resembles SS marriage(two men or two women) or interracial marriage(one man/one woman of different races)?

3.  Do you think the SC in 1967 even considered SS marriage?   Even further, do you think our forefathers in the 1770s even considered SS marriage?
Heeeeeyyyy duuuuumbshit.

I'm showing you that the exact same arguments (polygamy and incest) were used in 1967 as a reason for not allowing interracial marriage. The AG said if we allow interracial marriage, how can we not allow polygamy and incest? 

Yet we allowed interracial marriage for no better reason than "they want to" and "it doesn't affect anyone else" and it didn't force us to allow polygamy or incest.
Heeeeeyyyy duuuuumbshit.

Way to not answer a single question.   Don't you pretend to be a lawyer?   If you're going to quote a court case, make your ******* argument.
Wanna answer any of the questions?   If not, I'm done with you.

Your argument is weak, at best. 
You quote a court case and can't see how it doesn't apply, at all, to today's world or SS/polygamy.
Finally, as I said yesterday, when you realize your argument is weak, you resort to insults.   A simple lack of intelligence.
4/3/2013 2:59 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 2:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 2:40:00 PM (view original):
Mike, you agree that sibling and polygamous marriages have issues and shouldn't be allowed.  You see no problem with gay marriage, in a vacuum.  Can't we be grown-ups and make grown-up decisions? Allow gay marriage, and recognize the flaws of sibling and polygamous marriages and don't allow them.

Tec, I'm confident gays don't want to get married for the sake of "political correctness." They want to get married because they're in a relationship with someone they love, and want to get married just like anyone else.
BTW, I can easily apply your response to tec to polygamists and bisexuals.    Easily.
So do it.  OK. 

You said there were issues with polygamists marrying.  There are none with homosexuals marrying.

Who are bisexuals marrying?  Huh?
4/3/2013 3:00 PM
4/3/2013 3:01 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 2:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 2:49:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 2:40:00 PM (view original):
Mike, you agree that sibling and polygamous marriages have issues and shouldn't be allowed.  You see no problem with gay marriage, in a vacuum.  Can't we be grown-ups and make grown-up decisions? Allow gay marriage, and recognize the flaws of sibling and polygamous marriages and don't allow them.

Tec, I'm confident gays don't want to get married for the sake of "political correctness." They want to get married because they're in a relationship with someone they love, and want to get married just like anyone else.
BTW, I can easily apply your response to tec to polygamists and bisexuals.    Easily.
So do it.  OK. 

You said there were issues with polygamists marrying.  There are none with homosexuals marrying.

Who are bisexuals marrying?  Huh?
I'm confident polygamists/bisexuals don't want to get married for the sake of "political correctness." They want to get married because they're in a relationship with someone they love, and want to get married just like anyone else.

Done.

4/3/2013 3:03 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 2:46:00 PM (view original):
burns, I honestly don't know how we can allow SS marriage and not polygamy.    That would seem like random lawmaking and that just doesn't work for me.  

In case you missed it.

When you're changing the laws of marriage, you might as well change them to suit everyone.

4/3/2013 3:04 PM
Again, the main argument for gay marriage is "They're in love.  They want to be married.  They are consenting adults.  They are not related."   I don't believe any of these are limited to one on one relationships. 
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.