"Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham

[polymath257]

---

The first is essentially the same as the government getting out of the marriage business.

So do we now get tax deductions?

The second is idiocy. Toasters, at least currently, cannot enter into legal contracts. If, in the future, they have enough self-awareness to do so and you wish to marry your toaster (and the toaster agrees), then go for it. But, as yet, toasters don't seem to be asking for marriage rights. And you don't get to marry without an agreement.

---

Thanks for comparing gays to toasters and goats. The continuing bigotry is noted.

Again, goats cannot enter into legal contracts.  They do not show the awareness and understanding to be able to agree to a  valid contract.

So, the fact that you see this as a slippery slope to such just shows how far away from being moral you really are.

---

• I'm not comparing a same sex attracted person with  a toaster.  Not even close.  Bigotry redacted!
  

This isn't so much a slippery slope argument, but more of an argument to absurdity.   I think it is right to reject these arguments (as it seems do others).  It's not about discrimination to say that marriage doesn't apply to goats or to toasters.  We wouldn't be hating this person, or denying them rights to say that they can't get married, because it is not within the definition of marriage.  And we shoudn't be expected to change that definition in the name of equality.  A marriage is not between a human and a goat or a toaster.  It simply doesn't qualify.  And even worse, a married bachelor is incoherent.  We shouldn't change the definition to allow this, while the same word may be used, it wouldn't be equal, because we are not talking about the same thing anymore (not even close).  When people use to say that rights where being denied, and this is horrible, I would ask as a single person, what rights I didn't have.

This wasn't an argument against same sex unions either. It doesn't show what marriage is or should be.   It wasn't a slippery slope that if you allow this, you must allow these other things (I didn't plan on people agreeing with me).  But I think that it does show that it is not "equality" no matter what.  That marriage is defined, and if you fall outside of that definition, it doesn't make you any less of a person (no more than me being single means I have less rights or am less human than a married person).  Equality in regards to rights and equal protection under the law doesn't mean that we can do whatever we want, or redefine a word, because we want to be a part of something.  I can't just call myself a "Doctor" because I don't qualify.  it's not oppressive.  For a Christian, marriage isn't just a legal or social contract (it's kind of sad, if that is all it is for others).  It is sacred, a gift from God.  It is the union between one man and one woman, two becoming one.  It was set out that way from the beginning. 

We may have disagreements on what marriage is, and who qualifies.  But it is not about hate, or intolerance, or fear.  It's not about denying rights or saying that someone is less human.  Not for myself anyway.  I was being facetious, and perhaps that was wrong and insensitive.  But for the Christian's here or anyone who holds to marriage as being between a man and women, we couldn't say anything, without being shouted down and slandered (even some personal attacks).  So while we may not arrive at the same conclusion; perhaps, people may be a little more tolerant of other views; and realize that we do hold to a definition of marriage, which will necessarily exclude from (we won't even get into marrying cousins).  From the point of view of the state, I actually think it is about the states interest in promoting marriage and who that applies to.  The whole rights thing is just a smoke screen.

Yes, marriage is a *legal* contract that provides certain *legal* benefits. As long as all couples who want this get *equal* labels, treatment, and benefits, there isn't an issue.

The *only* reason to deny gay couples these benefits and call it other than what every other couple has is a silly, outmoded definition. And the attempt to keep that definition has no rational basis. it *isn't* like trying to marry a toaster or a goat. it is marrying another human being who wants to join their lives with yours.

[Amarok]

• I'm not comparing a same sex attracted person with  a toaster.  Not even close.  Bigotry redacted!
  

This isn't so much a slippery slope argument, but more of an argument to absurdity.   I think it is right to reject these arguments (as it seems do others).  It's not about discrimination to say that marriage doesn't apply to goats or to toasters.  We wouldn't be hating this person, or denying them rights to say that they can't get married, because it is not within the definition of marriage.  And we shoudn't be expected to change that definition in the name of equality.  A marriage is not between a human and a goat or a toaster.  It simply doesn't qualify.  And even worse, a married bachelor is incoherent.  We shouldn't change the definition to allow this, while the same word may be used, it wouldn't be equal, because we are not talking about the same thing anymore (not even close).  When people use to say that rights where being denied, and this is horrible, I would ask as a single person, what rights I didn't have.

This wasn't an argument against same sex unions either. It doesn't show what marriage is or should be.   It wasn't a slippery slope that if you allow this, you must allow these other things (I didn't plan on people agreeing with me).  But I think that it does show that it is not "equality" no matter what.  That marriage is defined, and if you fall outside of that definition, it doesn't make you any less of a person (no more than me being single means I have less rights or am less human than a married person).  Equality in regards to rights and equal protection under the law doesn't mean that we can do whatever we want, or redefine a word, because we want to be a part of something.  I can't just call myself a "Doctor" because I don't qualify.  it's not oppressive.  For a Christian, marriage isn't just a legal or social contract (it's kind of sad, if that is all it is for others).  It is sacred, a gift from God.  It is the union between one man and one woman, two becoming one.  It was set out that way from the beginning. 

We may have disagreements on what marriage is, and who qualifies.  But it is not about hate, or intolerance, or fear.  It's not about denying rights or saying that someone is less human.  Not for myself anyway.  I was being facetious, and perhaps that was wrong and insensitive.  But for the Christian's here or anyone who holds to marriage as being between a man and women, we couldn't say anything, without being shouted down and slandered (even some personal attacks).  So while we may not arrive at the same conclusion; perhaps, people may be a little more tolerant of other views; and realize that we do hold to a definition of marriage, which will necessarily exclude from (we won't even get into marrying cousins).  From the point of view of the state, I actually think it is about the states interest in promoting marriage and who that applies to.  The whole rights thing is just a smoke screen.

Yes, marriage is a *legal* contract that provides certain *legal* benefits. As long as all couples who want this get *equal* labels, treatment, and benefits, there isn't an issue.

The *only* reason to deny gay couples these benefits and call it other than what every other couple has is a silly, outmoded definition. And the attempt to keep that definition has no rational basis. it *isn't* like trying to marry a toaster or a goat. it is marrying another human being who wants to join their lives with yours.

Agreed this long screed to hide the inherent bigotry of their position is the smoke screen here .

---

• I'm not comparing a same sex attracted person with  a toaster.  Not even close.  Bigotry redacted!
  

This isn't so much a slippery slope argument, but more of an argument to absurdity.   I think it is right to reject these arguments (as it seems do others).  It's not about discrimination to say that marriage doesn't apply to goats or to toasters.  We wouldn't be hating this person, or denying them rights to say that they can't get married, because it is not within the definition of marriage.  And we shoudn't be expected to change that definition in the name of equality.  A marriage is not between a human and a goat or a toaster.  It simply doesn't qualify.  And even worse, a married bachelor is incoherent.  We shouldn't change the definition to allow this, while the same word may be used, it wouldn't be equal, because we are not talking about the same thing anymore (not even close).  When people use to say that rights where being denied, and this is horrible, I would ask as a single person, what rights I didn't have.

This wasn't an argument against same sex unions either. It doesn't show what marriage is or should be.   It wasn't a slippery slope that if you allow this, you must allow these other things (I didn't plan on people agreeing with me).  But I think that it does show that it is not "equality" no matter what.  That marriage is defined, and if you fall outside of that definition, it doesn't make you any less of a person (no more than me being single means I have less rights or am less human than a married person).  Equality in regards to rights and equal protection under the law doesn't mean that we can do whatever we want, or redefine a word, because we want to be a part of something.  I can't just call myself a "Doctor" because I don't qualify.  it's not oppressive.  For a Christian, marriage isn't just a legal or social contract (it's kind of sad, if that is all it is for others).  It is sacred, a gift from God.  It is the union between one man and one woman, two becoming one.  It was set out that way from the beginning. 

We may have disagreements on what marriage is, and who qualifies.  But it is not about hate, or intolerance, or fear.  It's not about denying rights or saying that someone is less human.  Not for myself anyway.  I was being facetious, and perhaps that was wrong and insensitive.  But for the Christian's here or anyone who holds to marriage as being between a man and women, we couldn't say anything, without being shouted down and slandered (even some personal attacks).  So while we may not arrive at the same conclusion; perhaps, people may be a little more tolerant of other views; and realize that we do hold to a definition of marriage, which will necessarily exclude from (we won't even get into marrying cousins).  From the point of view of the state, I actually think it is about the states interest in promoting marriage and who that applies to.  The whole rights thing is just a smoke screen.

Yes, marriage is a *legal* contract that provides certain *legal* benefits. As long as all couples who want this get *equal* labels, treatment, and benefits, there isn't an issue.

The *only* reason to deny gay couples these benefits and call it other than what every other couple has is a silly, outmoded definition. And the attempt to keep that definition has no rational basis. it *isn't* like trying to marry a toaster or a goat. it is marrying another human being who wants to join their lives with yours.

He will likely try and twist that statement into an incest angle . But don't worry that comparison fails too .

[Angrboda]

• I'm not comparing a same sex attracted person with  a toaster.  Not even close.  Bigotry redacted!
  

This isn't so much a slippery slope argument, but more of an argument to absurdity.   I think it is right to reject these arguments (as it seems do others).  It's not about discrimination to say that marriage doesn't apply to goats or to toasters.  We wouldn't be hating this person, or denying them rights to say that they can't get married, because it is not within the definition of marriage.  And we shoudn't be expected to change that definition in the name of equality.  A marriage is not between a human and a goat or a toaster.  It simply doesn't qualify.  And even worse, a married bachelor is incoherent.  We shouldn't change the definition to allow this, while the same word may be used, it wouldn't be equal, because we are not talking about the same thing anymore (not even close).  When people use to say that rights where being denied, and this is horrible, I would ask as a single person, what rights I didn't have.

This wasn't an argument against same sex unions either. It doesn't show what marriage is or should be.   It wasn't a slippery slope that if you allow this, you must allow these other things (I didn't plan on people agreeing with me).  But I think that it does show that it is not "equality" no matter what.  That marriage is defined, and if you fall outside of that definition, it doesn't make you any less of a person (no more than me being single means I have less rights or am less human than a married person).  Equality in regards to rights and equal protection under the law doesn't mean that we can do whatever we want, or redefine a word, because we want to be a part of something.  I can't just call myself a "Doctor" because I don't qualify.  it's not oppressive.  For a Christian, marriage isn't just a legal or social contract (it's kind of sad, if that is all it is for others).  It is sacred, a gift from God.  It is the union between one man and one woman, two becoming one.  It was set out that way from the beginning. 

We may have disagreements on what marriage is, and who qualifies.  But it is not about hate, or intolerance, or fear.  It's not about denying rights or saying that someone is less human.  Not for myself anyway.  I was being facetious, and perhaps that was wrong and insensitive.  But for the Christian's here or anyone who holds to marriage as being between a man and women, we couldn't say anything, without being shouted down and slandered (even some personal attacks).  So while we may not arrive at the same conclusion; perhaps, people may be a little more tolerant of other views; and realize that we do hold to a definition of marriage, which will necessarily exclude from (we won't even get into marrying cousins).  From the point of view of the state, I actually think it is about the states interest in promoting marriage and who that applies to.  The whole rights thing is just a smoke screen.

How do words even work?

[Amarok]

• I'm not comparing a same sex attracted person with  a toaster.  Not even close.  Bigotry redacted!
  

This isn't so much a slippery slope argument, but more of an argument to absurdity.   I think it is right to reject these arguments (as it seems do others).  It's not about discrimination to say that marriage doesn't apply to goats or to toasters.  We wouldn't be hating this person, or denying them rights to say that they can't get married, because it is not within the definition of marriage.  And we shoudn't be expected to change that definition in the name of equality.  A marriage is not between a human and a goat or a toaster.  It simply doesn't qualify.  And even worse, a married bachelor is incoherent.  We shouldn't change the definition to allow this, while the same word may be used, it wouldn't be equal, because we are not talking about the same thing anymore (not even close).  When people use to say that rights where being denied, and this is horrible, I would ask as a single person, what rights I didn't have.

This wasn't an argument against same sex unions either. It doesn't show what marriage is or should be.   It wasn't a slippery slope that if you allow this, you must allow these other things (I didn't plan on people agreeing with me).  But I think that it does show that it is not "equality" no matter what.  That marriage is defined, and if you fall outside of that definition, it doesn't make you any less of a person (no more than me being single means I have less rights or am less human than a married person).  Equality in regards to rights and equal protection under the law doesn't mean that we can do whatever we want, or redefine a word, because we want to be a part of something.  I can't just call myself a "Doctor" because I don't qualify.  it's not oppressive.  For a Christian, marriage isn't just a legal or social contract (it's kind of sad, if that is all it is for others).  It is sacred, a gift from God.  It is the union between one man and one woman, two becoming one.  It was set out that way from the beginning. 

We may have disagreements on what marriage is, and who qualifies.  But it is not about hate, or intolerance, or fear.  It's not about denying rights or saying that someone is less human.  Not for myself anyway.  I was being facetious, and perhaps that was wrong and insensitive.  But for the Christian's here or anyone who holds to marriage as being between a man and women, we couldn't say anything, without being shouted down and slandered (even some personal attacks).  So while we may not arrive at the same conclusion; perhaps, people may be a little more tolerant of other views; and realize that we do hold to a definition of marriage, which will necessarily exclude from (we won't even get into marrying cousins).  From the point of view of the state, I actually think it is about the states interest in promoting marriage and who that applies to.  The whole rights thing is just a smoke screen.

How do words even work?

Apparently in large blocks that say a lot but don't really express anything substantial

[robvalue]

• I'm not comparing a same sex attracted person with  a toaster.  Not even close.  Bigotry redacted!
  

This isn't so much a slippery slope argument, but more of an argument to absurdity.   I think it is right to reject these arguments (as it seems do others).  It's not about discrimination to say that marriage doesn't apply to goats or to toasters.  We wouldn't be hating this person, or denying them rights to say that they can't get married, because it is not within the definition of marriage.  And we shoudn't be expected to change that definition in the name of equality.  A marriage is not between a human and a goat or a toaster.  It simply doesn't qualify.  And even worse, a married bachelor is incoherent.  We shouldn't change the definition to allow this, while the same word may be used, it wouldn't be equal, because we are not talking about the same thing anymore (not even close).  When people use to say that rights where being denied, and this is horrible, I would ask as a single person, what rights I didn't have.

This wasn't an argument against same sex unions either. It doesn't show what marriage is or should be.   It wasn't a slippery slope that if you allow this, you must allow these other things (I didn't plan on people agreeing with me).  But I think that it does show that it is not "equality" no matter what.  That marriage is defined, and if you fall outside of that definition, it doesn't make you any less of a person (no more than me being single means I have less rights or am less human than a married person).  Equality in regards to rights and equal protection under the law doesn't mean that we can do whatever we want, or redefine a word, because we want to be a part of something.  I can't just call myself a "Doctor" because I don't qualify.  it's not oppressive.  For a Christian, marriage isn't just a legal or social contract (it's kind of sad, if that is all it is for others).  It is sacred, a gift from God.  It is the union between one man and one woman, two becoming one.  It was set out that way from the beginning. 

We may have disagreements on what marriage is, and who qualifies.  But it is not about hate, or intolerance, or fear.  It's not about denying rights or saying that someone is less human.  Not for myself anyway.  I was being facetious, and perhaps that was wrong and insensitive.  But for the Christian's here or anyone who holds to marriage as being between a man and women, we couldn't say anything, without being shouted down and slandered (even some personal attacks).  So while we may not arrive at the same conclusion; perhaps, people may be a little more tolerant of other views; and realize that we do hold to a definition of marriage, which will necessarily exclude from (we won't even get into marrying cousins).  From the point of view of the state, I actually think it is about the states interest in promoting marriage and who that applies to.  The whole rights thing is just a smoke screen.

How do words even work?

I've wondered about these guys saying this kind of stuff to those around them. I've concluded that they either keep it all to themselves, or more likely they are surrounded by people who mostly agree with this kind of "reasoning".

[Silver]

What happens is that a theist says "something" followed by "God is great", and due to the latter having been uttered the former comment can be absolutely unreasonable yet accepted merely on the illogical surmise of God's "greatness" having been mentioned.

[Amarok]

How do words even work?

I've wondered about these guys saying this kind of stuff to those around them. I've concluded that they either keep it all to themselves, or more likely they are surrounded by people who mostly agree with this kind of "reasoning".

Indeed that twisted logic must seem normal to them and that's kind of scary

---

What happens is that a theist says "something" followed by "God is great", and due to the latter having been uttered the former comment can be absolutely unreasonable yet accepted merely on the illogical surmise of God's "greatness" having been mentioned.

True very true

[robvalue]

Replace, "Marriage is between a man and a woman" with, "Voting is something men do to decide who governs the country".

The important questions here are:

1) Why is the "man and woman" restriction in place?

2) Does it need to be there? Are there negative consequences to removing it?

The answers are pretty simple: (1) Bigoted/primitive cultures; (2) No. If anyone tries to appeal to "What God wants", then they should also acknowledge that God doesn't need their help. They are really talking about what they want, of course.

[Amarok]

Replace, "Marriage is between a man and a woman" with, "Voting is something men do to decide who governs the country".

The important questions here are:

1) Why is the "man and woman" restriction in place?

2) Does it need to be there? Are there negative consequences to removing it?

The answers are pretty simple: (1) bigotry/primitive understandings (2) no. If anyone tries to appeal to "what God wants", then they should also acknowledge that God doesn't need their help. They are really talking about what they want, of course.

But it's really old Rob so it can't be changed 

But Rob if we allow gays to marry then cousins  are next 

But Rob if we redefine terms then we can redefine any term(insert Christian hysteria)

Yes  those points are nonsense but they will argue them anyway .

[robvalue]

To further painfully drill my point home:

The "man and woman" thing existed because the societies propagating it didn't tolerate/understand other relationships. It's not because there's anything inherently special about having opposite genders. It's sad that this mindset still exists in some people.

(The only wiggle room remaining is the whole "breeding factory" element. But marriage doesn't give nor take away the ability to reproduce or be a family, so that's irrelevant.)