Obama backs gay marriage

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Next up 3 or more parents.

This stemmed from a bio Mom who was in a same sex relationship. She was impregnated by a man who had an affair with her while she was separated from her same sex partner.

Slippery slope? "I do believe" to quote the Lion in the Wizard of Oz.

http://www.bradenton.com/2012/07/02/...let-child.html

How is this different from a heterosexual couple where one partner is involved in infidelity that results in a pregnancy? If a woman is married and has a baby, the man she is married to is presumed to be the father, even if he isn't biologically.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Next up 3 or more parents.

This stemmed from a bio Mom who was in a same sex relationship. She was impregnated by a man who had an affair with her while she was separated from her same sex partner.

Slippery slope? "I do believe" to quote the Lion in the Wizard of Oz.

http://www.bradenton.com/2012/07/02/...let-child.html

First, it's cute that you don't really understand how "slippery slope" works (or, rather, doesn't) in these kinds of arguments ...

Second, it's perplexing that you're thinking this is now - clearly you didn't watch enough mid-80s Steve Guttenberg/Ted Danson vehicles, for which you can certainly be forgiven. However - this same triangle happens with non-same-sex couples too. I feel like a fuck just saying that, but apparently it needs to be said.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

First, it's cute that you don't really understand how "slippery slope" works (or, rather, doesn't) in these kinds of arguments ...

Second, it's perplexing that you're thinking this is now - clearly you didn't watch enough mid-80s Steve Guttenberg/Ted Danson vehicles, for which you can certainly be forgiven. However - this same triangle happens with non-same-sex couples too. I feel like a fuck just saying that, but apparently it needs to be said.

Right? Who can forget about Three Men and a Baby or my personal favorite that's never mentioned enough, My Two Dads!? If babies didn't die from it in the 80s, they certainly won't suffer if it's legally recognized that these relationships exist and are valid.

Ghostwriter, how did you become such a bigoted person? Were you born this way(TM)?

[DrPhil]

^^ Ghostwriter

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

First, it's cute that you don't really understand how "slippery slope" works (or, rather, doesn't) in these kinds of arguments ...

Second, it's perplexing that you're thinking this is now - clearly you didn't watch enough mid-80s Steve Guttenberg/Ted Danson vehicles, for which you can certainly be forgiven. However - this same triangle happens with non-same-sex couples too. I feel like a fuck just saying that, but apparently it needs to be said.

Guess some of us are just too dumb to understand. I will have to bask in your brilliance. You are what you feel.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Guess some of us are just too dumb to understand. I will have to bask in your brilliance. You are what you feel.

That's your response to the obvious being pointed out to you?

mmkay.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Guess some of us are just too dumb to understand. I will have to bask in your brilliance. You are what you feel.

Troll harder, brother ... although the thick air of anti-"intellectualism" as a hand-wave to counterarguments is just awesome though, so thanks for that.

If you don't know why Sliippery Slope is often considered a logical fallacy (or, at the least, poor form in an argument without the corresponding justification of the warrant), I'll point you here.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Troll harder, brother ... although the thick air of anti-"intellectualism" as a hand-wave to counterarguments is just awesome though, so thanks for that.

If you don't know why Sliippery Slope is often considered a logical fallacy (or, at the least, poor form in an argument without the corresponding justification of the warrant), I'll point you here.

Interesting that when you disagree with someone you resort to name calling. Typical.

Let me make sure I understand you my "Kappa Sigma brother". Someone who disagrees with a you and/or other liberals is labeled an "anti-intellectual"? Have you ever considered that it just might be the other way around? It's the "intellectuals" like you who desire an "anything goes society" that will push us or maybe even drag us right over the cliff and down the slope.

Try a better source next time than an article in Wikipedia that has numerous issues with it and no citations. How one can examine a specious article like the one referenced and say that this proves their point is beyond me. BTW - Kind of neat that you were able to click "anti-intellectualism" within the article for an immediate buzz word to use as part of your attack. It was really quite lazy of you.

As our society continues its rapid decay many of us "anti-intellectuals" will lean back and say "I told you so" but, as history has shown us time and again, it may just be too late. I hope not.

"I have spoken my piece and counted to three". Penny Wharvey McGill.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Interesting that when you disagree with someone you resort to name calling. Typical.

Using "troll" as a verb (on the internet) is name-calling? Come on.

Let me make sure I understand you my "Kappa Sigma brother". Someone who disagrees with a you and/or other liberals is labeled an "anti-intellectual"?

Anybody who plays the "Yawn I guess I'm just not as smart as you, mister big smarts who doesn't get the real issues up on Alabaster Mountain, you smarty smart-smart!" card is being anti-intellectual. You were sarcastically playing dumb (which is no less of a "name-calling" move than claiming you're trolling, by the by) - is that not what you were getting at?

And I'm far from a liberal, but hey - whatever pushes your narrative.

Have you ever considered that it just might be the other way around? It's the "intellectuals" like you who desire an "anything goes society" that will push us or maybe even drag us right over the cliff and down the slope.

I have considered this - and I considered it again, now that you've brought it up.

I reject it for a few reasons, the most pressing of which are:

1 - The notion of "less government interference" is implicitly a conservative notion - applying it to personal lives seems like a natural segue. AThat makes the notion universal, lending credence to its validity.

2 - There's absolutely no chance that "equal rights for gays" is equivalent to "anything goes" - on face, you've started with a faulty premise. In no way do I want "anything goes" - just "nobody is discriminated against on basis of sexuality."

Try a better source next time than an article in Wikipedia that has numerous issues with it and no citations. How one can examine a specious article like the one referenced and say that this proves their point is beyond me. BTW - Kind of neat that you were able to click "anti-intellectualism" within the article for an immediate buzz word to use as part of your attack. It was really quite lazy of you.

I used the Wikipedia citation as an overview, so you understood I wasn't referring to "slippery slope" as some sort of colloquialism, but rather the actual line of argumentation (which I assumed you were, as well, but that could well be wrong). What, exactly, would you prefer instead? Journal sources on argumentation?

Regardless of my lazy citation, it's incumbent upon YOU to provide the details to prove your point here - prove for me, in any way you can, how this is the start of a slippery slope. Prove the causation between gay marriage and the downfall of public morality (right after you justify your definition of "public morality"). Because I absolutely reject that anything further will happen as a result - just like cats didn't start voting when women did.

Or just tilt at this particular internet windmill - really, it's up to you.

As our society continues its rapid decay many of us "anti-intellectuals" will lean back and say "I told you so" but, as history has shown us time and again, it may just be too late. I hope not.

"I have spoken my piece and counted to three". Penny Wharvey McGill.

Yes, yes - history has shown time and again that good ol' "Way It's Always Been" individuals (such as those who decried women's suffrage, or freeing slaves, and so on) have ALWAYS been in the right, once we look back on it.

Or never. I actually can't think of a single time. Japanese internment, treatment of Native Americans, "No Irish Need Apply", phrenology, real coca in the cola, and so on ...

[barbino]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

^^ Ghostwriter

He's certainly not boring, KSigRC.