Fucking stupid people shouldn't be in Parliament

[ninwa]

Bernadi used a slippery slope argument, and a valid one at that. Sure, the comparison is a bit ridiculous, that's the point of a slippery slope argument. We all know that the slippery slope argument is fallacious, so dismiss it as such using proper logic. Why the sensational hype?

A slippery slope argument is a fallacy, how can it be valid?

I will happily compare homosexuality to beastiality or incest or whatever taboo you want to think of. Just because I can make a comparison does not mean I think the two are alike.

Bestiality is a taboo because in the process you often hurt innocent animals which do not have the mental capacity to understand what is going on and to consent. Gay marriage is a taboo because unfortunately there are still people out there who are ingrained in their conservative, traditional ways, and therefore react negatively when something challenges those ways (e.g. seeing two men kissing).

And these people will equate the sick feeling they get when an animal suffers with the sick feeling they get because they can't accept a situation outside of their "only opposite sex people can love each other!!!" paradigm. But there is a massive difference between the two, and I'm glad that someone as stupid as Bernadi who could not recognise that is copping flack for his idiocy.

[thushan]

On a personal level, I disagree with the gay lifestyle

Why?

Ninatron - I think what aabattery said was benign. What I think aabattery meant that - PERSONALLY - he can't help but feel uncomfortable with homosexuality, that's innate to him. It would be good if he could change his view, but effectively it does not really matter. It doesn't matter what one thinks, it only matters how one acts based on what one thinks.

So aabattery is saying, OK he feels uncomfortable with homosexuality. However, he acknowledges that homosexuality should not be discriminated against. The end product is very similar - a person who is ok with homosexuality and says they shouldn't be discriminated, and a person who is uncomfortable but tolerant of homosexuality and says they shouldn't be discriminated against...would perform very similar actions.

Aabattery - this is what you meant right?

[lynt.br]

I'll clarify the rest of my points when I get a bit more time but in relation to this:

The concept of marriage should be restricted based on the ability to consent. Marriage with animals falls under this restriction. I don't see what's so controversial about this. Of course it's restricted to humans, what else did you want to extend it to?

My point is that why should marriage be restricted to consenting humans? Aren't you just choosing who you exclude from the institution of marriage based on your opinion on how it should be defined? And isn't this similar to those who choose to limit marriage to heterosexual couples? What is the reason why your line in the sane should be accepted over someone else's?

[JellyDonut]

The only justification I could muster for specifically legalising gay marriage was that it seemed to be in accordance with prevailing social attitudes. I still don't find this a completely convincing justification and I still struggle with a logical justification for the change...

Why don't you find this convincing? The legal (and current) definition of marriage is also one arbitrarily defined based on past societal attitudes, unless you believe in the biblical interpretation of it.

[ninwa]

I'll clarify the rest of my points when I get a bit more time but in relation to this:

The concept of marriage should be restricted based on the ability to consent. Marriage with animals falls under this restriction. I don't see what's so controversial about this. Of course it's restricted to humans, what else did you want to extend it to?

My point is that why should marriage be restricted to consenting humans? Aren't you just choosing who you exclude from the institution of marriage based on your opinion on how it should be defined? And isn't this similar to those who choose to limit marriage to heterosexual couples? What is the reason why your line in the sane should be accepted over someone else's?

I really don't understand what you are trying to argue here. What species are you suggesting we extend it to?

Marriage is restricted to humans because all laws are restricted to humans? Isn't this kind of self-evident?

[ninwa]

On a personal level, I disagree with the gay lifestyle

Why?

Ninatron - I think what aabattery said was benign.

Yes, I realise that. I was merely curious as to what exactly it is about a homosexual lifestyle that is so different from that of a heterosexual couple. But that is irrelevant to this thread anyway. I guess I was just flabbergasted.

[Russ]

I'll clarify the rest of my points when I get a bit more time but in relation to this:

The concept of marriage should be restricted based on the ability to consent. Marriage with animals falls under this restriction. I don't see what's so controversial about this. Of course it's restricted to humans, what else did you want to extend it to?

My point is that why should marriage be restricted to consenting humans? Aren't you just choosing who you exclude from the institution of marriage based on your opinion on how it should be defined? And isn't this similar to those who choose to limit marriage to heterosexual couples? What is the reason why your line in the sane should be accepted over someone else's?

I really don't understand what you are trying to argue here. What species are you suggesting we extend it to?

Marriage is restricted to humans because all laws are restricted to humans? Isn't this kind of self-evident?

It's a rather abstract (and to me arbitrary/semantics) argument. Anti gay marriage advocates are saying that marriage is between a man and a woman and that's how it is defined and how it should be. People who support legalizing gay marriage are saying that marriage is between any consenting adults and that's how it should be. There's no intrinsic reason for why their definition is better, since there is no absolute correct answer.

I think it's kinda arbitrary/semantics based since it doesn't justify why the status quo is correct and it sidesteps..well..everything.

THATS JUST MY TAKE ON IT I COULD BE WRONG WHO KNOWS

Yes, I realise that. I am merely curious as to what exactly it is about a homosexual lifestyle that is so different from that of a heterosexual couple.

Being homosexual. I think it was just badly phrased

[EvangelionZeta]

I'll clarify the rest of my points when I get a bit more time but in relation to this:

The concept of marriage should be restricted based on the ability to consent. Marriage with animals falls under this restriction. I don't see what's so controversial about this. Of course it's restricted to humans, what else did you want to extend it to?

My point is that why should marriage be restricted to consenting humans? Aren't you just choosing who you exclude from the institution of marriage based on your opinion on how it should be defined? And isn't this similar to those who choose to limit marriage to heterosexual couples? What is the reason why your line in the sane should be accepted over someone else's?

I really don't understand what you are trying to argue here. What species are you suggesting we extend it to?

Marriage is restricted to humans because all laws are restricted to humans? Isn't this kind of self-evident?

It's a rather abstract (and to me arbitrary/semantics) argument. Anti gay marriage advocates are saying that marriage is between a man and a woman and that's how it is defined and how it should be. People who support legalizing gay marriage are saying that marriage is between any consenting adults and that's how it should be. There's no intrinsic reason for why their definition is better, since there is no absolute correct answer.

I think it's kinda arbitrary/semantics based since it doesn't justify why the status quo is correct and it sidesteps..well..everything.

THATS JUST MY TAKE ON IT I COULD BE WRONG WHO KNOWS

I'd agree here.  In response to that lynt, I think my analysis a few pages ago is probably reason enough, just sayin'.

Although re: Nina, I guess it probably is worth pointing out that laws are not just relating to humans; implicitly we subjugate animals to laws as well when the state endorses the construction of zoos, etc.  If we're going to use consent as the principle here as well, it might also be worth considering - say an animal identified a human being as a potential mate and (as animals are prone to doing?) singled it out as its permanent 'partner', and in the process the human being also was attracted to the animal, would you allow them to get married as well?  I know it's a bit of a bizarre hypothetical example, but given the fact that there have been cases of animals trying to single out humans to have sex with, I think it's probably (haha, maybe just tangentially...) worth considering here.

[Special At Specialist]

I disagree with your views, EvangelionZeta.

Every law we have ever dealt with is about humans. You are basically arguing:
"Why should marriage be restricted to humans only?"
"Why should possession of objects be restricted to humans only?"
"Why should a driver's licence be restricted to humans only?"
"Why should the jury be restricted to humans only?"
And so on, so forth.

I will give you a reason why all of these laws are restricted to humans only and why even considering animals in this situation would be perverse:

On the grand scheme of things, adults have the most rights, children have the second most rights and animals have the third most rights. Animals are inferior to human children, so unless you're suggesting that we legalise everything for children and make it legal to marry children, then I don't see how animal marriage can even be considered. Homosexual ADULTS are more superior, more knowledgeable and more mature than animals/children/pieces of bacteria etc.

And as ninatron pointed out, laws come bit by bit. You can't just say that just because it should be illegal for the most extreme example to happen, then it should be illegal for the least extreme. You seem like the sort of person who would talk about the dangers of heroin in a debate against the legalisation of marijuana. It's just not relevant.

edit: Okay, maybe not every law is about humans, just like not every law concerns adults only (children still have rights too). But you can't expect an animal to have the same amount of rights as a human adult. Animals are inferior to humans. Gay people are equal with straight people. There is a difference.

[brenden]

Err Spesh, EZ wasn't arguing that, he was just chucking out a hypothetical.

[Special At Specialist]

Err Spesh, EZ wasn't arguing that, he was just chucking out a hypothetical.

I was wondering about that because his post on page 2 seemed to hold the complete opposite view...

[EvangelionZeta]

Every law we have ever dealt with is about humans. You are basically arguing:
"Why should marriage be restricted to humans only?"
"Why should possession of objects be restricted to humans only?"
"Why should a driver's licence be restricted to humans only?"
"Why should the jury be restricted to humans only?"

Easy for these ones -

1. That's the point of this discussion - why SHOULD it be restricted to humans only?
2. Fair point - why do we only grant humans rights to possessions?  What about animals that like to hoarde things up - do we give them rights too?  I think this is actually worth thinking about.
3. Because animals can't drive, duh.
4. Because animals can't contribute to a jury's decision due to a lack of intellectual capacity.

But seriously, not that I am at all suggesting we bring animals into play with the first two, but I think we should very well ask - why DON'T animals get the same rights there?

On the grand scheme of things, adults have the most rights, children have the second most rights and animals have the third most rights. Animals are inferior to human children, so unless you're suggesting that we legalise everything for children and make it legal to marry children, then I don't see how animal marriage can even be considered. Homosexual ADULTS are more superior, more knowledgeable and more mature than animals/children/pieces of bacteria etc.

That's all assertion - why are adults>children>animals? 

But yes, all in all I'm not actually arguing for these things, just trying to provoke some discussion as to why we might hold these sorts of views.  I think it's important to question all of our assumptions in situations like this!

[brenden]

But seriously, not that I am at all suggesting we bring animals into play with the first two, but I think we should very well ask - why DON'T animals get the same rights there?

On the grand scheme of things, adults have the most rights, children have the second most rights and animals have the third most rights. Animals are inferior to human children, so unless you're suggesting that we legalise everything for children and make it legal to marry children, then I don't see how animal marriage can even be considered. Homosexual ADULTS are more superior, more knowledgeable and more mature than animals/children/pieces of bacteria etc.

That's all assertion - why are adults>children>animals? 

I think capacity (as in your rebuttal to number 4) is the most obvious argument to me. Probably for the adults/children thing as well, adults have the full capacity to make their own decisions etc. Most do, anyway. Whilst some children may have an equal to or greater capacity than many adults it would be impossible to implement anything other than blanket legislation. I think where children's rights are restricted it's more for their own protection. Eg. People who aren't even teenagers yet could be forced into work other than their paper rounds, so in taking away a child's right to work, the majority of children are being protected from what they can't protect themselves from.
Same goes for animal. Marriage is no longer a survival mechanism and doesn't exist for procreation. An animal identifying a human as a potential mate is probably wired wrong. In this case, an animal's instincts have been skewed, with their sole intention being procreation unless the animal is a dolphin. The human that would want a relationship with an animal (lol what are the chances that an animal being attracted to a person ends up being attracted to one wanting it back) would be doing so for some perverse sexual pleasure. I don't think you could argue that it wouldn't be sexual for a human that is fully mentally capable and sane. To draw an analogy from humans - perhaps an inappropriate one - an animal/human r/ship would be the equivalent of a man/woman on LSD thinking one of their friends was their life partner. Assuming the friend knew they were on acid I think it would probably be considered rape - socially if not in the legal sense - to have sex with the person on drugs.
A homosex. couple wanting to get married are fully capable of their own decisions and under control of their mental faculties. Denying them something because of trivial difference is discriminatory.

[ninwa]

If we're going to use consent as the principle here as well, it might also be worth considering - say an animal identified a human being as a potential mate and (as animals are prone to doing?) singled it out as its permanent 'partner', and in the process the human being also was attracted to the animal, would you allow them to get married as well?  I know it's a bit of a bizarre hypothetical example, but given the fact that there have been cases of animals trying to single out humans to have sex with, I think it's probably (haha, maybe just tangentially...) worth considering here.

Is the animal capable of understanding the concept of a marriage certificate, of understanding all the rights and responsibilities that come with the issuing of such a certificate, and of actually signing it and understanding what that action of signing it entails? If so, then sure, let them marry.

It's an interesting academic argument but has next to no practical application.

Marriage is restricted to humans because all laws are restricted to humans. You wouldn't prosecute a cat by subjecting it to a murder trial with a jury of its peers for killing a bird, would you?

[enwiabe]

If we're going to use consent as the principle here as well, it might also be worth considering - say an animal identified a human being as a potential mate and (as animals are prone to doing?) singled it out as its permanent 'partner', and in the process the human being also was attracted to the animal, would you allow them to get married as well?  I know it's a bit of a bizarre hypothetical example, but given the fact that there have been cases of animals trying to single out humans to have sex with, I think it's probably (haha, maybe just tangentially...) worth considering here.

Is the animal capable of understanding the concept of a marriage certificate, of understanding all the rights and responsibilities that come with the issuing of such a certificate, and of actually signing it and understanding what that action of signing it entails? If so, then sure, let them marry.

It's an interesting academic argument but has next to no practical application.

Marriage is restricted to humans because all laws are restricted to humans. You wouldn't prosecute a cat by subjecting it to a murder trial with a jury of its peers for killing a bird, would you?

Most adorable murder trial ever.