<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 19 2005, 02:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 19 2005, 02:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ah, you, sir, who say it won't happen - I submit to you that homosexual marriage won't happen either. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It already has. Just not in the US. As an American, I find myself embarrassed by the superiority of Canada's legal system.
Strike that, it has happened in the US, it just isn't wide spread and still hotly debated.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 19 2005, 06:53 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 19 2005, 06:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Alright skulkbait, to address your challenge of slippery slope, i submit the following.
Let's say, for argument's sake, that marriage is currently defined as between a man and a woman. Now let's assume that we relax the marriage laws to accomodate homosexual marriage on the basis that there are homosexual couples that love each other and desire to commit their lives to each other. Let us say that all legal challenges to this have been nullified. Now, let us examine what we have here. Since I doubt religious testimony will be allowed in court cases here, we will have to rely on scientific expertise on this matter.
And what does scientific expertise have to say about humans? That they arose from other animals. Thus, we cannot define humans to be totally different than animals. Secondly, we have that there are several quite intelligent animals, some (like dolphins) that display remarkably human traits and can understand speech on the level of a human child. We also have the fact that we do not limit rights to mentally handicapped people, unless it directly endangers them. Thus we can rule out the "intelligence factor." Thirdly, we have the fact that animals, especially of the domesticated variety, show affection, loyalty, etc etc to their masters. Thus we can rule out the "a relationship with an animal is meaningless" argument. Lastly, we have that animals do not have rights like humans do. However, there are several groups campaigning for more animal rights. Maybe they're just oppressed, eh?
Voila. Human-animal marriage. And an income tax nightmare, because you can be guaranteed that everyone and their dog will marry for the benefits. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Since you've demonstrated logic which-- if accepted-- nullifies the 'human' part of the marriage (and religious testimony is disallowed), then what's to prevent a human male or female from marrying an animal of the opposite sex?
Besides, you rule out each individually, but we already define traditional marriage as a <i>set</i> of criteria, -- unless you forgot, age also factors into the legality.
Age limits are based on age of knowing consent. That's 18 for humans, when the state defines that a human has the mental capacity to decide for him or herself that they want to be married. I don't know where you're going with this one.
In theory we could pass any legislation provided enough people support it. I would go even one step further and want to marry my couch (it's always there for me! <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
Seriously though: Another thought experiment for the evening.
Bob is in love with Ron, so much so that that Bob is willing to undergo a sex-change operation in order to marry Ron. Now that Bob is legally female, Ron and Bob are able to marry and enjoy the rights of all such married couples. Ron and Bob live happily ever after.
Why then should Bob have had to undergo the operation in the first place?
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 19 2005, 07:04 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 19 2005, 07:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Age limits are based on age of knowing consent. That's 18 for humans, <b>when the state defines that a human has the mental capacity to decide for him or herself that they want to be married</b>. I don't know where you're going with this one. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> We can prevent 16 year olds from marrying based on an arbitrary age qualification, but we'll be powerless to stop dogs from entering the dating pool? If your slippery slope model was realistic, we would already see pedophiles challenging (successfully, based on your standard of the courts' decision making abilities) the courts for their right to marry twelve year olds.
Additionally, you failed to respond to how the floodgates haven't already been opened based upon your slippery slope. According to your logic, the template already exists to establish inter-species marriages between different genders.
<!--QuoteBegin-FilthyLarry+Jan 19 2005, 02:15 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Jan 19 2005, 02:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In theory we could pass any legislation provided enough people support it. I would go even one step further and want to marry my couch (it's always there for me! <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
Seriously though: Another thought experiment for the evening.
Bob is in love with Ron, so much so that that Bob is willing to undergo a sex-change operation in order to marry Ron. Now that Bob is legally female, Ron and Bob are able to marry and enjoy the rights of all such married couples. Ron and Bob live happily ever after.
Why then should Bob have had to undergo the operation in the first place? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Even better: are they still legally married if Ron gets a sex change after they're married?
<!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Jan 19 2005, 02:16 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Jan 19 2005, 02:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 19 2005, 07:04 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 19 2005, 07:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Age limits are based on age of knowing consent. That's 18 for humans, <b>when the state defines that a human has the mental capacity to decide for him or herself that they want to be married</b>. I don't know where you're going with this one. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> We can prevent 16 year olds from marrying based on an arbitrary age qualification, but we'll be powerless to stop dogs from entering the dating pool? If your slippery slope model was realistic, we would already see pedophiles challenging (successfully, based on your standard of the courts' decision making abilities) the courts for their right to marry twelve year olds.
Additionally, you failed to respond to how the floodgates haven't already been opened based upon your slippery slope. According to your logic, the template already exists to establish inter-species marriages between different genders. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I didn't say it would happen now. I said it would happen eventually. When, yknow, society is prepared to accept it. And the fact that animals that form monogamous relationships do so beginning from when they're sexually mature, that's a pretty good indication of what the cutoff would be.
@Thought experiment: Can a transgender person marry like that? I don't really know the law pertaining to this area. @Thought experiment 2: My initial reaction is...hmm. Don't know. However, If my wife got a sex change on me, I'd divorce her in no time flat <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> so in effect we wouldn't be married. heh.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 19 2005, 02:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 19 2005, 02:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> @Thought experiment 2: My initial reaction is...hmm. Don't know. However, If my wife got a sex change on me, I'd divorce her in no time flat <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> so in effect we wouldn't be married. heh. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well the thought experiment assumes that they stay together, obviously.
Hey wait a minute though. Wouldn't divorcing her be against your religion? I mean, to death do us part and all... I find it interesting that you'd be willing to go to hell just because your wife suddenly became a man. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
yeah well, i didn't say i would remarry <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 19 2005, 02:28 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 19 2005, 02:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> yeah well, i didn't say i would remarry <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> But you still parted, and neither of you died...
One page ago: Q: You forget: A marriage requires the consent of both parties. How is a dog supposed to consent? A: If it can hump my leg and wag its tail at me, that's good enough.
And now: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Age limits are based on age of knowing consent. That's 18 for humans, when the state defines that a human has the mental capacity to decide for him or herself that they want to be married.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since you've already submitted that the <i>smartest</i> of animals can only understand speech on the level of a "small child", they would therefore not be able to offer the state's definition of 'consent'.
Ah, but even small children understand "yes" or "no". I'm assuming that a lot of animals can understand a sexual relationship with one of its own kind, and since we're animals too, it's not a short stretch to get from there to here. A human child can't understand a loving, nor sexual relationship properly. I submit that a sexually mature animal can.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Jan 19 2005, 02:28 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Jan 19 2005, 02:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 19 2005, 02:28 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 19 2005, 02:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> yeah well, i didn't say i would remarry <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But you still parted, and neither of you died... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> true. dammit. i don't want to be stuck with a man <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
We're not talking about an animal having a sexual relationship with one of its own, we're talking about it having a consenual relationship with a human being according to existing legal standards-- which means they must enter into the relationship based upon the judgement skills of an 18 year old human being.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ah, but even small children understand "yes" or "no". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but that doesn't mean you can go ahead and have sex with them.
And again, the age of consent has kept the pedophiles at bay. I haven't heard them winning too many court cases to lower it.
In some states the parents can consent for them if they're 16 or 17, and in some states a judge can order that someone be allowed to marry if they're under 18. And according to existing legal standards - what mean you there? That was the point in assuming that all attacks against homosexual marriages had been dismissed...what? I'm now confused. You're arguing that they can't consent because they don't understand a relationship between a human and an animal? I thought we already dealt with that by ruling out that a human-animal relationship was meaningless. Are you asking me to prove that animals can comprehend marriage?
*edit* plus, dogs will hump anything.
*edit2* I'm close to the end of the "devil's advocate" stick. I don't like arguing this position, but I feel compelled to, just to see where it leads.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Jan 19 2005, 02:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Jan 19 2005, 02:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-FilthyLarry+Jan 19 2005, 02:15 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Jan 19 2005, 02:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In theory we could pass any legislation provided enough people support it. I would go even one step further and want to marry my couch (it's always there for me! <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
Seriously though: Another thought experiment for the evening.
Bob is in love with Ron, so much so that that Bob is willing to undergo a sex-change operation in order to marry Ron. Now that Bob is legally female, Ron and Bob are able to marry and enjoy the rights of all such married couples. Ron and Bob live happily ever after.
Why then should Bob have had to undergo the operation in the first place? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Even better: are they still legally married if Ron gets a sex change after they're married? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Good question, I have no idea.
For Wheeee @thought experiment: I believe that most countries grant full rights to the transexual. Not entirey sure about the US though.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And according to existing legal standards - what mean you there? That was the point in assuming that all attacks against homosexual marriages had been dismissed...what? I'm now confused. You're arguing that they can't consent because they don't understand a relationship between a human and an animal? I thought we already dealt with that by ruling out that a human-animal relationship was meaningless. Are you asking me to prove that animals can comprehend marriage? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Last post before my eyes fall out.
No, you've been saying that the logical conclusion to homosexual marriage would be that people can marry animals-- dogs, specifically, of course <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
My point is that standards of consent would keep the animal-lovers at bay, even if the language of marriage was altered to include two 'humans' instead of a man and a woman. You've said this would lead to a slippery slope; I say that we already have the apparatus in place to prevent such a thing.
Eh. Oh well, I don't really care anymore. The lawyers will lawyer, and we'll see in 100 years if we don't have animal marriages. TBH I don't think it would happen, since I have a little more faith in humanity than I've been pretending to have. But who knows.
Wheeee (and others) - This is a Discussion Forum, not a forum for public attack on ideas and person(s)... A Discussion can get heated, but you should never attack or flame the PEOPLE that these ideas are comming from.
If any have construed my statements to be a flame or personal attack, I apologize. I am merely arguing based on what I feel are real, rational reasons. If you're offended by that, please let me know and I'll be sure to play nicer next time.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 19 2005, 03:15 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 19 2005, 03:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If any have construed my statements to be a flame or personal attack, I apologize. I am merely arguing based on what I feel are real, rational reasons. If you're offended by that, please let me know and I'll be sure to act dumber next time. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It's so hard to argue with someone so pre-set into his own views. Unwilling to change... Need an example? Noah's Ark. Look I'm not trying to bash you but you need to be way more openminded for these discussions to go ANYWHERE.
I never said I was the most openminded person out there, but I do know that I will change my views if I see compelling evidence (I've gone from Republican to moderate/Democrat and from Christian to atheist).
You admitted you didn't have the answer but you shrug it off and point me to some random link that had almost nothing to do with the questions I asked. At least you could admit that Noah's Ark is *probably* false? How about admitting that it really undermines the credibility of the Bible?
Or how about you step back and take a look at it from an unbiased (no information whatsoever) point of view? You've never heard of religion. Some guy comes to your door and tells you that you need to be saved by this magical guy in the sky. He gives you a book and claims that this will lead to your eternal salvation/damnation. Why would you believe him? For that matter, why should I believe Christianity is true? As opposed to Islam, or any other religion? I see no evidence whatsoever to believe in any of them. Surely... you can see this? The reason you believe Christianity is because (probably) you were raised this way. You've been told for 10, 20, or more years that it's true... You know before 12 or so the human mind isn't very good at critical thinking (see Santa).
Sorry, I won't go that far without further research. By me.
*edit* and objectively, you have no idea under what circumstances I accepted Christianity. The most rapidly growing Christian areas are outside the U.S. anyway. And if I were a primitive (assuming that I know nothing is a bit too far) would likely believe a guy in the sky that came down and gave me the Bible, after all it goes beyond my primitive experience to the area of supernatural. Now, if you wanted to say that that's what happened in South America or something to the natives there, fine. But you're gonna have to say that aliens gave us the Bible too, and there's no evidence for any such things.
We all need to get together and have a round table discussion sometime. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Jan 19 2005, 06:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jan 19 2005, 06:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> We all need to get together and have a round table discussion sometime. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That table'd better be stocked with <i>lots</i> of liquor.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 19 2005, 01:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 19 2005, 01:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and objectively, you have no idea under what circumstances I accepted Christianity. The most rapidly growing Christian areas are outside the U.S. anyway. And if I were a primitive (assuming that I know nothing is a bit too far) would likely believe a guy in the sky that came down and gave me the Bible, after all it goes beyond my primitive experience to the area of supernatural. Now, if you wanted to say that that's what happened in South America or something to the natives there, fine. But you're gonna have to say that aliens gave us the Bible too, and there's no evidence for any such things.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When I said nothing I meant nothing of religion or supernatural. Of course you'd know English, etc...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And if I were a primitive would likely believe a guy in the sky that came down and gave me the Bible, after all it goes beyond my primitive experience to the area of supernatural.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uhm I don't really know what this sentence means... It doesn't make sense to me =\
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, if you wanted to say that that's what happened in South America or something to the natives there, fine. But you're gonna have to say that aliens gave us the Bible too, and there's no evidence for any such things.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uhm... this doesn't make any sense either. I said a guy knocked at your door with a bible and claimed to have eternal salvation in his hand.... nothing about bibles dropping from the sky =(
Comments
It already has. Just not in the US. As an American, I find myself embarrassed by the superiority of Canada's legal system.
Strike that, it has happened in the US, it just isn't wide spread and still hotly debated.
Let's say, for argument's sake, that marriage is currently defined as between a man and a woman.
Now let's assume that we relax the marriage laws to accomodate homosexual marriage on the basis that there are homosexual couples that love each other and desire to commit their lives to each other.
Let us say that all legal challenges to this have been nullified.
Now, let us examine what we have here.
Since I doubt religious testimony will be allowed in court cases here, we will have to rely on scientific expertise on this matter.
And what does scientific expertise have to say about humans? That they arose from other animals. Thus, we cannot define humans to be totally different than animals.
Secondly, we have that there are several quite intelligent animals, some (like dolphins) that display remarkably human traits and can understand speech on the level of a human child. We also have the fact that we do not limit rights to mentally handicapped people, unless it directly endangers them.
Thus we can rule out the "intelligence factor."
Thirdly, we have the fact that animals, especially of the domesticated variety, show affection, loyalty, etc etc to their masters. Thus we can rule out the "a relationship with an animal is meaningless" argument.
Lastly, we have that animals do not have rights like humans do. However, there are several groups campaigning for more animal rights. Maybe they're just oppressed, eh?
Voila. Human-animal marriage. And an income tax nightmare, because you can be guaranteed that everyone and their dog will marry for the benefits. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since you've demonstrated logic which-- if accepted-- nullifies the 'human' part of the marriage (and religious testimony is disallowed), then what's to prevent a human male or female from marrying an animal of the opposite sex?
Besides, you rule out each individually, but we already define traditional marriage as a <i>set</i> of criteria, -- unless you forgot, age also factors into the legality.
Seriously though: Another thought experiment for the evening.
Bob is in love with Ron, so much so that that Bob is willing to undergo a sex-change operation in order to marry Ron. Now that Bob is legally female, Ron and Bob are able to marry and enjoy the rights of all such married couples. Ron and Bob live happily ever after.
Why then should Bob have had to undergo the operation in the first place?
We can prevent 16 year olds from marrying based on an arbitrary age qualification, but we'll be powerless to stop dogs from entering the dating pool? If your slippery slope model was realistic, we would already see pedophiles challenging (successfully, based on your standard of the courts' decision making abilities) the courts for their right to marry twelve year olds.
Additionally, you failed to respond to how the floodgates haven't already been opened based upon your slippery slope. According to your logic, the template already exists to establish inter-species marriages between different genders.
Seriously though: Another thought experiment for the evening.
Bob is in love with Ron, so much so that that Bob is willing to undergo a sex-change operation in order to marry Ron. Now that Bob is legally female, Ron and Bob are able to marry and enjoy the rights of all such married couples. Ron and Bob live happily ever after.
Why then should Bob have had to undergo the operation in the first place? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even better: are they still legally married if Ron gets a sex change after they're married?
We can prevent 16 year olds from marrying based on an arbitrary age qualification, but we'll be powerless to stop dogs from entering the dating pool? If your slippery slope model was realistic, we would already see pedophiles challenging (successfully, based on your standard of the courts' decision making abilities) the courts for their right to marry twelve year olds.
Additionally, you failed to respond to how the floodgates haven't already been opened based upon your slippery slope. According to your logic, the template already exists to establish inter-species marriages between different genders. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't say it would happen now. I said it would happen eventually. When, yknow, society is prepared to accept it. And the fact that animals that form monogamous relationships do so beginning from when they're sexually mature, that's a pretty good indication of what the cutoff would be.
@Thought experiment: Can a transgender person marry like that? I don't really know the law pertaining to this area. @Thought experiment 2: My initial reaction is...hmm. Don't know. However, If my wife got a sex change on me, I'd divorce her in no time flat <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> so in effect we wouldn't be married. heh.
Well the thought experiment assumes that they stay together, obviously.
*edit* ZOMG I SEE AEGERI *runs for the hills*
But you still parted, and neither of you died...
One page ago:
Q: You forget: A marriage requires the consent of both parties. How is a dog supposed to consent?
A: If it can hump my leg and wag its tail at me, that's good enough.
And now:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Age limits are based on age of knowing consent. That's 18 for humans, when the state defines that a human has the mental capacity to decide for him or herself that they want to be married.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since you've already submitted that the <i>smartest</i> of animals can only understand speech on the level of a "small child", they would therefore not be able to offer the state's definition of 'consent'.
But you still parted, and neither of you died... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
true. dammit. i don't want to be stuck with a man <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ah, but even small children understand "yes" or "no". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but that doesn't mean you can go ahead and have sex with them.
And again, the age of consent has kept the pedophiles at bay. I haven't heard them winning too many court cases to lower it.
*edit* plus, dogs will hump anything.
*edit2* I'm close to the end of the "devil's advocate" stick. I don't like arguing this position, but I feel compelled to, just to see where it leads.
Seriously though: Another thought experiment for the evening.
Bob is in love with Ron, so much so that that Bob is willing to undergo a sex-change operation in order to marry Ron. Now that Bob is legally female, Ron and Bob are able to marry and enjoy the rights of all such married couples. Ron and Bob live happily ever after.
Why then should Bob have had to undergo the operation in the first place? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even better: are they still legally married if Ron gets a sex change after they're married? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good question, I have no idea.
For Wheeee @thought experiment: I believe that most countries grant full rights to the transexual. Not entirey sure about the US though.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Last post before my eyes fall out.
No, you've been saying that the logical conclusion to homosexual marriage would be that people can marry animals-- dogs, specifically, of course <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
My point is that standards of consent would keep the animal-lovers at bay, even if the language of marriage was altered to include two 'humans' instead of a man and a woman. You've said this would lead to a slippery slope; I say that we already have the apparatus in place to prevent such a thing.
It's so hard to argue with someone so pre-set into his own views. Unwilling to change...
Need an example? Noah's Ark. Look I'm not trying to bash you but you need to be way more openminded for these discussions to go ANYWHERE.
You admitted you didn't have the answer but you shrug it off and point me to some random link that had almost nothing to do with the questions I asked. At least you could admit that Noah's Ark is *probably* false? How about admitting that it really undermines the credibility of the Bible?
Or how about you step back and take a look at it from an unbiased (no information whatsoever) point of view? You've never heard of religion. Some guy comes to your door and tells you that you need to be saved by this magical guy in the sky. He gives you a book and claims that this will lead to your eternal salvation/damnation. Why would you believe him? For that matter, why should I believe Christianity is true? As opposed to Islam, or any other religion? I see no evidence whatsoever to believe in any of them. Surely... you can see this? The reason you believe Christianity is because (probably) you were raised this way. You've been told for 10, 20, or more years that it's true... You know before 12 or so the human mind isn't very good at critical thinking (see Santa).
*edit* and objectively, you have no idea under what circumstances I accepted Christianity. The most rapidly growing Christian areas are outside the U.S. anyway. And if I were a primitive (assuming that I know nothing is a bit too far) would likely believe a guy in the sky that came down and gave me the Bible, after all it goes beyond my primitive experience to the area of supernatural. Now, if you wanted to say that that's what happened in South America or something to the natives there, fine. But you're gonna have to say that aliens gave us the Bible too, and there's no evidence for any such things.
That table'd better be stocked with <i>lots</i> of liquor.
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
When I said nothing I meant nothing of religion or supernatural. Of course you'd know English, etc...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And if I were a primitive would likely believe a guy in the sky that came down and gave me the Bible, after all it goes beyond my primitive experience to the area of supernatural.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uhm I don't really know what this sentence means... It doesn't make sense to me =\
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, if you wanted to say that that's what happened in South America or something to the natives there, fine. But you're gonna have to say that aliens gave us the Bible too, and there's no evidence for any such things.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uhm... this doesn't make any sense either. I said a guy knocked at your door with a bible and claimed to have eternal salvation in his hand.... nothing about bibles dropping from the sky =(