NationStates

Posted: **Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:59 pm**

Slippery slope, indeed! Since neither animals nor children can legally consent, there be no contractual agreement with them. The argument is simply intened to disguise prejudice.

Agymnum wrote:
Logical fallacy: Slippery Slope

LGBT involves expansion of marriage rights.

People marrying animals involves expansion of marriage rights.

Thus, LGBT legalized marriage will lead to people marrying animals.

Problem with this fallacy:

LGBT couples eligible for marriage equality are made up of consenting adults. Animals are unable to consent seeing as they lack sapience and thus cannot legally consent to anything. Animal marriage is therefore not equal to LGBT marriage.

Posted: **Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:00 pm**

Slovenya wrote:
Novairia wrote:
And you think that will stop it?
The people that want it to happen, will see the LGBT(add more letters as we go) movement as the justification to push for their right to marry animals, and if they have too, the rights for those animals to enable their marriage / equal rights movement to proceed.

and I agree with you

The fact is, it won't happen, because a person can give informed consent. An animal cannot.

Also, if you aren't already composing a reply, are you going to respond to my above post?

Posted: **Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:01 pm**

The Rich Port wrote:
Novairia wrote:
And you think that will stop it?
The people that want it to happen, will see the LGBT(add more letters as we go) movement as the justification to push for their right to marry animals, and if they have too, the rights for those animals to enable their marriage / equal rights movement to proceed.

Because NAMBLA has the same amount of support as the LGBT movement, amirite?

We can easily look to twenty years ago when the LGBT movement was purely underground and without any political support. Who are you to say NAMBLA wont have its time in 20+ years?

Posted: **Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:01 pm**

Novairia wrote:
The Rich Port wrote:
Because NAMBLA has the same amount of support as the LGBT movement, amirite?

We can easily look to twenty years ago when the LGBT movement was purely underground and without any political support. Who are you to say NAMBLA wont have its time in 20+ years?

Because there's a huge difference between wanting to fuck grown-ass men and wanting to fuck children.

Posted: **Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:02 pm**

Novairia wrote:
The Rich Port wrote:
Because NAMBLA has the same amount of support as the LGBT movement, amirite?

We can easily look to twenty years ago when the LGBT movement was purely underground and without any political support. Who are you to say NAMBLA wont have its time in 20+ years?

They said the same thing about interracial marriage.

Posted: **Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:02 pm**

The Rich Port wrote:
Novairia wrote:
We can easily look to twenty years ago when the LGBT movement was purely underground and without any political support. Who are you to say NAMBLA wont have its time in 20+ years?

Because there's a huge difference between wanting to fuck grown-ass men and wanting to fuck children.

When you said ass man, I somehow thought of men with butts for heads.

It was quite disturbing, yet simultaneously intriguing.

Posted: **Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:15 pm**

i never heard of NAMBLA. What a creepy group

Posted: **Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:18 pm**

Yeah! Before you know it, everybody will want to be treated fairly, and that personally affects me!

Posted: **Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:19 pm**

Grenartia wrote:Also, if you aren't already composing a reply, are you going to respond to my above post?

that's a lot of stuff I missed it because I thought you meant the questions for another person. I think I already responded to those when I was making my points with the other people

Posted: **Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:20 pm**

Novairia wrote:
The Rich Port wrote:
Because NAMBLA has the same amount of support as the LGBT movement, amirite?

We can easily look to twenty years ago when the LGBT movement was purely underground and without any political support. Who are you to say NAMBLA wont have its time in 20+ years?

Because NAMBLA advocates something that inherently deprives people of their rights without informed consent. Being LGBT doesn't.

Posted: **Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:21 pm**

Slovenya wrote:
Grenartia wrote:Also, if you aren't already composing a reply, are you going to respond to my above post?

that's a lot of stuff I missed it because I thought you meant the questions for another person. I think I already responded to those when I was making my points with the other people

No, you didn't.

If its too much, I can cut out the irrelevant bits and repost it, if you want.

Posted: **Tue Apr 23, 2013 12:22 am**

Individuality-ness wrote:
Person012345 wrote:Allegedly. What I'm saying is that he's already demonstrated that he gives no regard to the wishes of his daughters, he's proven that he thinks their bodies and sexuality are his to do what he pleased with (as was often the thinking back in those days) and we're just going to take his word for it that he was totally out of it and didn't even know he was having sex? It's more likely that the to girls said "we must have children with our father" then a randy old man in the middle of the wilderness with his 2 daughters as his only company took advantage of the situation?

Unless there is any evidence to support the claim that Lot would have taken advantage of his daughters in the wilderness

That's where the bad character bit comes in. He would offer then up to be raped, it implies he doesn't really care much what they think. One would imagine that grown angels could defend themselves a little better than lot's daughters, besides which if they want the men then you don't bring some poor totally unrelated girls into it. It's not a choice, or at least not yours to make. If the girls had volunteered, now that would be a different thing.

That being said, it's unlikely any of these things happened as-per-the-bible anyway, considering.

Posted: **Tue Apr 23, 2013 12:54 am**

Revolutionary Socialists wrote:Also, I think young children ought to be shown gay porn in order to eliminate homophobia.

Do you now.

Explain the logic.

Posted: **Tue Apr 23, 2013 5:40 am**

Slovenya wrote:
Agymnum wrote:Islam is wrong because suicide bombers are wrong

Again, this is not something the Qur'an approves (suicide for one is a sin). They might find a reason to believe this is righteous, but I don't condone it. As far as the Muslim Doctor, I can see how you might think it's biased, so I wont bother looking for it. But if you're curious his name is Zakir Naik

Ah, Zakir Nair ...

Biological evolution
Naik has said that the theory of evolution is "only a hypothesis, and an unproven conjecture at best".[22] According to Naik, most scientists "support the theory, because it went against the Bible – not because it was true."[23]

Apostasy
Naik has said that any Muslim is free to convert from Islam if the person so chooses, but added that if a Muslim converts and then speaks against Islam or propagates another religion, it should be considered treason. Naik stated that under Islamic law this is punishable by death[24]

Terrorism
Naik's views and statements on terrorism have at times been criticised in the media. In a YouTube video, speaking of Osama bin Laden, Naik said that he would not criticise bin Laden because he had not met him and did not know him personally. He added that, "If bin Laden is fighting enemies of Islam, I am for him," and that "If he is terrorizing America – the terrorist, biggest terrorist – I am with him. Every Muslim should be a terrorist. The thing is that if he is terrorizing the terrorist, he is following Islam. Whether he is or not, I don’t know, but you as Muslims know that, without checking up, laying allegations is also wrong."[25][26] When Time hinted that this remark could have inspired Najibullah Zazi's terrorist activities, Naik insisted: "I have always condemned terrorism, because according to the glorious Koran, if you kill one innocent person, then you have killed the whole of humanity".[25]

In 2010, Naik said that he had been quoted out of context regarding the remarks on terrorism. "As far as terrorist is concerned," he said, "I tell the Muslims that every Muslim should be a terrorist. ... What is the meaning of the word terrorist? Terrorist by definition means a person who terrorises. So in this context every Muslim should be a terrorist to each and every anti-social element. I’m aware that terrorist is more commonly used for a person who terrorises innocent human beings. So in this context no Muslim should ever terrorise a single innocent human being."[27]

In a lecture delivered on 31 July 2008 on Peace TV, Naik commented on the attacks of 11 September: "it is a blatant, open secret that this attack on the Twin Towers was done by George Bush himself".[28]

Propagation of other faiths in Islamic states
Naik says that propagation of other religions within an Islamic state is forbidden while he appreciates people of other religions allowing Muslims to freely propagate Islam in their country. Naik explains this by saying that, for example, mathematics teachers must teach that 2+2=4 and not 2+2=3 or 5. Likewise, Naik argues, “regarding building of churches or temples, how can we allow this when their religion is wrong and when their worshipping is wrong?”[29]

Not biased at all, no. :roll:

Posted: **Tue Apr 23, 2013 7:20 am**

Novairia wrote:
The Rich Port wrote:
Because NAMBLA has the same amount of support as the LGBT movement, amirite?

We can easily look to twenty years ago when the LGBT movement was purely underground and without any political support.

20 years ago? Like 1993 20 years ago? You need to study your history.

Who are you to say NAMBLA wont have its time in 20+ years?

Sensible people with an understanding of history?

Because really, if you were that you'd know it is ridiculous to say "look at gays today, who's to say the kiddie fiddlers won't be the same in future?"

The concept of the child, and adolescent, is a relatively new concept - remembering in the not to distant past a child could be worked like an adult, married off and having kids at a young age and all that. It would be a massive step backwards while spitting in the face of all the evidence that led to children's rights coming to be in the first place. Why would we do that?

And that is a difference - psychology and medicine were once a lot crappier then they are today. Some things they considered bad or illnesses - like homosexuality - weren't. When they advanced far enough they recognized this and changed their position. Much like they came to recognize just how bad child abuse is. There is evidence of this, so why would we start ignoring evidence of how harmful it is on children?

So really - anyone who is sensible and understands history knows it is ridiculous to think we'll be embracing NAMBLA in 20 years time and attending the weddings of men marrying 8 year old boys.

Posted: **Tue Apr 23, 2013 4:54 pm**

Exactly, Proteus! It is irresponsible and hateful to equate homosexuality (and gay rights) with pedophilia. It is the mark of a bigoted mindset. That type of person is a homophobe and it is wrong to use religion--any religion!--to justify bigotry!

Transhuman Proteus wrote:20 years ago? Like 1993 20 years ago? You need to study your history.

Because really, if you were that you'd know it is ridiculous to say "look at gays today, who's to say the kiddie fiddlers won't be the same in future?" ... So really - anyone who is sensible and understands history knows it is ridiculous to think we'll be embracing NAMBLA in 20 years time and attending the weddings of men marrying 8 year old boys.

Posted: **Tue Apr 23, 2013 5:45 pm**

RainBear wrote:Slippery slope, indeed! Since neither animals nor children can legally consent, there be no contractual agreement with them. The argument is simply intend to disguise prejudice.

Who says animals can't legally consent? More to the point, consent, on the part of an animal, is legally irrelevant; we don't need their consent, although obviously animals are (generally) capable of giving or withholding their consent.

Agymnum wrote:Logical fallacy: Slippery Slope
LGBT involves expansion of marriage rights.
People marrying animals involves expansion of marriage rights.
Thus, LGBT legalized marriage will lead to people marrying animals.

Problem with this fallacy:
LGBT couples eligible for marriage equality are made up of consenting adults. Animals are unable to consent seeing as they lack sapience and thus cannot legally consent to anything. Animal marriage is therefore not equal to LGBT marriage.

No, the problem is the undistributed middle. The syllogism is invalid to begin with.

Posted: **Tue Apr 23, 2013 5:52 pm**

Agymnum wrote:I'm fine with siblings/parents as long as both can provide legal consent (of legal age, basically).

Animals can't provide legal consent, so I'm not okay with them.

YOURE SUCH A BIGOT!!! If people can't get married to who or what they love then the government is oppressive and is a religious institution!

*Poe*

Posted: **Tue Apr 23, 2013 5:54 pm**

Vazdania wrote:
Agymnum wrote:I'm fine with siblings/parents as long as both can provide legal consent (of legal age, basically).

Animals can't provide legal consent, so I'm not okay with them.

YOURE SUCH A BIGOT!!! If people can't get married to who or what they love then the government is oppressive and is a religious institution!

*Poe*

Based on your misunderstanding of the entire fucking idea of allowing marriage between consenting people only.

Posted: **Tue Apr 23, 2013 6:32 pm**

Solmakia wrote

But what next? What about a man and his dog? Should they get married? Or what about a man and his son? Or a brother and sister? When is it too much? How far are people going to be allowed? What should be allowed? I'm personally undecided on the issue of what a marriage really means, but what do you guys think about sibling, inter special or other kinds of bizarre civil unions?

This quote is very common amongst those who are 'undecided' or 'straight-only' marriage types. On the surface, it seems to be a legitimate question about limitations of marriage, but in reality, it is a rather hateful and degrading statement that most of the people who use it don't understand, or worse, actually believe it. I think that people should really think about what the implications of putting pedophilia, bestiality, incest, and other unarguably deviant behaviors in the same bucket as homosexual marriage, because all you are really saying is that you think that homosexuality is deviant, lesser, other, and/or unnatural. If you think that homosexuality is a deviant behavior, then we are done here. If not, then think about this for a moment.

Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults who love each other, nothing more, nothing less. You cannot enter a legal contract with an animal because they are not human beings [read; consenting adults] and you can't marry your immediate relatives because that causes horrible degenerative defects and is really bad for many legal reasons. You can't marry a child because they aren't (wait for it), consenting adults. Plus, these examples are really way, way outside the envelope of normal human behavior. What makes gay marriage a "bizarre civil union"? Personal prejudices are the only thing that makes this so.

There are many reasons for personal prejudices on this issue, from religious beliefs to xenophobia, and they all are very narrow-minded.
The really saddening part of this story is that it is incredibly ignorant. This is the same argument that was used to attempt to prevent interracial marriage, marriage between different religions and cultures, and it always goes the way of bestiality, incest, and the like. The end game is always the same and always as predictable.

I think that if people looked at other people a little more reasonably and rationally, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Posted: **Tue Apr 23, 2013 6:48 pm**

Coccygia wrote:
RainBear wrote:Slippery slope, indeed! Since neither animals nor children can legally consent, there be no contractual agreement with them. The argument is simply intend to disguise prejudice.

Who says animals can't legally consent? More to the point, consent, on the part of an animal, is legally irrelevant; we don't need their consent, although obviously animals are (generally) capable of giving or withholding their consent.
Agymnum wrote:Logical fallacy: Slippery Slope
LGBT involves expansion of marriage rights.
People marrying animals involves expansion of marriage rights.
Thus, LGBT legalized marriage will lead to people marrying animals.

Problem with this fallacy:
LGBT couples eligible for marriage equality are made up of consenting adults. Animals are unable to consent seeing as they lack sapience and thus cannot legally consent to anything. Animal marriage is therefore not equal to LGBT marriage.

No, the problem is the undistributed middle. The syllogism is invalid to begin with.

in order for a marriage to go forward, there needs to be some sign of understandable consent. Since animals cannot give some sign of understandable consent, they cannot be married. Children cannot understand what being married means, and are thus unable to give informed consent, meaning they to cannot marry.

Posted: **Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:22 am**

Neutraligon,

Any contract law class in the USA would say that neither animals nor children can give legal consent.

RainBear wrote:Slippery slope, indeed! Since neither animals nor children can legally consent, there be no contractual agreement with them. The argument is simply intend to disguise prejudice.

Posted: **Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:32 pm**

Meryuma wrote:
YellowApple wrote:
That would be fun.

There's at least one fringe Christian sect where you can.

... I need an adult. And an old priest. And a young priest.

And a bathtub full of bleach.

Posted: **Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:36 pm**

Neutraligon wrote:
Coccygia wrote:Who says animals can't legally consent? More to the point, consent, on the part of an animal, is legally irrelevant; we don't need their consent, although obviously animals are (generally) capable of giving or withholding their consent.

No, the problem is the undistributed middle. The syllogism is invalid to begin with.

in order for a marriage to go forward, there needs to be some sign of understandable consent. Since animals cannot give some sign of understandable consent, they cannot be married. Children cannot understand what being married means, and are thus unable to give informed consent, meaning they to cannot marry.

Animals can certainly give a sign of consent (or refusal to consent) at least when you try to consummate the marriage, although, like children, they can't understand what marriage means. But, as I said, legally, it doesn't matter, since legally one does not need an animal's consent to do something, unless it constitutes abuse.

And I still say that's the fallacy of the undistributed middle.

NationStates

Gay marriages....now what about siblings parents or animals?

Really?