Comments on: More on that Slippery Slope

By: Flybob

Flybob — Sun, 31 May 2009 20:25:47 +0000

Many countries have gay marriage. Show me one example where it’s led to these other, unrelated types of marriage. No one advocating gay marriage is talking about marrying goats or children. The only ones spending time thinking and talking about it are self-identified moral conservatives.

By: Jannelle

Jannelle — Wed, 20 May 2009 23:38:33 +0000

“If you wanted to marry a child, you could say “I just want the right to marry a human being, as some people already have.”

Actually, people DO already have the right to marry a minor as long as that minor has parental consent, so I don’t see the point people are trying to make when they use that argument.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Wed, 06 May 2009 03:48:44 +0000

I like how you’ve flipped the argument to focus on the object. It gets slightly confusing though when you say “half the population has that right.” It’s not clear that you’re referring to a roughly 50/50 split of male/female. If you flip the ordering and lead with men and women being equal under the law, your argument may flow better. Or, you could lead with, “I want equal rights. Men and women are equal under the law and right now only women can marry men. That’s not right…”

By: Carol

Carol — Sat, 02 May 2009 23:20:55 +0000

That’s a good one! I didn’t even think of that.

By: robtish

robtish — Sat, 02 May 2009 00:58:29 +0000

“If you wanted to marry a child, you could say “I just want the right to marry a human being, as some people already have.”

Interesting point Rona, but if someone pulled that on me, I’d answer, “No, you want to marry a human being that NO ONE currently has the right to marry. That certainly would be a big change. But that’s not what I’m asking for.”

In fact, that might be the most succinct version of the argument yet.

By: Terry In Iowa

Terry In Iowa — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:00:18 +0000

I like the longer, repetitive one.
I just found your website (from the Traditional Values Coalition youtube video).
Good Luck to you in your work for marriage equality!!
I’m proud to say that we just got our marriage license on monday and we are getting married in June!
I hope that you, too, will soon be able to share in the insanity of planning your wedding.
Best wishes!

By: Rona

Rona — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:14:03 +0000

The problem is that words can be twisted no matter what. If you wanted to marry a child, you could say “I just want the right to marry a human being, as some people already have.”
If you wanted to marry your married sister, you could say “I just wanted the right to marry Susan, which Joe has”. You should have the same rights as Joe, right?

By: D. Charles Pille

D. Charles Pille — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 18:15:53 +0000

Do you realize that in all the older versions of the Bible they used the term “sodomites”. The newer versions of the Bible changed sodomites to mean homosexual. When actually the Religious definition of Sodomites was anyone practicing “Ritualistic Homosexuality”. In the Roman times men would rape other men to show their dominance over them. THAT was ritualistic homosexuality, NOT two men loving eachother.

You can read the entire article here;
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/sodom.htm

It’s interesting what you can learn online;

http://www.biblegateway.com/topical/topical_searchresults.php?searchtype=all&search=homosexuality&resultspp=25&source=1

By: Cait

Cait — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:44:31 +0000

Good argument, actually. A lot of people use the polygamy, incest, beastiality argument, and although I think it’s ridiculous, I haven’t ever had an argument I thought countered it effectively.

This argument, I think, does that. With gay marriage, we’re not asking to be able to perform an action that was previously illegal, unlike in the case of PIB.

By: Donna

Donna — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 01:36:53 +0000

I love this argument. Short, sweet, and to the point. Awesome!