Beck uses toys to explain slippery slope from same-sex marriage to polyamorous marriage
May 12, 2009 6:48 pm ET
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
-
-
MacDonald response to Hardy's statement that "the government invented ... the Internet": "No, Al Gore did"
4 hours and 27 minutes ago -
Weinberg, Hardy smack down Forbes' and MacDonald's IMAC rationing fearmongering
4 hours and 43 minutes ago -
-
Hannity falsely suggests Democratic health bills would only insure "12 million" people
November 20, 2009 9:58 pm ET -
-
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
by Simon Maloy - November 20, 2009 -
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
by Greg Lewis - November 20, 2009 -
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
by Jamison Foser - November 19, 2009
|
|
||
Connect & Share
© 2009 Media Matters for America. All rights reserved.
  |
||
This is nonsense, of course.
Using the same "logic", we could argue that once they lowered the voting age to 18, they MUST lower it to 16, and even 14, since people at that age could also pay taxes, if they work. If you pay taxes, shouldn't you be allowed to vote, as well?
That's why the Slippery Slope is universally recognized (except at FOX "News") as a logical FALLACY.
If the justification is not depriving the benefits of marriage to individuals in committed loving relationships, what is the intellectual argument against polygamy? That marriage can only be between two people? Why?
This does not constitute a valid reason to deny gay marriage IMHO but it's not a logical fallacy.
He is merely saying that it brings all the other possible changes into play. Can you give me a reason why the other variables MUST remain unchanged if the gender of the participants in a marital contract are allowed to change?
You're digging yourself into a hole here. I agree that serial marriage undermines the respect that marriage gets. That's behavioral. What exactly is the problem with gay people getting married? What behavior is going to tarnish the concept of marriage there? I don't see any indication of any expected behavior. For some reason, gay people living together for the rest of their lives undermines the institution itself.
Why?
It seems to me that Beck's argument is about legal rights, though, not the mere use of the term "marriage". Polygamy is already associated with that term, regardless of anything that happens in the gay rights arena. It also could easily result in procreation, so it's not inconsistent with that definition.
Now, as other wingnuts have pointed out, this doesn't mean that Glenn's Triad fantasy could never happen. Perhaps, if you could find more than a handful of Mormon pedophiles who really wanted Triads, a case could be made for legalizing it. But, in reality, this is just a cute little tap dance around the real issue.
The real issue is whether or not the Anti Gay Bigots can come up with a LOGICAL reason to deny Gay people the right to marry each other. They cannot.
Positing a logical fallacy as a logical reason is... illogical.
This is NOT a fallacy. It is a methematical equation used as a metaphore for a linguistic definition. It is complex, and open to different interpretations, but it is not by default a fallacy.
So, I ask again: Can you establish for me a concrete reason why other variables could not be changed using the same reasoning that justifies changing this particular variable? I think you cannot.
Which is why I choose to address this question in another way. Get the government out of the business of defining marriage. Further, do not permit the government to favor people based on marital status. Make ALL government recognition a LEGAL ARRANGEMENT, not a church ceremony. If my church chooses NOT to perform marriages for same gender couples, it becomes irrelevant. As long as the two or four or twelve parties are all consenting adults they may enter into a recognized contractual agreement right? It's no different than a business co-operative. Get the government out of my church and I'll keep my church out of your government. I favor a traditional definition of the word marriage. I also favor equal rights for consenting adults.
Homosexuality is an orientation. That is different from polygamy, incest, etc, and that's one reason why other variables aren't justified in changing.
Marriage is a legal arrangement. You don't need a church ceremony. There's nothing going on here that infringes on the right of churches to marry or refuse to marry whoever they choose. Your point is a little odd. You want the government out of the business of defining marriage, but you want government recognition to be a legal arrangement. Wouldn't they have to be able to define marriage in order to grant legal recognition?
You may have missed the part where I also suggested not recognizing marriage at all. If the government recognizes marriage it is generally for the purpose of defining rights and obligations. It does this in order to penalize behavior (is your relationship legal?) or to reward it (should you get a tax break)... I think all individuals should be treated the same. Singles should not miss a tax incentive granted to couples. Couples should not face a "marriage penalty". A sick person should be allowed to have whomever they want as a visitor. Anything other than that is unequal treatment under the law.
I'll answer your question again. Polygamy isn't a matter of orientation, as gay marriage is. There's no application of equal protection involved. There's no legal necessity to sanction it. The legalization of gay marriage is not random. Since there is a rationale behind it, that rationale is relevant to any discussion of sanctioning other forms of marriage. If the elements that make that decision do not apply to the other scenarios, then there's no way to believe that those other variables will change.
Does that clarify things for you?
I'll answer your question again. Polygamy isn't a matter of orientation, as gay marriage is. There's no application of equal protection involved. There's no legal necessity to sanction it. The legalization of gay marriage is not random. Since there is a rationale behind it, that rationale is relevant to any discussion of sanctioning other forms of marriage. If the elements that make that decision do not apply to the other scenarios, then there's no way to believe that those other variables will change.
Does that clarify things for you?
I'll answer your question again. Polygamy isn't a matter of orientation, as gay marriage is. There's no application of equal protection involved. There's no legal necessity to sanction it. The legalization of gay marriage is not random. Since there is a rationale behind it, that rationale is relevant to any discussion of sanctioning other forms of marriage. If the elements that make that decision do not apply to the other scenarios, then there's no way to believe that those other variables will change.
Does that clarify things for you?
I'll answer your question again. Polygamy isn't a matter of orientation, as gay marriage is. There's no application of equal protection involved. There's no legal necessity to sanction it. The legalization of gay marriage is not random. Since there is a rationale behind it, that rationale is relevant to any discussion of sanctioning other forms of marriage. If the elements that make that decision do not apply to the other scenarios, then there's no way to believe that those other variables will change.
Does that clarify things for you?
Can we stop discussing what form the argument has taken, and rather address Beck's question? Does it follow logically that if one changes a variable in a definiton then the result may in fact be identified as different?
So, I ask again: Can you establish for me a concrete reason why other variables could not be changed using the same reasoning that justifies changing this particular variable? I think you cannot.
I'll answer your question again. Polygamy isn't a matter of orientation, as gay marriage is. There's no application of equal protection involved. There's no legal necessity to sanction it. The legalization of gay marriage is not random. Since there is a rationale behind it, that rationale is relevant to any discussion of sanctioning other forms of marriage. If the elements that make that decision do not apply to the other scenarios, then there's no way to believe that those other variables will change.
Does that clarify things for you?
I'll answer your question again. Polygamy isn't a matter of orientation, as gay marriage is. There's no application of equal protection involved. There's no legal necessity to sanction it. The legalization of gay marriage is not random. Since there is a rationale behind it, that rationale is relevant to any discussion of sanctioning other forms of marriage. If the elements that make that decision do not apply to the other scenarios, then there's no way to believe that those other variables will change.
Does that clarify things for you?
I'll answer your question again. Polygamy isn't a matter of orientation, as gay marriage is. There's no application of equal protection involved. There's no legal necessity to sanction it. The legalization of gay marriage is not random. Since there is a rationale behind it, that rationale is relevant to any discussion of sanctioning other forms of marriage. If the elements that make that decision do not apply to the other scenarios, then there's no way to believe that those other variables will change.
Does that clarify things for you?
I'll answer your question again. Polygamy isn't a matter of orientation, as gay marriage is. There's no application of equal protection involved. There's no legal necessity to sanction it. The legalization of gay marriage is not random. Since there is a rationale behind it, that rationale is relevant to any discussion of sanctioning other forms of marriage. If the elements that make that decision do not apply to the other scenarios, then there's no way to believe that those other variables will change.
Does that clarify things for you?
I'll answer your question again. Polygamy isn't a matter of orientation, as gay marriage is. There's no application of equal protection involved. There's no legal necessity to sanction it. The legalization of gay marriage is not random. Since there is a rationale behind it, that rationale is relevant to any discussion of sanctioning other forms of marriage. If the elements that make that decision do not apply to the other scenarios, then there's no way to believe that those other variables will change.
Does that clarify things for you?
If you're interested in marriage for the sake of bonding families together, then why doesn't gay marriage work the same way? They don't come out of the cabbage patch, they come from families just like you and I do.
Once upon a time few, if any, objected to the legal system assigning default rights and obligations on spouses. Rather than defining how and why married persons were different from non-married persons they simply accepted that they were. They, and I, considered marriage a tradition that could not be assailed.
They never anticipated our current society that does not care about solid foundations and firm definitions. In today's PC world African-Americans refer to themselves several diffent ways in a day (Black, African, Colored, Brothas, etc.) and I do not object. I'm not black. I don't care that people change the title of their jobs in order to feel better. Sanitation engineers used to be garbage men. My trash is still picked up. If polygamists are now referred to as poly-amorous or triads I don't care. It's not my thing.
I am personally traditional, socially permissive, and fiscally conservative. People can do whatever they want with whomever they want as long as the participants are consenting and the activities harm no-one. But I don't want to pay for it or have to explain it to my children. Because I am a live and let live kind of person it should not be surprising that you are shocked when people like me finally push back. But marriage is a tradition that I care about.
So I will stand by the earlier meaning and not sit idly by when society attempts to change this one word.
One could just as easily argue that it was a social institution that was hijacked by organized religion. From a secular viewpoint, what difference does it make if a married couple is gay or straight? Why is that inconsistent with social stability?
You have surely heard the saying about beating a dead horse. We are currently holding sticks and standing over a horse that will never again move the cart containing this subject an inch either direction.
Thank you for being open and thoughtful on this matter. This has been a very thorough and enjoyable exchange with the least amount of bitterness I have encountered on the topic in some time. I've enjoyed the exchange.
You're also implying that if she was never able to have children that the definition would not fit her. I don't know if that was your intent, but it's clearly there.
I would love to understand your position, but if you're going to use the phrase "social institution" and then not be able to explain how there's a problem from a secular point of view, then the position doesn't make any sense.
Please re-read my statement this way: She is a woman. You are a man. (correct?) At some point in your two lives it was assumed that each of you, coupling with members of the opposite gender, could have produced children. Therefore you were eligable for the institution of marriage.
Because she made a medical decision, and you accepted that decision, you might be excluded under the most strict interpretation of my understanding of traditional marriage.
Because I do not reserve to myself the right to judge everyone elses marriage, and because I recognize that society as a whole might be somewhat differ on our individual standards, and because I myself do not object to your circumstances I openly state my opinion that your marriage is legitimate, and ask society to recognize it.
I further state that I personally find the pre-requisite that human persons of opposite gender are implied in a marital partnership is consistent with traditional understanding and I request that society not expand the definition to include that variation. I further stipulate that that although some portions of my nations history and geography have at one time or another permitted poly-amourous relations I support the current exclusion of that form of relationship from being considered a legally recognized marriage.
Because I understand that not all of America's citizens share my opinion I propose that "marriage" be removed from legal definition, restored to it's traditional, social status and all legal recognition be hereafter referred to as "love partnership LLC", an istitution that all adult persons of any specific, or interdeterminate gender may in any number engage.
So in the future I respectfully request that you grant me the consideration of a default setting of inclusion and kindness unless I explicitely state otherwise.
Would you argue that women who are barren or men who are naturally sterile don't fit into the traditional definition? Outside of that, I don't see how any heterosexual union could possibly not qualify as "married".
If you wouldn't argue that either, if it's only a matter of assumption that at some point both people were capable of having children, then the procreation argument is meaningless. All it means is that they need to be of the opposite sex. Neither intent nor ability to have children would be a factor, therefore that boils down to sexual orientation and nothing else.
Thank you for the charitable blessing of my non-procreational marriage.
No. I wouldn't argue that sterile persons cannot marry. Yes, the procreation argument is presently meaningless. We no longer NEED marriage in order to structure society. We have progressed beyond tribal structure at this point in America. We could also forgo intercourse since it is medically possible to reproduce without genital contact. I don't suggest that we remove our genitals. I kinda like mine.
My postion, as clearly stated throughout this discussion, is that marriage has changed. Perhaps it is not as clear that I believe it has not changed for the better, and I'd like to see the pendulum swing back the other direction. That is why I harken back to the most basic and historically prominent interpretation of this social contract. There have been many words used in many languages and traditions to describe various iterations. It has not, however, generally or broadly been called marriage when two persons of the same gender enter into a life partnership. I believe it shouldn't.
I understand your position. I just wanted to establish that procreation is basically a smokescreen, since it doesn't apply to any heterosexual couples under any circumstances.
I did make the distinction. And you clearly understood that it was an assumption.
It isn't a smokescreen. We are discussing "traditional" marriage, and whether the concept needs to be updated. I am explicitely saying I go waaaay back for my definition of the institution and you are saying that changing the definition in one particular does not imply that other particulars are then subject to change.
Randy
By the way, your name is Randy. That makes me randy. Do you have four legs? Ooops. Did I just call you an animal?? Maybe. Don't mind me. I'm just trying to live up to your prejudice. To quote a great philosopher "I am whatever you say I am...."
There are already men marrying several different women for life and women marrying several different men for life. And it's legal.
It's just that they have to get a divorce from the earlier ones.
Which reminds me doesn't the concept of divorce also change the definition of marriage?
So are fundamentalist Mormons who engage in polygamy.
Snowman didn't leap to any conclusions, it was just an observation. It is sort of odd, whether intentional or not. Up above you seem to think that Beck has to use the phrase "slippery slope" for it to be that type of fallacious argument, but snowman doesn't have to say "this proves Beck is a racist" for you to treat his post as if he did.
That fundamentalist mormons, as a group, tend to come from a particular racial background does not prejudice me against them. Does it change your view of them as a group?
My point about the Mormons is that it's pretty odd to portray polygamists as dark-skinned when the vast majority of them in this country are white. And if you really want to argue that he feels the need to distinguish between his audience and others through skin color, that would strike me as clearly racist.
The theme of this conversation is clearly racism. That's the suggestion of the figures, whether intentional or not. If they were selected to appeal to his audience, then it does come off as racist. I don't see how that's disputable. Personally, if it was a matter of inventory, I would forget about doing the bit until I could get different inventory. But, in all fairness, I'm pretty sure that I'm much more thoughtful than Beck.
I'm not saying that anyone can't raise the question. I'm merely suggesting that if something that small makes anyone stop and feel anything, they will be upset all their life. Feel free to keep your panties in a wad, but try not to read anything more into my words than I intended to put there.
With regard to racism, you seem to see it everywhere. I have clearly stated that I don't believe it was a conscious decision. If it were, then I think it was probably a marketing decision, not a racist one. One MUST know their demographic and appeal to it if they are marketing.
If it were a matter of inventory, then it shouldn't have stopped the piece. You may consider it "more thoughtful" than Beck, but I think you would be waaaaaaay too PC if you waste your time being concerned about petty stuff like that. Grow thicker skin and look for things to be happy about, not things to be defensive or hurt about.
No, I don't see racism everywhere. I'm quite tempered that way, actually, and will give the benefit of the doubt where appropriate. But again, if it was done with the purpose of distinguishing between Beck's viewers and deviants, then that is associating deviancy with darker skin. That is patently racist. If it was unintentional, so be it, but that aspect of the clip is definitely worth noting.
To add, I do take racism seriously, whether blatant or subtle. You've spent this whole thread getting your panties in a wad over a word, but I need to grow thicker skin because I don't it find appropriate to link deviant behavior to skin color. Give me a damn break.
And I think you DO see racism everywhere. IF it was done with the purpose of dinstinguising between the viewers and "others" it still need not have been done with a conscious eye to the hue of the figurines. It MAY have been a conscious decision to select the "traditional" couple to match the greater part of the audience, or it may not have. But even if it were, that does not mean that the other props were chosen with any regard to insulting anyone.
The difference may have been coincindental. The difference may have been intentional but without awareness of your perception. It may even have been done just to annoy you and provoke this sort of response. That doesn't necessarily mean that the person selecting them has any conscious or unconscious racism.
This is where you folks who see racism in everything fail to be as "equal opportunity" as you ask the rest of us to be. Your default reaction is to see it as intentional, and intentionally insulting. For those of us who don't think much about skin tone it is easy to overlook something like this.
Just because you feel offended doesn't mean that was the intent. But you feel completly justified in attributing intent. Why is that?
No, I don't see racism everywhere. You don't know me, obviously. For instance, many people on the left were outraged over Laura Ingraham's comments about Al Sharpton at the White House for a Black History Month event. I will argue anyone on that one. It was not racist. If this was intentional, though, then it suggests a negative generalization regarding race. I have no idea how you would choose darker figures to represent deviants and not think that to be insulting. Seriously, if he doesn't have a problem with polygamists, then what the hell is his point in the first place? You're not thinking about this at all.
Are you arguing that Beck might have been pretending to be racist just to get a reaction? That's interesting.
I said it might not have been intentional. Either way, the question should be allowed to be raised without the person doing so being accused of looking for hatred or whatever.
I could have chosen green and orange. I could have made that decision with full consciousness. (I like orange. I'm from Ohio and the football teams there use orange. I live in the NW and it's very green here.) And I might have overlooked the fact that Catholics and Protestants associate themselves with those colors.
If the Orange were the "other" somebody might be offended. I can understand how they might be. Can you see how I may not have intended to offend them???
Brown is an actual skin color, though. It sort of makes a big difference in perception. Do you really disagree?
Instead of running with my example and understanding how it might not have been offensive you have pointed out how my analogy is imperfect. I really, truly, actually am done trying at this point. Good day. =)
They were using figurines acquired from a wedding supplier of some sort. Green ones probably aren't available for goodness sake.
There are no neutral colors for that. So I was trying to remove the emotional (for you) issue of race. If one doesn't care about the color it is easier to see my point. There is no glaring flaw, there was an intentional attempt to help you see past your prejudice. Please correct your cranial rectal inverson, attempt to evaluate my analogy on it's merits rather than finding reasons to be critical of it, and try to find a way to see that offense might not have been intended. That you "have no idea how you would choose darker figures to represent deviants and not think that to be insulting" is your self imposed filter. I have shown how one might have done it. They might have done it by giving no thought to the color. That is why colors that cannot possibly be taken for skin tone were selected. It wasn't a mistake.
Seriously. Approach this with the conscious choice that you are trying to find a way to remain unoffended. Can you do that?
"If one doesn't care about the color it is easier to see my point."
Well, that's brilliant. If people don't care about color, then there would be no racism in the first place.
"That you "have no idea how you would choose darker figures to represent deviants and not think that to be insulting" is your self imposed filter."
That's common sense. How do you choose a color to represent deviants without associating deviants with that color skin? That's conscious thought. You already said that he might be choosing different colors to represent the difference, and selected white people to represent his audience. If your argument is that Beck is so unbelievably stupid that he doesn't make the connection between the opposing behavior and the opposing behavior that he's connecting, then that's still notable. It also doesn't change the legitimacy of questioning it, because it still comes across as racist whether it was intentional or not.
I suppose it's possible, but I'm not finding it even the least bit likely. The inventory theory and the idea that it's just random are easier to believe. They all involve stupidity, but you'd have to be almost in a vegetative state not to figure out the problem in the "deliberate" scenario. The man's certainly not the sharpest crayon in the box, but come on.
Let's say, by some illogical rationale, that "polyamorous marriage" does result from allowing same-sex marriage. Who cares? Seriously, how does this in any way, shape, or form threaten the family?
A question to which I have to ask: Are you freakin serious?