Healthy Approaches To Support Glbt Lds Is A Topic On Mormon Matters Podcast

[california boy]

But above all, I think the Church believes that this is a moral issue that goes so deeply into the society all around it and which is so deeply dangerous to society overall, that it cannot be mute. The Church has been pretty clear on this: It is an issue of Morality.

Am I the only one here that thinks it odd that denying anyone the right to marry is a moral issue? Could someone explain to me how not allowing gay couples the right to marry makes anyone or even society more moral? I certainly can understand why the church believes that homosexuality is a moral issue. But does the church think that by not allowing gays to marry, they will be less gay? Does the church feel it is better for gay families to not be married? Quite honestly, I just don't get this position.

[selek1]

Am I the only one here that thinks it odd that denying anyone the right to marry is a moral issue?

The oddity lies in how you are framing the issue.

No one, in fact, is denied the right to marry. A homosexual is currently afforded exactly the same opportunities and restrictions vis-a-vis marriage as a heterosexual.

They are, however, denied the right to arbitrarily redefine marriage to accomodate their perversion de jour.

But does the church think that by not allowing gays to marry, they will be less gay?

No- the Church recognizes that refining marriage will substantively (and perhaps irrevocably) alter the fundamental understanding of what marriage is and is not- and will have no real benefit to society.

Calling your preferred brand of fornication "marriage" does not make it any less an abomination.

It will, however, fundamentally cheapen marriage.

The government has very strict laws about counterfeiting money for a very good reason: the currency has a specific value that is harmed by imitations, knock-offs, and frauds.

Marriage, in that regard, is no different. It is fundamentally harmed and devalued when counterfeits are passed off as the genuine article.

Edited July 27, 2012 by selek1

[california boy]

The oddity lies in how you are framing the issue.

No one, in fact, is denied the right to marry. A homosexual is currently afforded exactly the same opportunities and restrictions vis-a-vis marriage as a heterosexual.

They are, however, denied the right to arbitrarily redefine marriage to accomodate their perversion de jour.

No- the Church recognizes that refining marriage will substantively (and perhaps irrevocably) alter the fundamental understanding of what marriage is and is not- and will have no real benefit to society.

Calling your preferred brand of fornication "marriage" does not make it any less an abomination.

It will, however, fundamentally cheapen marriage.

The government has very strict laws about counterfeiting money for a very good reason: the currency has a specific value that is harmed by imitations, knock-offs, and frauds.

Marriage, in that regard, is no different. It is fundamentally harmed and devalued when counterfeits are passed off as the genuine article.

Maybe you could help me understand how refining marriage will substantively (and perhaps irrevocably) alter the fundamental understanding of what marriage is and is not- and will have no real benefit to society since that seems to be the basis of what you feel the churches reason is. Do you think straight couples will take marriage less seriously then they already do today? Do you think that if marriage is allowed to include gay couples, straight people will think it is ok to commit adultery more? Love to hear how you think the exact impact will be on society if gays are allowed to marry. Did the church fundamentally changing marriage by practicing polygamy also cheapen marriage and send the institution of marriage into some kind of tailspin? How does that church doctrine fit in to what you feel would happen if gays were included in the institution of marriage.

Calling your preferred brand of fornication "marriage" does not make it any less an abomination.

No one is expecting the church to change their religious belief that non-celibate gays are nothing but an abomination. So that is pretty irreverent don't you think?

[selek1]

Maybe you could help me understand how refining marriage will substantively (and perhaps irrevocably) alter the fundamental understanding of what marriage is and is not- and will have no real benefit to society since that seems to be the basis of what you feel the churches reason is. Do you think straight couples will take marriage less seriously then they already do today? Do you think that if marriage is allowed to include gay couples, straight people will think it is ok to commit adultery more?

The stats from Europe show exactly that trend- and no measurable change in behavior among the homosexuals.

"Marriage" rates among gays have remained extraordinarily low, rates of adultery and promiscuity amongs gays remains pandemic, and the rates of both heterosexual cohabitation, illegitimate childbirth, and divorce have sky-rocketed.

Europe reordered their society to accomodate "gay marriage" and- having sown the wind- are now reaping the whirlwind.

http://www.nationalr...n/stanley-kurtz

http://www.freerepub...s/1066349/posts

http://www.familyres...e-sex-marriage/

In fact, the rates of suicide and mental illness among gays actually spiked in some countries and cities.

We have seen a similar trend here- despite the initial "rush" of marriages in the few states where it has been legalized, the percentage of "married" homosexuals remains miniscule- a tiny fraction (of what is already a tiny fraction of the population at large).

Moreover, there has been no measurable or credible change in homosexual culture or behavior.

Much of their literature and culture remains centered around predatory conquest and/or casual fornication and adultery.

By any definition, this is radical societal change for miniscule (at best) gain.

More to the point, agitators such as yourself are already working to punish people simply for thinking for themselves and not accept your worldview

The anti-Chick-Fil-A witchhunt is a prime example, as are free speech cases in France, Britain, Canada, and California.

Contrary to the myth you are peddling, it is not enough that gays be left alone to do their thing- any dissent from their orthodoxy must be punished -and the next generation inculcated with the new dogma.

Love to hear how you think the exact impact will be on society if gays are allowed to marry.

I think the trend we are already seeing will not only continue, but become more vehement and more violent.

Anyone who does not cleave to the new party line will be singled out for ridicule, scorn, and persecution.

Anything that contravenes the homosexual canon will be labelled hate speech and ruthlessly censored.

First Amendment rights are already being abrogated, and people either threatened or punished by the State in order to enforce the new order.

People are already being deprived of the benefits of their property. Freedoms of speech, association, and worship are already being trampled.

The next logical step is outright confiscation and disenfranchisement.

Did the church fundamentally changing marriage by practicing polygamy also cheapen marriage and send the institution of marriage into some kind of tailspin?

No- for many reasons.

Moreover, because polygamy in this instance is a red-herring. Polygamy has long and established legal and moral precedents in human history.

As is noted above, the rationales being used to justify homosexual marriages can be used to justify nearly any other proposed redefinition of "marriage".

Agitators such as yourself try to pretend that the changes you advocate are limited and beneficial- but in realirt there is no true limit. The same arguments you are pushing can be used to justify polygamy, incest, and almost any other variation of human sexuality.

The alleged benefits are not borne out by any sort of empirical evidence- and you've yet to provide any rationale basis for believing that the redefining process will be limited.

You and yours are demanding that we fundamentally reorder our society to accept a proposition without precedent in history.

You have yet to offer us any rationale proof that the proposed change is, in fact, a good thing.

No one is expecting the church to change their religious belief that non-celibate gays are nothing but an abomination. So that is pretty irreverent don't you think?

California Boy- the Mormons in this thread and the Church in its statements are addressing behaviors- not people.

No faithful LDS has described "non-celibate gays" as "an abomination".

That was an extraordinarily dishonest and hateful misrepresentation.

It needs to be withdrawn before anything approaching a reasonable conversation can be attempted.

You are out of the thread.

[CASteinman]

Am I the only one here that thinks it odd that denying anyone the right to marry is a moral issue?

That this law is based upon morality is not surprising since all laws are based upon morality and contain components of moral issues. For example, the law that you must pay taxes comes out of the view that this is a morally right thing for government to require. There are other people who believe it is not only morally right but actually evil. All laws are based upon morality.

It is a big mistake to imagine that "you can't legislate morality": when in fact that is what you are always legislating.

[CASteinman]

Could someone explain to me how not allowing gay couples the right to marry makes anyone or even society more moral? I certainly can understand why the church believes that homosexuality is a moral issue. But does the church think that by not allowing gays to marry, they will be less gay? Does the church feel it is better for gay families to not be married? Quite honestly, I just don't get this position.

You are focusing in a way that the Church is not focusing and thereby ascribing to the Church ideas that the Church does not mention or have.

The Church's stand is that traditional families are the fundamental unit of society and that every effort should be made to strengthen them. Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman. Turning marriage into "couplings" is an attack on the fundamental basis for Marriage in society. So the Church is not trying to stop homosexuals from marrying each other -- although that is the effect -- but is acting to strengthen the structure upon which society is built -- traditional families. Thus traditional marriage should have a special protected status.

Now you may think that there is no difference between supporting traditional families and being negative on homosexual marriage but there is. It is associated with motive -- the very things you asked about. But, yes, the overt effect is to prevent homosexuals from having marriages recognized by the state. On the other hand, there has been no attempt to criminalize homosexual marriages -- so it does not focus on preventing them -- just on maintaining a special status for traditional marriage. If there had been an effort toward such laws, you might be justified in saying that the Church is against homosexual marriage. But the Church has never spoken out against that. Instead the Church has always focused on strengthening the value of traditional marriage by protecting it.

[california boy]

The stats from Europe show exactly that trend- and no measurable change in behavior among the homosexuals.

"Marriage" rates among gays have remained extraordinarily low, rates of adultery and promiscuity amongs gays remains pandemic, and the rates of both heterosexual cohabitation, illegitimate childbirth, and divorce have sky-rocketed.

Europe reordered their society to accomodate "gay marriage" and- having sown the wind- are now reaping the whirlwind.

http://www.nationalr...n/stanley-kurtz

http://www.freerepub...s/1066349/posts

http://www.familyres...e-sex-marriage/

In fact, the rates of suicide and mental illness among gays actually spiked in some countries and cities.

We have seen a similar trend here- despite the initial "rush" of marriages in the few states where it has been legalized, the percentage of "married" homosexuals remains miniscule- a tiny fraction (of what is already a tiny fraction of the population at large).

Moreover, there has been no measurable or credible change in homosexual culture or behavior.

Much of their literature and culture remains centered around predatory conquest and/or casual fornication and adultery.

By any definition, this is radical societal change for miniscule (at best) gain.

More to the point, agitators such as yourself are already working to punish people simply for thinking for themselves and not accept your worldview

The anti-Chick-Fil-A witchhunt is a prime example, as are free speech cases in France, Britain, Canada, and California.

Contrary to the myth you are peddling, it is not enough that gays be left alone to do their thing- any dissent from their orthodoxy must be punished -and the next generation inculcated with the new dogma.

I think the trend we are already seeing will not only continue, but become more vehement and more violent.

Anyone who does not cleave to the new party line will be singled out for ridicule, scorn, and persecution.

Anything that contravenes the homosexual canon will be labelled hate speech and ruthlessly censored.

First Amendment rights are already being abrogated, and people either threatened or punished by the State in order to enforce the new order.

People are already being deprived of the benefits of their property. Freedoms of speech, association, and worship are already being trampled.

The next logical step is outright confiscation and disenfranchisement.

No- for many reasons.

Moreover, because polygamy in this instance is a red-herring. Polygamy has long and established legal and moral precedents in human history.

As is noted above, the rationales being used to justify homosexual marriages can be used to justify nearly any other proposed redefinition of "marriage".

Agitators such as yourself try to pretend that the changes you advocate are limited and beneficial- but in realirt there is no true limit. The same arguments you are pushing can be used to justify polygamy, incest, and almost any other variation of human sexuality.

The alleged benefits are not borne out by any sort of empirical evidence- and you've yet to provide any rationale basis for believing that the redefining process will be limited.

You and yours are demanding that we fundamentally reorder our society to accept a proposition without precedent in history.

You have yet to offer us any rationale proof that the proposed change is, in fact, a good thing.

California Boy- the Mormons in this thread and the Church in its statements are addressing behaviors- not people.

No faithful LDS has described "non-celibate gays" as "an abomination".

That was an extraordinarily dishonest and hateful misrepresentation.

It needs to be withdrawn before anything approaching a reasonable conversation can be attempted.

You are out of the thread.

I am not really going to respond to most of this rant. But I would like to say that blaming the rise if illegetimate births and increased adultry on gays seems well laughable. Maybe a more reasonable analysis of the raw data is that people around the world especially in Europe but also in the United States are leaving churches. They are being told that marriage is a sacrament between God and man. Many are concluding that if they are not religious, there is no reason for marrying. I too believe that marriage can be a sacrament between God and man. But I also believe it is much more than that. It is a commitment based on love and respect. And I believe like the majority in this country that marriage is good for all families.

From what I get from your post is you feel if gays are allowed to marry, then straight couples and specifically within the Mormon church will choose not to get married. I personally don't agree. And I haven't seen any studies that tie the decline of marriage directly to gay marriage. Marriage is on the decline in countries that don't have gay marriage as well. We will leave it at that.

[california boy]

You stated

The Church's stand is that traditional families are the fundamental unit of society and that every effort should be made to strengthen them.

Well I stand for traditional families as well. I support them. I am please when couples get married, have children and raise those children in the gospel. Most of my children are married. Some are still looking. I support them fully. They are thriving in part because of their marriages. You will get no argument from me about the importance of the family unit. It is one of the fundamental reasons why I encourage my children to stay active in the Mormon church.

Turning marriage into "couplings" is an attack on the fundamental basis for Marriage in society.

This is where we start to part in our agreement. Mormons already have a different view of what marriage should be. For my children, aspiring to a temple marriage was the only option we taught them. It is different than how the world views mariage. It is for eternity. Other people viewing marriage differently than that does not change what is important to a member of the church that desires a temple marriage. If you think otherwise, I would love to hear your reasoning.

So the Church is not trying to stop homosexuals from marrying each other

Sorry I am going to have to completely disagree with this statement. I think you know why.

but is acting to strengthen the structure upon which society is built

I completely agree that families act to strengthen society. It is why I feel we should be encouraging marrriage for everyone. Don't you think that a gay couple would benefit from the institution of marriage? Don't you think that society would be better served if gay couples are in committed relationships? This is the disconnect that I have a hard time with. And this is where I have a hard time with denying gay couples marriage is a moral issue.

I hold temple marriage in the Mormon church at the top of what marriage should be. Below that, I would hold marriage performmed in all churches that view marriage as sacred. There is nothing I want to see happen that would decrease the value of those ideals. But after that, the views of what marriage is ranges from committed ceremonies by the justice of the peace to Elvis Presley marriages in Las Vegas. The point is, not everyone views marriage the same. When we start denying marriage to those that don't conform to our views of what marriage is, is the country better off? My position is simply I would rather allow a gay couple the opportunity to choose marriage. Stable families of all types are the building blocks of society. We shouldn't be discouraging anyone from creating more stable family units.

[CASteinman]

This is where we start to part in our agreement. Mormons already have a different view of what marriage should be. For my children, aspiring to a temple marriage was the only option we taught them. It is different than how the world views mariage. It is for eternity. Other people viewing marriage differently than that does not change what is important to a member of the church that desires a temple marriage. If you think otherwise, I would love to hear your reasoning.

Yes, I can that is where we would part company. But this is not really about how Mormons view marriage for themselves. It is how Mormons view marriage as part of the fabric of society. The Church will have a much harder time in fulfilling its mission if/when homosexual marriage is common. And we already have a hard enough time as it is.

Sorry I am going to have to completely disagree with this statement. I think you know why.

Well, its a matter of focus. But if I put it to you this way you may see the point: Find a case where the Church has volunteered with: "We oppose same sex marriage" I don't think you will find that. Instead you will find them promoting laws that keep the current and historical definition of marriage. You may see that as too fine a distinction but that is really where we disagree.

Don't you think that society would be better served if gay couples are in committed relationships?

Yes, but I do not think this should be subsidized at the expense of traditional marriage. Its a question of priorities. I do not think marriage should be "society recognition of coupling".

The point is, not everyone views marriage the same.

Right. And I want our views to prevail... not someone else's.

When we start denying marriage to those that don't conform to our views of what marriage is, is the country better off?

I believe it would be much better off if we would not approve same sex "marriage".

However, I do not think the Church has proposed that they should not be allowed to marry, only that the State should not recognize those marriages.

To me that is a reasonable compromise. Homosexuals get to marry but the state continues to advocate, support, sustain and subsidize traditional marriage above other forms.

[Damien the Leper]

Not quite laughable but certainly if we go back in time, gay marriage would have gotten a yikes too. But with time and with hollywood making the gay lifestyle mainstream, no longer does it get a yike. Now the argument here is about a human right. Gays and lesbian have a human right to marry and they have a human right to adopt children etc.

When should a human right be denied. In your list above, would you deny anyone their human right to marry?

This is a loaded question in which some may like for me to answer 'no'. By doing so, I some how advocate some marital relations that are perceived to be wrong.

Also, by answering yes, then I can be accused of the ridiculous notion of thinking it okay for an individual to marry their appliances or pets.

Essentially, the question is a catch 22. There is no correct answer. There are only reasonable and logical resolutions that allow us to avoid such slippery slope arguments. To excuse slippery slope, in any way, from being a LOGICAL FALLACY into some insidious 'correct' argument is telling of the individuals who choose to implement such ill-intented tactics.

[CASteinman]

Essentially, the question is a catch 22. There is no correct answer. There are only reasonable and logical resolutions that allow us to avoid such slippery slope arguments. To excuse slippery slope, in any way, from being a LOGICAL FALLACY into some insidious 'correct' argument is telling of the individuals who choose to implement such ill-intented tactics.

Slippery slope is not a logical fallacy if one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect.

Here is an example of a scientist discussing the issue under the term of "Creeping Normalcy":

Politicians use the term "creeping normalcy" to refer to such slow trends concealed within noisy fluctuations. If a situation is getting worse only slowly, it is difficult to recognize that this year is worse than last year, and each successive year is only slightly worse than the year before, so that one's baseline standard for what constitutes "normalcy" shifts only gradually and almost imperceptibly. lt may take a few decades of a long sequence of such slight year-to-year changes before someone suddenly realizes that conditions were much better several decades ago, and that what is accepted as normalcy has crept downwards.

Edited July 28, 2012 by CASteinman

[Damien the Leper]

Slippery slope is not a logical fallacy if one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect.

Here is an example of a scientist discussing the issue under the term of "Creeping Normalcy":

Politicians use the term "creeping normalcy" to refer to such slow trends concealed within noisy fluctuations. If a situation is getting worse only slowly, it is difficult to recognize that this year is worse than last year, and each successive year is only slightly worse than the year before, so that one's baseline standard for what constitutes "normalcy" shifts only gradually and almost imperceptibly. lt may take a few decades of a long sequence of such slight year-to-year changes before someone suddenly realizes that conditions were much better several decades ago, and that what is accepted as normalcy has crept downwards.

This fails to demonstrate reasonable causation for the slippery slope argument that we find in this thread. I concede the analogy provided in your post and I stand corrected that all slippery slopes are fallacious.

The first form of slippery slope is this:

• In the classical form, the arguer suggests that making a move in a particular direction starts something on a path down a "slippery slope". Having started down the metaphorical slope, it will continue to slide in the same direction (the arguer usually sees the direction as a negative direction, hence the "sliding downwards" metaphor).

• Modern usage includes a logically valid form, in which a minor action causes a significant impact through a long chain of logical relationships. Note that establishing this chain of logical implication (or quantifying the relevant probabilities) makes this form logically valid. The slippery slope argument remains a fallacy if such a chain is not established

• 
  The first example has been demonstrated disgustingly and consistently. The second form has yet to be demonstrated appropriately if at all.
  

[CASteinman]

The first example has been demonstrated disgustingly and consistently. The second form has yet to be demonstrated appropriately if at all.

They are both the same thing. The only difference between the two is -- in the opinion of some random individual who wrote this -- is that the person perceives evidence in the latter case and in the former case, there may be evidence or there may not be evidence -- it is simply irrelevant.

And the former case is really the way the term is used.

Now, as for your point -- that there should be some reasonable justifying logic -- I agree that there should be. However, this does not change the nature of the argument one bit. If such evidence is missing it merely means that a person who demands such evidence has a reason to dismiss it. But that is not the same thing as the argument being fallacious.

In this case, the evidence is based upon the reasoning and logic behind the removing of appropriate barriers for marriage to some people. Which I will demonstrate if you will provide me with what you consider to be the logic behind the removal of traditional definitions of marriage. I need that because I do not want to be charged with Strawman later by making the logical case on my own.

[Damien the Leper]

First you need to set aside the term traditional because it can't be used without expressing bias. Once we remedy this problem...we can move forward.

[CASteinman]

First you need to set aside the term traditional because it can't be used without expressing bias. Once we remedy this problem...we can move forward.

No.. I want to include bias in the whole deal. I think its important to be biased.

And I am fine if you want to critique the results based upon bias. But, while you do that, you will have to realize that in doing so, you are also being biased. Which I accept.

Edited July 28, 2012 by CASteinman

[Damien the Leper]

No.. I want to include bias in the whole deal. I think its important to be biased.

And I am fine if you want to critique the results based upon bias. But, while you do that, you will have to realize that in doing so, you are also being biased. Which I accept.

Let me rephrase. You want to use the term tradition to validate an already existing idea. I wish to eliminate the term because it doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. Keep in mind that, as I said before, traditional is NOT synonymous with "orthodox" or "correct". I just want to remove this obstacle that has no place in the road.

[CASteinman]

Let me rephrase. You want to use the term tradition to validate an already existing idea. I wish to eliminate the term because it doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. Keep in mind that, as I said before, traditional is NOT synonymous with "orthodox" or "correct". I just want to remove this obstacle that has no place in the road.

So that we can be clear, by "traditional" I mean marriage between a man and a woman. I do not preclude multiple women being married to one man in that term, because that is traditional in large amounts of the world. I also consider it to imply "orthodox" and "correct" -- but this does not really matter to the logic.

So, now that the term is defined the problems you have defined related to vagueness are gone.

I consider this to be no obstacle at all. But if you do not want to discuss this, I'm OK with that.

[california boy]

The fundamental problem with slippery slope arguments is you can make such an argument against absolutely ANYTHING that you are against. Since they do not rely on fact but only speculation, they are worthless. Try using a slippery slope argument in a court of law. You can only argue facts not speculation. No slippery slope arguments were brought up in the Prop 8 trial. There is a good reason for that. When one resorts to slippery slope arguments, it usually means they have no rational reason for their position. They simply are making one up by pure speculation. They are as valid as reading tea leaves to predict the future.

If you want me to prove this, give me any position and I will make up a slipperly slope argument to support it.

[Damien the Leper]

So that we can be clear, by "traditional" I mean marriage between a man and a woman. I do not preclude multiple women being married to one man in that term, because that is traditional in large amounts of the world. I also consider it to imply "orthodox" and "correct" -- but this does not really matter to the logic.

So, now that the term is defined the problems you have defined related to vagueness are gone.

I consider this to be no obstacle at all. But if you do not want to discuss this, I'm OK with that.

You can't seem to get over the term traditional. How you define the word is of zero relevance. It does nothing for the discussion but obfuscate any positive outcome. You NEED to understand that, and this is the LAST time I will say this, traditional is NOT synonymous with correct or orthodox. Nor is it implied...to suggest such would be to determine or change the rules. If you can have a discussion without the word...albeit a horribly weak premise and foundation then we can have a discussion. If you are unable to do so then this discussion is over before it ever began.

[CASteinman]

You can't seem to get over the term traditional. How you define the word is of zero relevance. It does nothing for the discussion but obfuscate any positive outcome. You NEED to understand that, and this is the LAST time I will say this, traditional is NOT synonymous with correct or orthodox. Nor is it implied...to suggest such would be to determine or change the rules. If you can have a discussion without the word...albeit a horribly weak premise and foundation then we can have a discussion. If you are unable to do so then this discussion is over before it ever began.

Actually, its you who cannot get over the word "Traditional". An inoffensive word as well.

And yes, defining the word gets rid of your stated objection -- so it has a place. (Unless your objection is actually something different than you gave expression to). I do not need to understand something that is false and I am glad you will not be saying such things any more. And, so you know, the word "Orthodox" is synonymous with "traditionalistic" and "correct". This is per a thesaurus. So it is actually more than implied -- but I am OK with mere implication.

I can have a discussion without the word but I won't. Because, after all, I like the word -- I think it is entirely appropriate for my meaning. And I do not like the idea of censoring this word out of the discussion merely because you irrationally do not like it and its inclusion, once defined does not actually hinder any discussion -- outside of your peculiar bias. I also do not like the idea that you want to set up penny-ante, ankle-biting rules right away at the start -- so I object to such things right away -- before they go too far. I do not intend any disrespect to you.. but I also will not subject myself to your rules that do not respect my position.

I am really truly fine if you cannot continue with the word "traditional" in the discussion. But, do not leave the discussion under the impression that you have actually engaged. You haven't. And you cannot claim to have explored the logic of the position.

I am willing to proceed. It is up to you.

PS..

Rather than be too inflexible, I am willing to adjust my terminology to any of these words instead of "traditional". I will let you choose:

Valid (or "doctrinally valid") , authentic, correct, genuine, orthodox, legitimate, or proper.

Of all of them, I prefer "Traditional" though.

Edited July 28, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

The fundamental problem with slippery slope arguments is you can make such an argument against absolutely ANYTHING that you are against. Since they do not rely on fact but only speculation, they are worthless.

This is all false.

[CASteinman]

If you want me to prove this, give me any position and I will make up a slipperly slope argument to support it.

Here is my proposition: Canadian Bacon is Salty.

OK... what sort of Slippery Slope argument will you use to support that proposition?

[california boy]

Here is my proposition: Canadian Bacon is Salty.

OK... what sort of Slippery Slope argument will you use to support that proposition?

No problem. Here is the slippery slope argument that Canadian Bacon is NOT salty

Before refrigeration, bacon was cured by layering it in salt. By doing this, men were able to preserve Canadian Bacon for months without it spoiling. The side effect was that Canadian Bacon contained a very high level of salt. With the introduction of refrigeration, it was no longer necessary to pack Canadian Bacon in salt to preserve it. As a result, much of the salt that was traditionally in Canadian Bacon disappeared. As consumers became more aware of the health risks of high salt in their diets, the processors of Canadian Bacon took even more salt out of the product. As consumers continue to demand salt free products, it is only a matter of time that there will be salt free Canadian Bacon available to consumers.

Now just to be fair, here is the opposite side of the slippery slope argument. Canadian Bacon IS salty.

Canadian Bacon came about by early settlers packing thinly sliced pork into salt. Through this process Canadian Bacon became a favorite amongst breakfast lovers. As refrigeration was introduced, the need to pack Canadian Bacon in salt became unnecessary. but the practice of curing Canadian Bacon in salt brine continued. It is an integral part of what makes Canadian Bacon real Canadian Bacon. If you are going to process pork in a different way, it is no longer Canadian Bacon. You can call it thinly sliced pork strips, but you can not call it Canadian Bacon. If we allow thinly sliced pork strips to be called Canadian Bacon, then Canadian Bacon will cease to exist. Traditional breakfast will never be the same. We must pass legislation to prevent this travesty from happening.

Choose which slippery slope argument best fits what you want to see in Canadian Bacon.

And that is why slippery slope arguments are not allowed in court as some kind of proof.

[california boy]

Actually, its you who cannot get over the word "Traditional". An inoffensive word as well.

And yes, defining the word gets rid of your stated objection -- so it has a place. (Unless your objection is actually something different than you gave expression to). I do not need to understand something that is false and I am glad you will not be saying such things any more. And, so you know, the word "Orthodox" is synonymous with "traditionalistic" and "correct". This is per a thesaurus. So it is actually more than implied -- but I am OK with mere implication.

I can have a discussion without the word but I won't. Because, after all, I like the word -- I think it is entirely appropriate for my meaning. And I do not like the idea of censoring this word out of the discussion merely because you irrationally do not like it and its inclusion, once defined does not actually hinder any discussion -- outside of your peculiar bias. I also do not like the idea that you want to set up penny-ante, ankle-biting rules right away at the start -- so I object to such things right away -- before they go too far. I do not intend any disrespect to you.. but I also will not subject myself to your rules that do not respect my position.

I am really truly fine if you cannot continue with the word "traditional" in the discussion. But, do not leave the discussion under the impression that you have actually engaged. You haven't. And you cannot claim to have explored the logic of the position.

I am willing to proceed. It is up to you.

PS..

Rather than be too inflexible, I am willing to adjust my terminology to any of these words instead of "traditional". I will let you choose:

Valid (or "doctrinally valid") , authentic, correct, genuine, orthodox, legitimate, or proper.

Of all of them, I prefer "Traditional" though.

This is not my issue, but if it were up to me, you can keep your use of Traditional Marriage. But with the use of traditional marriage also comes all the baggage of what it means.

English tradional marriage- The duke had a legal right to have sex with anyone's bride that was under his domain on her wedding night.

Muslin traditional marriage - You can marry up to 6 wives.

In India traditional marriage - Women have been known to be forced to marry an animal.

In Mormon religion traditional marriage used to mean - Worthy men were commanded to marry multiple wives.

In Mormon religion traditional marriage - They believe you can be married for eternity

In Old Testiment times traditional marriage - If your husband dies, you are forced to marry his brother.

In some parts of the world traditional marriage will mean - Gay people can marry their own gender.

I guess if you believe in traditional marriage, you have to believe in all of these traditional marriages. After all, we ALL have the same idea as to what a traditional marriage is don't we.

[CASteinman]

No problem. Here is the slippery slope argument that Canadian Bacon is NOT salty

Before refrigeration, bacon was cured by layering it in salt. By doing this, men were able to preserve Canadian Bacon for months without it spoiling. The side effect was that Canadian Bacon contained a very high level of salt. With the introduction of refrigeration, it was no longer necessary to pack Canadian Bacon in salt to preserve it. As a result, much of the salt that was traditionally in Canadian Bacon disappeared. As consumers became more aware of the health risks of high salt in their diets, the processors of Canadian Bacon took even more salt out of the product. As consumers continue to demand salt free products, it is only a matter of time that there will be salt free Canadian Bacon available to consumers.

Now just to be fair, here is the opposite side of the slippery slope argument. Canadian Bacon IS salty.

Canadian Bacon came about by early settlers packing thinly sliced pork into salt. Through this process Canadian Bacon became a favorite amongst breakfast lovers. As refrigeration was introduced, the need to pack Canadian Bacon in salt became unnecessary. but the practice of curing Canadian Bacon in salt brine continued. It is an integral part of what makes Canadian Bacon real Canadian Bacon. If you are going to process pork in a different way, it is no longer Canadian Bacon. You can call it thinly sliced pork strips, but you can not call it Canadian Bacon. If we allow thinly sliced pork strips to be called Canadian Bacon, then Canadian Bacon will cease to exist. Traditional breakfast will never be the same. We must pass legislation to prevent this travesty from happening.

Choose which slippery slope argument best fits what you want to see in Canadian Bacon.

And that is why slippery slope arguments are not allowed in court as some kind of proof.

Neither of these are slippery slope arguments. Do you understand what Slippery Slope is?

Edited July 28, 2012 by CASteinman