« Obama Plays Dodgeball With the Budget | Main | Who’s Killing Social Security? »

Friday, February 17, 2012


john davidson


Once the traditional definition of marriage is changed, what legal limits are there?

Can I marry my sister, or my mother, or my carpool? The maple tree I'm partial to in my backyard? Why not?

Equal protection?


Stan Gibilisco

If same-sex marriage became the law of the land, would that mean that +churches+ would be +forced+ to marry couples of the same gender?

If the answer is no, then I can't see a problem. It strikes me as a matter of definition, like whether we call Pluto a planet or not. Secular same-sex unions are what they are, whatever we call them. There would of course be economic ramifications, but I don't see a problem there either.

If the answer is yes, I foresee a huge outcry from clergy and many church parishoners, along with a massive and dangerous wave of homophobia that cuts across all elements of society. Some churches might refuse to marry any couples at all. It would create a gigantic new aspect of conflict in a society already headed toward civil war.

Wayne Lela

Heterophobic homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. Homosexuality---that is, a homosexual mind in a heterosexual body---is clearly a disorder, just like a female mind in a male body. And it is immoral to treat disorders as though they were not disorders. For decades the APA logically considered homosexuality a disorder. The reasons it deemed it so are as valid today as they were then. The APA now has little credibility because it has become PC---"politically correct." Plus, thinking people have known for centuries that homosexual activity is a bad and absurd legal precedent. What strange deviations are we going to accept next? How bizarre are we going to let our country get?

larry kurtz

I admit it, Ken: you are good. South Dakota has been poisoned since Bill Janklow dissolved environmental protection and you are stirring up xenophobia among the survivors.

Stan, flee while your property in Lead has any value at all. Spring is a good time to sell to one of the brothers who have married their sisters. I'd be happy to be an interested party in its sale: just let me know.

larry kurtz

Unfortunately (or not), Lead doesn't have a pot to piss in because the bulk of its taxpayers are lining up with their walkers or lying on gurneys awaiting their turns for the various cemeteries splattered throughout town.

Except for Stan, the rest are obese, white retirees from somewhere else who fled cultural diversity in their own States taking advantage of South Dakota's regressive tax structure and are now packing their RVs preparing to flee the advancing strings of 40 below-zero days.

Too many Lead residents are local high school dropouts who married their sisters, are strung out on meth somewhere and are only paying taxes through video loottery, Mickey's malt liquor, cigarettes and fuel.


I always wonder what it is about the word marriage that people who are of the same sex want to be able to say they belong to that club. I do not see any reason why if two people want to be in a union, then they can have a legal union and call it a civil union. But for some reason, they want to have the word "married" applied to them. If a civil union allows for the participants to have all of the benefits of a married couple, why do they care?
As has been pointed out above, when you change the standards of something such as "married", then you run into the possibilities of changing the standards of other facets as well. What if five people want to be married? Why is marriage only allowed between two people? It appears to me polygamists are being discriminated against. Why is it the two have to be human? It appears bestiality is being discriminated against.
Perhaps you have never heard a good enough argument for not allowing same-sex marriage, but I am still waiting to hear the good argument in favor. Why is that word SO important?

larry kurtz

Until inter-species communication is perfected, consent presents a problem for those in love with non-humans. Polygamists ARE suing for equal protection under the law and the State of Montana is being forced to defend its Bush-era mistake, too.


Anthony Renli

My opinion has been for some time that Government should get out of marriage altogether. The legal rights that we currently associate with marriage (property inheritance, medical decision making, parental decisions, etc.) could be handled as an exclusive legal contract between two consenting adults.

Call these civil unions, call these business contracts, call these Crumpet-Sharing-Agreements, it doesn't matter. So long as the legal rights are the same as what we currently define as marriage. All current legal marriages will be re-classified as Crumpet-Sharing-Agreements (I'm liking the last one more and more) for legal purposes.

Then we can make Marriage a purely religious designation. Allow each church to decide who and what is "Marriage" and to recognize it as they see fit.

Then the word is no longer the issue. If you don't want to recognize a gay marriage, no problem. The legal relationship will need to be recognized, but the spiritual and religious aspects will be separate.

Bill Fleming

DuggerSD, I think maybe you should be allowed to marry your favorite goat if you want to. It would be a lot better than the exploitative, abusive, clandestine relationship you are having with her now. (...just kidding)

I agree with you KB that an act of the legislature is the best route, but endorse your option #3. Short of Congressional passage there, I would advocate for an Executive proclamation similar to the Emancipation Proclamation. That probably won't happen under Obama (he's still shaky on his resolve that gays should have equal protection under the law, including protection of their religious freedom...), but it may well happen a few administrations down the road, perhaps even by a Republican president.

Stan Gibilisco

Aloha Larry:

I know this is off-topic, but I hope Ken lets it stay here, because it strikes a huge nerve in me, right on the center. I have for a long time thought about selling that 5.5-acre parcel to a Native American. Please e-mail me at

[email protected]


As vowed, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Friday vetoed a bill allowing same-sex marriages in his state. As the AP reports, his veto came a day after the state Assembly passed the bill. The state Senate approved it on Monday.

Lawmakers have until the end of the legislative session in January 2014 to override the veto. But to do so, they would need a two-thirds majority in both houses of the legislature.


Well, Bill, the only goat I know of around here is you and being an old one at that, even if I had the proclivity to love a goat, I am pretty sure you would not do anything for me. At least you assumed my goat would be a "her". For that I thank you. ;-)

Donald Pay

The "old fashioned way" is hardly voting and persuasion alone. The reality is that every battle that advanced human and civil rights in this country was accomplished through all sorts of means, including elections, court cases and civil disobedience. It would be nice if all people, or even a bare majority, treated everyone with dignity and granted them the legal rights they are entitled to without much need for struggle. That is simply not the usual history in this country, and it is particularly inappropriate for basic human rights. I don't want to put my rights up for a vote of the people.

It is not up to anyone but the people struggling for their human and civil rights to decide what strategies and tactics to use. In my view the outcome is more important than the particular strategy, and I welcome them all in whatever mix gets us to marriage equality in the fastest amount of time.

Ken Blanchard

Great thread! John D.: You make my point. It is a judgment call as to who is allowed to marry who.

Stan: I am sure that the Free Exercise Clause will churches to decide which persons they will marry. The real battle is over the word "marriage".

Wayne: even if it were true that homosexuality is a disorder, that wouldn't be dispositive. People with disorders are not prohibited from marriage.

Anthony: your libertarian solution to the problem appeals to me. However, it is not a politically viable option at present. Gay activists want to force public recognition of same sex unions. Opponents of gay marriage want to deny the same. Neither side is likely to give up the fight.

Bill: a gay marriage proclamation lacks one essential ingredient, which is a Civil War. If there is a national same sex marriage bill (I don't think that this is a viable or proper venue), then I wouldn't be at all surprised if a Republican President signs it. Only Nixon could go to China.

Dave: thanks for the update.

Donald: I don't blame advocates of SSM for trying to use the courts, even if I think that that is not the proper venue. I disagree with your reading of history, however. The anti-slavery amendments, woman voting, the poll tax amendment, all were enacted democratically. So was the Voting Rights Act. The use of courts to go over the heads of electorates is relatively recent.

Getting what you want in whatever way is fastest is not the best strategy.

john davidson

Hi Ken,

With all due respect I don't think disagreeing with your point makes your point. You say:

"There are in fact no constitutional grounds for deciding which two persons may marry. Age restrictions, degree of relatedness, etc., all depend on custom and judgment calls that are more appropriate to the democratic branches. Judges who pretend otherwise are merely writing their own judgments into the margin of constitutions.

OK, then am I to conclude that you would sanction polygamy, marriage to minors, marriage to one's parents, and/or marriage to one's beloved pet, if these passed one of the 6 "possible routes" to legality you listed?

I just want to be clear on this...


Mark Anderson

Ken, Christie made his veto to protect his (future) candidacy for vice-presidency or the presidency. You also fail to mention the battle for interracial marriage. Decided by the courts, the polls showed Americans were opposed to it. A great story is coming to HBO in the documentary of Richard and Mildred Loving, called The Loving Story. Mildred was all for same sex marriage, here is the wonderful statement she made in 2007 that everyone should think about. (from wikipedia):Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about." This was delivered on the 40th anniversary of the decision.

john davidson

Mark - Ouch what a big "Meh."

You really want to use the race card for this one? Yikes..

Will elaborate tomorrow if time permits..


Ken Blanchard

jd: No. My point was that these are judgment calls and that is the work of legislatures and electorates. I think that first cousins should not be allowed to marry. I base that judgment on biological evidence. But just because I think that this is the right policy doesn't mean that I think that the Constitution requires it. The Constitution provides no guidance in these matters.


"The Constitution provides no guidance in these matters. " And as you point out it is the work of legislatures. I would point out that would be STATE legislatures. The fed has no bearing in this. If SD wants to pass an amendment that does not recognize same-sex marriage, it is within her rights. Right?

larry kurtz

So, jd, Barnes, and the other earth haters live where divorce rates are off the charts and love should be made illegal...what a surprise.

Bill Fleming

"a gay marriage proclamation lacks one essential ingredient, which is a Civil War."


Why do you think we're not having a Civil War, KB?

I think that we are. Same enemy as always. And our side is winning.


Wouldn't it just be easier to get the government out of the marriage business completely? I'm not sure why people think its the government's job to define what personal relationships are and to grant special perks (social security benefits, tax status, etc...) to people based on those definitions.

Allow people to sign whatever kind of agreements they want with another person. The government's job isn't to define contracts, it's to help arbitrate them.

john davidson

Hi Ken – You say a “state-wide initiative passed by the voters” is the most democratic way to achieve a legitimate result. OK, but do you see disconnects in your thinking? I agree it is the work of electorates, but what does California (of all states) do, for example, when they vote overwhelmingly to ban same sex “marriage” in 2000 and again in 2008 only to see their wishes overruled by the opinions of the slimmest of minorities – a few “judges” overturning the will of the electorate?

Do you believe, in that example and to your point, that the will of the electorate is being served and respected?

You say you do not want x, y, and z, (marriage to various animate and inanimate objects) but you will surely have them if the 5,000 (or so) year-old definition of marriage is tossed aside virtually overnight. Please see my next post, “A Man and His Horse”, which is from another website, sorry but I lost track of which one. Clearly, it is a ludicrous story. But, no more ludicrous than same sex “marriage” was not too many years ago.

In the final analysis it is the application of good judgment from the members of a society that keep the society healthy. 5,000 (or so) years of history provide the necessary wisdom. Tweak here and tweak there, but sudden massive overhauls are virtually always catastrophic.

Please name one advanced, civil society in the last 5,000 years that did not believe marriage was between a female mom and male dad - for the sake of the kids that follow. You are throwing out the wisdom of the ages, and it is beyond risky.

Larry – My heart and mind are with you, despite our differences! Your candidness reminds me of how truthful we could all be “back in the day” before the nanny state essentially began trying to place limits on our expressed opinions. While we disagree on some key issues I would rather hear your refreshing opinions than the clipped, weenie comments that are standard fare today in the world of political correctness. Don’t let your opinions be censored by the nanny state! Maybe we will have that beer someday, and share a laugh. I have some great Catholic jokes I learned from my close Catholic friends. They would offend many people today, I say, get over it (as do they). We are all so thin-skinned nowadays.

Mark – Will get back to you on your attempt to equate the civil rights movement with same-sex marriage. Do you know that many/most African Americans are offended by that comparison, and that 62% of African Americans are opposed to same sex marriage and 28% in favor (Pew Research Center)? You are attempting to declare moral superiority through this comparison, but you are comparing apples and oranges. There are no differences between people of different races, but there are enormous differences between men and women. More on that soon as time permits.

Bill - You declare your side to be "winning". Try to look past the immediate days, and please, be careful what you wish for.

God bless you all.

john davidson

Hi Ken - Here is the follow-up I mentioned. Ludicrous? Perhaps. But not if marriage no longer has it's present meaning. It takes just one court decision to get the ball rolling..sorry, I don't remember where I got this. thanks, jd

"In what some call a denial of a basic civil right, a Missouri man has been told he may not marry his long-term companion. Although his situation is unique, the logic of his argument is remarkably similar to that employed by advocates of homosexual marriage.

The man claims that the essential elements of marriage--love and commitment--are indeed present:"She's gorgeous. She's sweet. She's loving. I'm very proud of her. ... Deep down, way down, I'd love to have children with her."1

Why is the state of Missouri, as well as the federal government, displaying such heartlessness in denying the holy bonds of wedlock to this man and his would-be "wife"?

It seems the state of Missouri is not prepared to indulge a man who waxes eloquent about his love for a 22-year-old mare named Pixel.

The Threat to Marriage

The Missouri man and homosexual "marriage" proponents categorically reject the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Instead, the sole criterion for marriage becomes the presence of "love" and "mutual commitment." But once marriage is no longer confined to a man and a woman, it is impossible to exclude virtually any relationship between two or more partners of either sex--even non-human "partners."

To those who object to comparing gay marriage to widely-rejected sexual preferences, it should be pointed out that until very recent times the very suggestion that two men or two women could "marry" was itself greeted with scorn."

larry kurtz

"advanced, civil society" has yet to evolve, jd. Think: Hopewell Tradition, "New World," ca. 100 CE. Two Spirits have existed for millenia blessed by all.

christianity is mental illness.

larry kurtz

"Remember, Jesus would rather constantly shame gays than let orphans have a family. There's a phrase we live by in America: In God We Trust. It's right there where Jesus would want it: on our money." – Steven Colbert

Bill Fleming

John, your continuing reference to bestiality is creepy and insulting.

To straights, to gays, to animals, and to yourself.

If you want to marry an animal, just argue for it.

If you don't, why bring it up?

The man from Missouri seems far more honest than you do in that regard.

What you are basically saying is, if gays can marry, you would like to marry an animal.

True, or false?

If false, then what's your point?



I hate to break it to you, but not allowing government recognition of SSM isn't stopping anyone from being gay. The same goes with anyone that wants to be intimate with a horse.

If the government were to recognize SSM, it won't degrade your marriage or mine. The government recognizing the rings that people are already wearing also won't cause anyone to turn gay. It won't affect your life in any form, except that it will make you angry for some unknown reason. My advice would be to stop worrying so much about other people's personal relationships. You'll be a lot happier that way.

Here's something that a MD state delegate posted on twitter the other day after the Maryland House passed their gay marriage bill:

Anne R. Kaiser @DelegateKaiser

"Secret gay agenda: yesterday pass marriage equality. Today: make breakfast 4 my partner, clean house, buy groceries."

They're not trying to turn you or your family gay. They're just trying to live their lives. Stop worrying so much about them. You call marriage what you want to call it and let them call it what they want to.

john davidson

Bill - No, I do not wish to marry a horse, thank you. Geez, first I'm called a perv in search of "titillation", then I'm asked if I want to marry a horse! I'm obviously doing a GREAT job of communicating. Sorry you find the horse reference creepy. But isn't it more creepy (creepier?) to consider that it could actually happen, once we trash the traditional definition of marriage?

Wait, I got it…you are creating a straw man to reduce the inherent creepiness coming from your own position on same-sex “marriage.” A-ha!

I can picture the upcoming TV sequel to “Mr. Ed” - “Wilbur, meet Mr. Ed” (and they married and lived happily ever after).

Since I'm incapable of getting my message across properly, perhaps this will help. Please read it in its entirety, it's not that long:


If same-sex "marriage" becomes the law of the land someone will next want to re-draw the line a bit further – they will claim their rights are being violated, then some judge will go along with it and that will get the proverbial ball rolling. I don't think you can honestly predict where the ball will stop. At each step, the previous step will be cited as precedent. If that appeals to you, so be it. To me, it would be an absurd mockery of an extremely valuable societal institution. Not a perfect institution, but an extremely valuable one.

So let’s please nip it in the bud and leave marriage well-enough alone. Gays have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.

"One woman-one man" has always been the standard for both secular and religious societies. It is not simply a Catholic/Christian belief. The argument that I am jamming my religious beliefs down others' throats has no merit.

Larry, I liked your line "Until inter-species communication is perfected, consent presents a problem for those in love with non-humans." Good blend of truth and sarcasm! However, someone will eventually get around even that by claiming there is no way to prove a lack of consent. BTW, I'm not an earth-hater, quite the opposite. And I sure don't want to make love "illegal", I just want to preserve a very important institution in society. I'm not sure what your point about divorce rates was, but I don't think the establishment of same-sex "marriage" is going to help there.


john davidson


Not trying to stop anyone from "being gay", I think you should learn to set your stereotypes aside, they reduce the effectiveness of your arguments.

Just trying to respect a hallowed institution that was established eons ago to serve a specific, critical societal purpose.

If the government were to recognize SSM it wouldn't make me angry, it would spur so many jokes I’d probably die laughing.

I'm not worried about other people's personal relationships, I'm interested in respecting a hallowed institution that was established eons ago...oh, wait, I'm repeating myself, sorry.

My bottom line: If gay people want to cohabitate, whatever. But don’t pretend its “marriage.” It’s two people living together, no more, no less. Been there done that (yawn). With me it was straight, but what’s the difference, it wasn’t marriage. Creating special rights for so-called “victims” and forcing them down the throats of others who represent the majority is just stupid.

Oh, OK, let's all just start calling everything whatever we want. I'll marry some guy and call myself "mommy." Then we'll adopt a young daughter and name her "Daughter of True Love", wait, maybe just "True" for short. A cool name, just like a lot of celebrities do.

Then, when "True" grows up and needs to discuss issues best handled by a female parent we'll pretend we know what the hell she is feeling, and what the hell we are doing...

Then, a TV producer can make a reality show about us and millions of people can voyeuristically watch us stumble and fumble around for their entertainment, live!

Welcome to America in the 21st century.

Like I said, amused!

Take care,

john davidson

Larry - I get your point about "advanced, civil societies." Couldn't agree more that we have a ways to go. Where we differ, I guess, is on how to get there.

john davidson

Mark - Gee, what a wonderful story for lame TV. Here is something approaching depth on the issue of using the race card to justify same-sex "marriage." Did I mention that 62% of blacks are against it (Pew Research Center) and only 28% in favor? This is from the link to the Witherspoon Institute I provided in an earlier post. Thanks, john davidson

"The Senate should also disavow the idea that since the Obama administration refused to defend DOMA, its repeal is somehow a constitutional mandate. In 1967, the Supreme Court decided the case of Loving v. Virginia. In the Loving case, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a race-based marriage law that prohibited whites from marrying anyone of color. In so ruling, the Supreme Court called marriage “fundamental to our very existence and survival,” because of its procreative aspects. The procreative nature of marriage is what brought about miscegenation laws in the first place. The Court’s ruling returned marriage in the United States to its original status in common law—an institution not to be manipulated by racial prejudice, but to be honored as the union of one man and one woman.

Those who push for redefining marriage often cite Loving to support their arguments. But in doing this, they miss the Court’s link between marriage and procreation. Even the Department of Justice, in its new refusal to defend DOMA, does not cite the Loving case as support for its new anti-marriage position.

Same-sex marriage supporters also routinely overlook a noteworthy court case argued and decided in 1972, five years after the Loving decision. The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from the Minnesota Supreme Court that claimed an alternate definition of marriage was a basic human right. In Baker v. Nelson, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected claims for same-sex marriage and held that “in commonsense and in constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.” The Court’s rejection also emphasized a defining link between marriage and “the procreation and rearing of children.” The United States Supreme Court upheld the Minnesota Court’s decision. Not a single Justice of the United States Supreme Court found the constitutional claims for an alternate definition of marriage substantial enough even to warrant a review."

Bill Fleming

John, if the "horse" argument is a strawman (and I tend to agree that it is... either that or a red herring... I get the two mixed up sometimes) it is nonetheless, your straw man argument. You are the one who made it, to wit:

"But once marriage is no longer confined to a man and a woman, it is impossible to exclude virtually any relationship between two or more partners of either sex--even non-human "partners."

That's from your note above, not mine.

larry kurtz

Another DOMA-era law falls: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/22/us-usa-gaymarriage-doma-idUSTRE81L25C20120222

john davidson


The quote I borrowed above makes the point that once the door is opened to new definitions of "marriage" it will be difficult to rule out almost any definition, including the example given. I don't think that qualifies as either a straw man argument or a red herring. It would if it was not an actual possibility, but a fairly significant segment of our society seems to think it is. Hence, it's more of a warning of what could happen.

On the other hand, you suggested that simply by mentioning that possibility, I must have a personal, perhaps subconscious interest in "going there", so to speak - a statement that seems designed to deflect attention from the real issue…hence my comparison to a straw man argument.

BTW, my wife is getting lot of mileage out of your post, she sneaks up behind me, stamps her foot a few times and neighs, thanks a lot, man!

We seem to be a bit off track. Did you happen to read the PublicDiscourse article in the link?

Take care,

larry kurtz

Pew: GOP in free-fall.


john davidson


Bill Fleming

The point, John, is that no one is talking about legalizing a marriage to a horse. It's not the issue. Gay people don't like being compared to horses any more than your wife does. And neither the gays nor most women I know feel that there is any biological reason that they and their offspring shouldn't be afforded the same human rights as straight people and males of the species enjoy. In fact, they believe that the 14th Amendment of the Constutition demands it.

Ken Blanchard

John, et. al.: forgive me for being missing in action on this thread. I have a day job. I would only point out a couple of things. One is that horses fare rather well, according to Gulliver. The second is that equal protection doesn't help much here. Restricting marriage to a man and a women treats everyone equally. A gay man cannot marry another man and neither can I. Laws prohibiting interracial marriage run afoul of the clause because they are obviously designed to keep the races from "commingling", not because they treat different persons differently. Laws not allowing same sex marriage do not suffer the same defect.

I do not believe that the Constitution requires legal same sex marriage. I do believe that same sex marriage should be legal. Maybe we have to get it the old fashioned way: we have to pass it.

Bill Fleming

It's the children that don't have equal protection, KB. (Yes, people in gay marriages have kids.)

john davidson

Bill – Please, no one is comparing gay people to horses. Please set the horses aside, they are muddying the issue.

The POINT is that your redefinition of marriage will not end with legalizing it for gays.

Once it no longer means "one woman - one man" it can mean anything. Suppose a man and his 75 year old mother wish to marry. Under your logic, shouldn't they be afforded the same human rights that straight and gay people enjoy?

Where would you personally draw the line? Or would you? I don’t think you would…anything goes, right?

Please see the first post (it is mine) following Ken's commentary at the top. 14th amendment, right?


john davidsonq

Hi Ken - Did you read http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/07/3595 ?
No one else seems willing to comment on it.




"Hi Ken - Did you read http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/07/3595 ?
No one else seems willing to comment on it.



I'll comment on it.

Every time I see "...the Common Good...", I see Marx & Engels. I managed to force myself to read past this in the headline, but I couldn't bring myself to read past the "Due to the public nature of the government’s interest in..." line.

Social engineering is appalling, no matter which side of the political spectrum it come from.

Once again, I'll propose that anyone that wants the government to define marriage (or anything else) is a fool. If you're advocating that the government define morality you have to remember that your team isn't going to be in charge half of the time.

Bill Fleming

John, slippery slope arguments are just that, slippery slopes. Like strawman arguments, you are using a hypothetical situation to argue against a real one. If horses are muddying the issue for you, so certainly is a man marrying his mother.

larry kurtz



John, the problem you have with your argument with Bill is the human is a man and the horse if a mare. If the horse was a male and the human was male or the human was a woman and the horse was a mare, he would be all for it. Bill will refuse to see a point in order to make an argument. When he knows he is wrong, he resorts to this type of argument. Your point is very valid. As you have said, the idea of same sex marriage 50 years ago would not even be considered. However the line has been moved several times over the decades and now same sex marriage is considered a possibility. It is not a large leap to see how human/critter marriage will be proposed in the future.
Slippery slopes are just that. When conservatives mention the need to limit something such as making partial birth abortions illegal, liberals will claim we are on a slippery slope to make all abortions illegal. Just as when abortions were deemed legal, conservatives claimed it would be a slippery slope to infanticide. Those slopes do exist. Don't believe me? Remember when it was revealed as a state senator, President Obama argued in favor of killing newborns who came out alive in a botched abortion in 2002. Recently the British Medical Journal had a paper that apparently argues in favor of infanticide. Slippery slope indeed!

john davidson

OK, you did say that in a previous post. I’m afraid I find your viewpoint on this to be anarchistic, and while I have strong libertarian leanings anarchism has little appeal. Since people may cohabitate as they wish, you already have much of what you want. It's true that the government favors certain living arrangements through the tax code, etc. but that seems a small price to pay for the social cohesion that comes from promoting the traditional definition of marriage. I’m sure we have different opinions on the value of that "cohesion" to society, hence our differing views. I doubt I will change my opinion on that anytime soon.

Thank you,

john davidson

john davidson

In the arena of logical fallacies, a slippery slope argument is only fallacious when no causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies is made. In this case, you yourself have provided the necessary causal connection, namely the 14th amendment, when you said:
"And neither the gays nor most women I know feel that there is any biological reason that they and their offspring shouldn't be afforded the same human rights as straight people and males of the species enjoy. In fact, they believe that the 14th Amendment of the Constutition demands it."
Under your logic, shouldn’t a man and his mother, or whomever/whatever be afforded the same human rights as straights and gays and be allowed to "marry" if they wish?

Once the standard becomes movable it becomes impossible to uphold any standard. Duggersd alluded to the same fact.

john davidson


Thank you, everyone I call friend is absolutely aghast at the publication by the so-called "Journal of Medical Ethics" that states most clearly that it is often proper to kill little babies who have just been born...

How did we come to this point?

Somebody, please wipe my tears away...

Modern liberals can be monsters. This is a perfect example.

My God, what has our society become?

Anyone who questions the "slippery slope argument" needs to consider this.


This, from the so-called "Journal of Medical Ethics." Read it and weep.

"The Blaze outlines the article’s original arguments:

"The authors go on to state that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to a fetus in that it cannot be considered a person in the “morally relevant sense.” On this point, the authors write:

“Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.

Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.”

Giubilini and Minerva believe that being able to understand the value of a different situation, which often depends on mental development, determines personhood. For example, being able to tell the difference between an undesirable situation and a desirable one. They note that fetuses and newborns are “potential persons.” The authors do acknowledge that a mother, who they cite as an example of a true person, can attribute “subjective” moral rights to the fetus or newborn, but they state this is only a projected moral status."

Once upon a time, abortion advocates would accuse pro-lifers of “slippery slope logic” when those pro-lifers suggested it was only a matter of time before someone would use the abortion advocates’ arguments to defend infanticide. Turns out, it is a slippery slope, after all."

Ken, new topic?

john davidson

Maybe "after birth abortion" is really a stealth attack designed to put pro-abortion on a slippery slope to extinction.

larry kurtz


The comments to this entry are closed.