A Philosopher's Blog

Slippery Slope, Same Sex Marriage, Goats & Corpses

Posted in Ethics, Philosophy, Politics, Reasoning/Logic by Michael LaBossiere on January 8, 2014

Gray-GoatWhile same-sex marriage seems to have momentum in its favor in the United States, there is still considerable opposition to its acceptance. This opposition is well stocked up with stock arguments against this practice. One of these is the slippery slope argument: if same-sex marriage is allowed, then people will then be allowed to marry turtles, dolphins, trees, cats, corpses or iPads.  Since this would be bad/absurd, same-sex marriage should not be allowed. This is, of course, the classic slippery slope fallacy.

This is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This “argument” has the following form:

1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without adequate evidence for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there are a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.

In the case of same-sex marriage the folks who claim these dire results do not make the causal link needed to infer, for example, that allowing same-sex marriage will lead to people marrying goats.  As such, they are committing this fallacy and inviting others to join them in their error.

While I have written a reply to this fallacious argument before, hearing someone making the argument using goat marriage and corpse marriage got me thinking about the matter once again.

Using goat marriage as an example, the idea is that if same-sex marriage is allowed, then there is no way to stop the slide into people marrying goats. Presumably people marrying goats would be bad, so this should be avoided. In the case of corpse marriage, the gist is that if same-sex marriage is allowed, then there would be no way to stop the slide into people marry corpses. This would presumably be bad and hence must be avoided.

The slide down the slippery slope, it must be assumed, would occur because a principled distinction cannot be drawn between humans and goats. Nor can a principled distinction be drawn between living humans and corpses. After all, if such principled distinctions could be drawn, then the slide from same-sex marriage to goat marriage and corpse marriage could be stopped in a principled way, thus allowing same-sex marriage without the alleged dire consequences.

For the slippery slope arguments to work, there must not be a way to stop the slide. That is, there is a smooth and well-lubricated transition between humans and goats and between living humans and corpses. Since this is a conceptual matter rather than a matter of actual slopes, the slide would go both ways. That is, if we do not have an adequate wall between goats and humans, then the wall can be jumped from either direction. Likewise for corpses.

So, for the sake of argument, let it be supposed that there are not such adequate walls—that once we start moving, we are over the walls or down the slopes. This would, apparently, show that same-sex marriage would lead to goat marriage and corpse marriage. Of course, it would also show that different sex-marriage would lead to a slide into goat marriage and corpse marriage (I argued this point in my book, For Better or Worse Reasoning, so I will not repeat the argument here).

Somewhat more interestingly, the supposition of a low wall (or slippery slope) between humans and animals would also lead to some interesting results. For example, if we allow animals to be hunted and there is no solid wall between humans and animals in terms of laws and practices, then that would put us on the slippery slope to the hunting of humans. So, by the logic of the slippery slope, we should not allow humans to hunt animals. Ditto for eating animals—after all, if same-sex marriage leads to goat marriage, then eating beef must surely lead to cannibalism.

In the case of the low wall (or slippery slope) between corpses and humans, then there would also be some odd results. For example, if we allow corpses to be buried or cremated and there is no solid wall between the living and the dead, then this would put us on the slippery slope to burying or cremating the living. So, by the logic of the slippery slope, we should not allow corpses to be buried or cremated. Ditto for denying the dead the right to vote. After all, if allowing same-sex marriage would warrant necrophilia, then denying corpses the vote would warrant denying the living the right to vote.

Obviously, people will want to say that we can clearly distinguish between animals and humans as well as between the living and corpses. However, if we can do this, then the slippery slope argument against same-sex marriage would lose its slip.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Enhanced by Zemanta

35 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. magus71 said, on January 8, 2014 at 8:17 am

    “This is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question.”

    This whole fallacy must be reexamined. The “fallacy” is not an exercise in determinism, but a critique based on a knowledge of human nature.

    The fallacy is wrong.

    The philosophers are wrong.

    • WTP said, on January 8, 2014 at 10:02 am

      Under the same theory that third base is no closer to home than second is to third. Something many an unwed mother understands.

      That aside, philosophers suffer under the delusion that their logic is somehow deterministic of reality. See Mike’s post from way back in 2007 on which I recently commented where he states “An opinion can become a fact-a belief that is adequately backed up by evidence or reasons.” You might say I’m being picky here, but I think this reveals much about where many philosophical misconceptions originate.

      Of course one could argue that the tolerance of hateful toward specific groups in no way leads to persecution of said groups. This we know, right?

      • apollonian said, on January 8, 2014 at 12:44 pm

        Problem is criminals in their cleverness use the same excuse u do, as we see. But criminals need and deserve to be denounced for criminals they are, and yes, then appropriate action should be taken.

        • WTP said, on January 8, 2014 at 1:15 pm

          Ah, yeah…to what “excuse” do you refer that I made here, appoplexia? When making an argument it is customary to have at least one point.

          • apollonian said, on January 8, 2014 at 1:18 pm

            keep thinking, chosen one; after all, u people are soooooooooo “intelligent,” I’m sure u’ll eventually figure it out. Ho ho ho ho ho

            • WTP said, on January 8, 2014 at 1:53 pm

              Oh, you flatter me, apomeranian. I can tell by your posts, I’ll never be just as smart as you is.

            • apollonian said, on January 8, 2014 at 1:56 pm

              Ok ok ok, I’ll give u a hint: prosecution of criminals is not “persecution.” How’s that? Ho ho ho ho

  2. magus71 said, on January 8, 2014 at 9:03 am

    Catch up with the times, Mike. Marriage to animals is already happening.


    You write of the “principled distinction.”

    Principled distinction? Who cares? People have sex with animals, right? What you fail to understand is that people want to marry animals *because* it’s an animal, not despite. People have sex with animals *because* they’re animals, not despite.

    Liberalism is inherently an destructive force. It must destroy what is sacred. You have an extremely matarialst view of history, a weakness of all Marxists.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on January 8, 2014 at 3:19 pm

      Those all seem to be very odd cases and there are very few incidents. I’d be inclined to argue, as I have, that a human cannot actually marry an animal. Sure, an animal can stand there and even be dressed up. But it has no capacity to understand the situation nor to consent to be married. The same applies to objects.

      Now, if you think marriage can simply be imposed with no agreement or comprehension, then you could hold that people could marry animals. Or rocks.

      Principled distinctions are, of course, the only ones that have any actual merit. Unprincipled distinctions would be, by definition, flawed.

      I’m not a materialist nor a Marxist.

  3. magus71 said, on January 8, 2014 at 9:08 am

    Oddly enough, Mike presents no moral arguments against marrying corpses or animals. So let’s have a go. The philosophers say it’s cool, just like men having sex with men. Cool. Very cool.

    • WTP said, on January 8, 2014 at 10:05 am

      Boils down to one thing. Animals and corpses cannot consent. And neither can children. Don’t know if Mike included pedophilia in the above. As usual, couldn’t get past the mass of strawmen in the first paragraph.

      • magus71 said, on January 8, 2014 at 10:54 am

        Animals don’t consent to being put in cages, either, if we want to go the hyper-rationalist route, which Mike almost always follows. A true Cartesian. And yet, today’s hyper-rationalists only desire consistency when it supports the parts of the universe they like. Which is why I like Nietzsche; he told the type of world the hyper-rationalists were preparing for us. And he was right.

        Funny, I remember back in the day, as homosexuality was becoming more and more accepted, the line of the slippery-slopers was “if this keeps going, men will be marrying men.” And those of Mike’s ilk response was: “No, no, that’s a slippery slope argument. ”

        The problem with hyper-rationalism is not that it is rational, but that it is so addicted to rationale that cannot see problems if it cannot see the *cause* of the problem. It invariably resorts to arguments of “necessary aspects”. For instance, the hyper-rationalist, will argue that dating strippers is not problematic for men, because being drug-addicted, whoring, lying, materialistic, low class and unserious are not necessary aspects of being a stripper. Yet, every serious person knows it’s a bad idea to marry a stripper. You will probably get all the attributes noted above. You will ruin your life.

        The same goes for homosexuality. Why do homosexual men only live to their late 40s or early 50s on average? Why are more likely to be drug addicted, alcoholic, suicidal? Why does it seem, by the statistics, that homosexuality is a wretched lifestyle choice, damaging not only health but happiness? The hyper-rationalist sees no connection here, again resorting to necessary aspects.

        Despite the problem sitting plainly in front of the hyper-rationalist, unless he can exact exact causation, he refuses to admit a problem. Thus, I posit our society may perish and never really see the reason, because we are doing things all previous cultures which excelled inherently knew not to do, even if they could not explain in scientific manners why they should not do them. And we are not doing just a few things we should not do, but a multitude. Most cultures got away with a few things.

        • WTP said, on January 8, 2014 at 1:44 pm

          Nor do they consent to being eaten, I suppose. However I put sex with animals in the context of animal rape and thus torture. When two people engage in a consensual relationship this is not rape.

          My basic point is that not everything that is immoral should be illegal. Use of the law to rectify ethereal harm to society is its own slippery slope. I still object to the use of the term “marriage” for gay unions, or even plural marriages, and believe that such should be called something different, while at the same time recognizing an emotional commitment between two people that would have most of the same legal qualities as marriage. But at some point this becomes an issue of semantics and rather tiresome in regard to the risk to society. I became more accepting of the idea when someone opposing gay marriage made the argument that such would strain the health care/insurance business to its breaking point. Which seemed to me a good idea. I’m to some extent a closet fan of Obamacare as the ugly kludge of this system needs to be broken completely in order to start over. But that’s a whole other topic.

          As for your points on the disproportionate problems experienced by gay men, which I believe (have no data to back this up) are not as extreme as experienced by gay women, is that being gay is something they have to live with 24/7. Depending on one’s ability to deal with a society that one doesn’t completely fit into is sure to put a lot of emotional pressure and such on such men. They have to turn inward to try to figure out what the problem is. This is why I think such orientation is mostly endemic (can’t find the right word) to them. They either have to intellectualize their conflict (see people like Tesla, Frederich the Great, etc. though many, many straight men are falsely include) or resort to drugs, alcohol, and other feel-good measures possibly including hyper sexuality. I mention the lesser effect on gay women due to the completely different attitudes and pressures on men in society to be “manly”, etc. I think, though I could be wrong on this, that you will find fewer of these problems in gay men in societies, or places in societies, where being gay is more accepted.

          Just curious…do you know many “out” or “semi-out” gay men? Any who are not of the stereotypical flamboyant nature? I’m talking outside of the military, as policies past and present would distort the situation.

          • magus71 said, on January 10, 2014 at 6:13 am

            I wouldn’t say many. Personally, two or three probably, and they still border on flamboyant I suppose. I mean, they seem to intentionally play the part of how gay men are supposed to act.

            I do not think that homosexuality is the cause of many of the problems I indicated in gay individuals, though it is associated with those problems and I believe is probably a manifestation at some level of deeper problems. Gay men have on average hundreds of sex partners in a lifetime. On average. This is not healthy at any level. I’m, not condemning people who’ve done this, I’m not a prude, but it’s simply not healthy for the individual or society. This itself does not seem to support the “out of sorts with society” argument.

            As far as women, lesbians do experience some negatives over and above straight women. They are much more prone to abuse alcohol, smoke cigarettes, and domestic violence in those relationships is much higher–even higher than gay male relationships.

            • WTP said, on January 10, 2014 at 11:29 am

              I don’t know about “Gay men have on average hundreds of sex partners in a lifetime”, I’m sure on average, or median, it is much higher than hetero men however think what the numbers would be for hetero men if hetero women had an identical sex drive to that of hetero men. And even among those with more moderate appetites, it’s probably higher than hetero, but again for the same reason.

              I base my perceptions not only on the science that has been done, and to be honest much of it is mighty far from science, but also on the few gay men I have known. My empirical observations are hard to make sense of unless the gay behavior is innate. I think I related here about an old roommate (who still owes me money) who was “straight” yet seemed to be constantly overcompensating. Both his father and one brother were gay and his mother, who at the time was my supervisor, was quite aggressive business-wise. Anyway, I could go into too much detail but I really think that if this guy was truly hetero, his behavior wouldn’t have raised my eyebrow so often. Also had a best friend from child hood who, as we reached our teen years, it became very apparent that he was different. Yet he always had girlfriends around.

            • magus71 said, on January 11, 2014 at 8:36 am

              “Research indicates that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime:

              The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.[12]

              Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.[13]

              In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that “the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500.” In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.[14]

              A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than one thousand sexual partners.[15]”


            • WTP said, on January 11, 2014 at 11:36 pm

              I’ve found the FRC to be quite sloppy in their referencing and this is no exception. The Dutch study was done quite some time ago in a context and with a purpose that statistically should not be used in the context FRC used it. It was based on self-reporting, which is highly suspect in virtually every regard as I’ve stated here about some of the “studies” that Mike has quoted. The bulk of the data came from the mid-80s when most “out” gay men were significantly skewed to the more flamboyant types. There are a quite a few other issues with the use of this study which you can review here:


              Yes, there is much higher promiscuity in the gay male community, but as I said I don’t think it’s very far beyond what one would expect to see if hetero women had the same sex drive as hetero men.

            • magus71 said, on January 12, 2014 at 8:49 am

              Self-reporting can be a problem, and I thought of it myself, but how else would you do the study? I’m familiar with the problems of self-reporting, mostly in diet. But there are two major factors at play: Shame and forgetfulness. People either forget eating something, or are ashamed to admit they ate more than they should have, thus under-reporting is prominent in studies on eating habits. If we apply the same template to studying homosexual practices, then perhaps we can assume that the numbers are in fact, too low. If that is not the case, and we assume that the flamboyant types exaggerate their numbers as a badge of honort, well, we have yet another odd manifestation of psychological deviance in homosexuals. There are several studies in that link which show results that are an open secret in come communities, and it’s difficult to ignore the aggregate of problems, even if some cases are weaker than others. The fact that homosexuals are much more likely to have been abused when younger, the very low level of monogamy etc. Police officers know there will be parks in their cities dedicated to men having sex with men.

              I have a theory, that anyone willing to step far outside of societal norms in one area is also willing to go further in other areas. Thus anytime something is seen as bad by societal standards, regardless of whether that activity is really bad or evil in a philosophic sense, the groups of people that practice the taboo are likely to have higher portions of troubled individuals than average. Drug use is another example. Massive amounts of tattoos and piercings, all against societal norms, yet all associated with higher levels of risky or even criminal behavior. Gangs are yet another example and a good one, because it’s an example how people will form their own counter-culture, almost as a rebellion against society, and that’s pretty much what I consider the gay lifestyle to be–it’s own culture; it has it’s manners, its dress, its speech-code (why is a lisp part of being born gay, and why does it disappear when they get drunk?). Societal norms mean something, even if not in the uber-rational sense that Mike is always looking for. I’m not sure I believe the societal angst theory for gay unhealthiness and short life span. In fact, it seems there’s a rather high percentage of gays that make an effort to be sure everyone knows they’re gay. I’ve been in a cop car escorting a gay parade before, and there was no lack of confidence in that crowd. Maybe they do a good job in hiding their existential angst. There are examples of course of non-flamboyant, successful types, as you point out. I know two that would fit the bill.

            • WTP said, on January 13, 2014 at 2:12 pm

              If that is not the case, and we assume that the flamboyant types exaggerate their numbers as a badge of honor

              Well, yes that’s my point.

              , well, we have yet another odd manifestation of psychological deviance in homosexuals.

              but now you’re applying the deviance of a sub-group to the group as a whole.. One could make a similar statement about hetero pro athletes. You may recall Wilt Chamberlain’s 20,000 women boast that seems highly improbable.

              I think that your generalizing on what you see around you (which is something we all do to some extent on different subjects). Again, I’m not saying that it’s not a problem/issue but I really don’t think its as all encompassing of the population as you imply.

              Also, the lisp thing…While most the gays that I have known do have a certain, ahh…lilt(?) in their voices I don’t think the lisp is all that common and may indicate that your just more aware of such people having the problem being gay. I know a couple of guys who I found out later in life to be gay but never would have known nor suspected such. And I’m talking about (otherwise) normal, productive, intelligent men who do good work. Again, see N. Tesla. The accent thing is an interesting subject in itself. I found a few interesting articles on the subject but nothing I would trust based on both the generalizations made and the denial of any truth behind the generalizations. It’s a complex subject. I did find this article rather interesting in how it tied the gay “accent” to southern California (go figure):


              This was also interesting/similar, but more biased in its semi-denial:

            • magus71 said, on January 13, 2014 at 2:32 pm

              “One could make a similar statement about hetero pro athletes. ”

              Oh, I do.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on January 8, 2014 at 3:14 pm

      Did that in previous posts. The main argument is that corpses and animals cannot consent and hence cannot even enter the relation of marriage. It is like talking about making a job offer directly to a corpse or animal. They have no capability to accept a job or understand what it involves.

      Advanced animals, like dogs, do get the idea of tasks and such-but they do not get the idea of legal contracts.

  4. apollonian said, on January 8, 2014 at 12:38 pm

    Same-Sex Marriage Merely Detail Of Determinist, Cyclic, Historic Western Decline

    Same-sex marriage is extremely bad, bad, bad sign for any healthy, rational culture, as same-sex marriage simply promotes irrationality, obviously. Same-sex marriage promotes psychosis, as matter of fact, and this is precisely the purpose of the criminals who run and rule the culture, the COUNTERFEIT masterminds of the US Federal Reserve (“Fed”–see RealityZone.com, Mises.org, and LewRockwell.com for expo/ref. on fed fraud). Such then is “Decline of the West,” by Oswald Spengler, when hubris, thus subjectivism take-over the culture, this all upon the beginning pretext of “good-evil” fallacy/delusion/heresy (Pelagianism).

    “Slippery-slope” is irrelevant and beside the pt. The un-healthy consequences of same-sex marriage are immediate and direct for observation. To pt. to bestiality and marriage w. goats is simply diversion, even though not a bad analogy, truth be told.

    For observe marriage btwn opposite sexes is a promotion, the encouragement of society for these opposite sex contracts/unions. What’s now happening is the society is encouraging psychotic behavior by means of the same-sex marriage–so often predicated upon false idea there are too many people (“over-population”).

    The large cultural pt. then is that “Decline of the West” is DETERMINISTIC, thus CYCLIC, and nothing will stop it; the forest fire will simply have to burn itself out. Thus the US Dollar must continue to collapsing, starvation and civil un-rest ensuing, martial-law, at least some warfare, perhaps invasion of UN troops–there’s no happy ending. Human task then is to prepare, endure, and survive till that time when civilization can begin again.

    Christians can look for encouragement to example of St. Constantine the Great who revolutionized, at least briefly, the moribund Roman civilization of 4th cent. The enemy is that satanism of such as ObamaCare w. death panels and Agenda-21 genocide, among other elements.

  5. ajmacdonaldjr said, on January 8, 2014 at 1:08 pm

    No fault divorce ruined marriage.

    Same sex “marriage” is simply a further consequence of this ruination of marriage.

    In other words, the term “marriage” is without (it’s traditional) meaning, and has been for quite some time.

    What is marriage? Not man and wife together until death do them part.

    Not anymore.

    These days “marriage” is whatever someone says it is.

    And that could include goats and corpses, if people so choose.

    After all, who am I to judge?

    It’s not the slippery slope, it’s the open-ended definition of a word: “marriage”.

    Who’s to say what (or who) we can and can’t insert into the definition of the word “marriage”?

    Judge strikes down part of Utah polygamy law in ‘Sister Wives’ case – http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/14/justice/utah-polygamy-law/

  6. ajmacdonaldjr said, on January 8, 2014 at 1:34 pm

    There are many types of marriage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_marriages

    In the USA, which has been a predominantly Christian culture, the laws have historically reflected the Christian understanding of marriage: one man and one women until death.

    The USA has changed. Although there are still millions of Christians, they have lost their popular culture influence, and this is reflected in the redefinition of the term “marriage”.

    Marriage, now, can mean any of the types listed above.

    Christian culture is out, anti-christian culture is in.

    What we are witnessing with the same sex marriage phenomenon is the deconstruction of Christian civilization:

    “After Words: Benjamin Wiker, “Worshipping the State: How Liberalism Became Our State Religion,” hosted by Krissah Thompson, Washington Post
    About the Program

    “Benjamin Wiker argues that people on the political left are seeking to establish secularism as the official religion for the U.S.  They are organizing the complete “de-Christianization” of Western Civilization, he says, and plan to replace personal faith with the collective dependence on the federal government.  He discusses his theory with Washington Post writer Krissah Thompson.

    About the Author

    “Benjamin Wiker is the author of “Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists” and “Architects of the Culture of Death.” He is co-author of “Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God” and “A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature.” Benjamin Wiker has taught at Marquette University, St. Mary’s University, Thomas Aquinas College, and Franciscan University of Steubenville.”

    Watch video – After Words: Benjamin Wiker, “Worshipping the State: How Liberalism Became Our State Religion – http://tinyurl.com/mmareyk

    See also: The De-Christianization of Western Civilization? – http://wp.me/pPnn7-2j1

    • apollonian said, on January 8, 2014 at 3:32 pm

      “Good”: Worst Enemy Of Truth

      Yes AJ, it’s pretended “good” of Pelagian heresy over-throwing TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH (Christ), according to Gosp. JOHN 14:6. Thus the empire of lies prevails in “Decline of the West,” by Oswald Spengler, whence the corrupted people in all the false “prosperity” now suffer HUBRIS, pretending they’re like God w. a perfectly “free” will, capable of “good” and “moral virtue.”

      Always always always, way truth and honesty is overthrown is by means of the “noble” lie (Leo Strauss and Plato) of “good-evil.”

      “Good” is the worst enemy of TRUTH (Christ).

      For people are too easily intimidated like children, desperate not to be thought “evil,” looking for that pat on the head, “good-boy,” “good-dog–u did what u were told,” ho ho hoho

      “Good” is the excuse of anti-Christ satanism that now prevails w. ObamaCare death-panels and Agenda-21 genocide, deliberate poisoning of the water supplies w. fluoride, toxic vaccines, GMO foods, poison “chem-trails,” drugging of school-kids, etc., etc.

  7. WTP said, on January 10, 2014 at 12:53 am

    It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Slavery has so frightful an aspect to men accustomed to freedom that it must steal in upon them by degrees and must disguise itself in a thousand shapes in order to be received.


  8. magus71 said, on January 11, 2014 at 8:41 am

    The slippery slope in action. Actually I think this guy is on to something. His sex doll has more respect for men, is less self-centered, and is much lower maintenance than the average white American female.

  9. magus71 said, on January 11, 2014 at 8:43 am

    How obvious is it that you’re wrong, Mike?

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on January 12, 2014 at 1:49 pm

      Wrong about what?

      • magus71 said, on January 12, 2014 at 4:41 pm

        Are you arguing that marrying animals will not be legal, or that it is not inevitable?

        Seems it’s already happening, we just need the law to get on board. And since marriage does not equal sex, as every married man can testify, what is immoral about marrying animals?

        • apollonian said, on January 13, 2014 at 12:57 am

          Note Ethics Depends Upon Metaphysics

          Magus: it just depends on what’s “moral.” Thus morality is mere logic btwn means and ends, and ends could be anything, but are best when consistent w. metaphysical nature of human, the rational creature. Note there’s no “good-evil” in an objective, hence determinist reality. For there’s no perfectly “free” human will, humans seeking their interest in accord w. their limited wills.

          Remember there’s already the natural law, according to Cicero, founded upon “right reason.” So we can do anything in good conscience long as it harms no one else. Note also marriage is a special legal status bestowed and recognized for the purpose of benefit of society. Thus heterosexual marriage benefits rational society for purpose of legitimate children. Homosexual “marriage” does not benefit society, and is rather a degenerate farce in “Decline of the West,” by Oswald Spengler.

          • magus71 said, on January 13, 2014 at 6:38 pm

            And since gay marriage does not benefit society, society should not be forced to give gay marriage the legal benefits of marriage. Though I would argue that marriage is mostly a disadvantage nowadays.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on January 13, 2014 at 5:05 pm

          I’m arguing that allowing same sex marriage to be legal does not inevitably lead to the legalization of goat marriage. Adult humans can consent, goats cannot. Therefore, you cannot marry a goat.

          Apparently people do “marry” animals, but this does not show that SSM leads to goat marriage being legal. Also, if you are right and people have been marrying animals, then fighting same-sex marriage will not prevent animal marriage-it is, if you are right, already here.

          • magus71 said, on January 13, 2014 at 6:34 pm

            I’m just not following that people are saying it’s inevitable. Merely that it increases the chances. For domino 2 to fall, domino 1 must fall.

  10. Anonymous said, on January 19, 2014 at 8:25 am

    where in this world do you come up with such nonsence. same sex marriage is redpauseive and this is discussing, oh my , I thank I’m going to be sick..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: