Difference between revisions of "Gay marriage/slippery slope"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: ==Overview== This is for discussion of the "slippery slope" argument against gay marriage. ==Debate== category:debates <section begin=debate /> : {{arg.mainpoint|if we allow ga...) |
(removed section tags; updated template calls; tidied up some arguments and added more) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==Debate== | ==Debate== | ||
[[category:debates]] | [[category:debates]] | ||
| − | + | : {{arg/main|if we allow gay marriage, we allow anything and everything}} | |
| − | : {{arg | + | :: {{arg/counter|This is a [[slippery slope]] [[circular argument]] – that is, it argues that gay marriage is bad because if we allow it, we might then allow something worse ("something worse" implying that gay marriage is bad, which implies the conclusion in its premise). The same rhetorical statement could be positively rephrased as: If we redefine marriage to include gay couples, then this opens the door for us to continue refining it so it serves everybody to the best possible extent.}} |
| − | :: {{arg | + | :: {{arg/support|'''Refinement''': Redefining "marriage" to include same-sex couples opens the floodgates, giving rise to redefine any terms with which the vocal minority does not agree.}} |
| − | :: {{arg | + | ::: {{arg/counter|This is still [[slippery slope]] argument, which is [[circular argument|circular]] by nature in that it assumes the proposed change is [[bad]].}} |
| − | ::: {{arg | + | :::: {{arg/question|Why would we want to avoid opening the floodgates to further redefinitions?}} |
| − | + | :::: {{arg/question|How does redefining one word "open the floodgates" to redefine others?}} | |
| + | :::: {{arg/question|"Open the floodgates" is an imprecise, emotionally-laden term which does not sufficiently describe what process we fear will occur. What does it actually mean?}} | ||
| + | ::: {{arg/support|'''Example''': Marriage could be further redefined to be a union with any number of people ([[Robert A. Heinlein|Heinlein]]'s S-Marriage / Line Marriage -- see [[wikipedia:Group marriage]]).}} | ||
| + | :::: {{arg/question|What's wrong with group marriages?}} | ||
| + | :::: {{arg/counter|Gay marriage falls within the meaning of "marriage", as both a word and a legal term in many cultures throughout history; otherwise the term "gay marriage" would be semantically null.}} | ||
| + | :::: {{arg/counter|Further redefinitions of "marriage" (or any other redefined term) should be considered on their own merits.}} | ||
| + | ::::: {{arg/counter|Just because you look at a map and realize you need to walk three blocks north in order to reach your destination does not "open the floodgates" to walking a further three blocks after you have reached it.}} | ||
| + | ::: {{arg/support|'''Example''': "Adult" could be redefined to mean anyone who can vocalize the word "no" (a commonly held belief in the [[MAA community]] is that children are capable of giving consent to sex).}} | ||
| + | :::: {{arg/question|What is "MAA"? Is the claim about MAA beliefs a supporting or counter argument?}} | ||
| + | :::: {{arg/counter|Redefinitions of other words should be considered on their own merits.}} | ||
Latest revision as of 18:31, 21 September 2010
Overview
This is for discussion of the "slippery slope" argument against gay marriage.
Debate
if we allow gay marriage, we allow anything and everything
This is a slippery slope circular argument – that is, it argues that gay marriage is bad because if we allow it, we might then allow something worse ("something worse" implying that gay marriage is bad, which implies the conclusion in its premise). The same rhetorical statement could be positively rephrased as: If we redefine marriage to include gay couples, then this opens the door for us to continue refining it so it serves everybody to the best possible extent.
Refinement: Redefining "marriage" to include same-sex couples opens the floodgates, giving rise to redefine any terms with which the vocal minority does not agree.
- This is still slippery slope argument, which is circular by nature in that it assumes the proposed change is bad.
- ? Why would we want to avoid opening the floodgates to further redefinitions?
- ? How does redefining one word "open the floodgates" to redefine others?
- ? "Open the floodgates" is an imprecise, emotionally-laden term which does not sufficiently describe what process we fear will occur. What does it actually mean?
- Example: Marriage could be further redefined to be a union with any number of people (Heinlein's S-Marriage / Line Marriage -- see wikipedia:Group marriage).
- ? What's wrong with group marriages?
- Gay marriage falls within the meaning of "marriage", as both a word and a legal term in many cultures throughout history; otherwise the term "gay marriage" would be semantically null.
- Further redefinitions of "marriage" (or any other redefined term) should be considered on their own merits.
- Just because you look at a map and realize you need to walk three blocks north in order to reach your destination does not "open the floodgates" to walking a further three blocks after you have reached it.
- Example: "Adult" could be redefined to mean anyone who can vocalize the word "no" (a commonly held belief in the MAA community is that children are capable of giving consent to sex).
- ? What is "MAA"? Is the claim about MAA beliefs a supporting or counter argument?
- Redefinitions of other words should be considered on their own merits.