Same Sex Marriage Foes = Bible Thumpers

[Mighty AC]

The idea that the same sex marriage opposition has no grounds for their position beyond religious belief is not new. Of course, religious belief can never be used to back policy arguments; freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. If a person's belief system forbids certain behaviours or acts they should feel free to refrain from performing them. However, their belief system should not prevent others from making their own choices.

The interesting part this time is that Bill O'Reilly is the one preaching this message. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/26/bill-oreilly-says-same-sex-marriage-foes-are-just-a-bunch-of-bible-thumpers/

“I agree with you 100 percent, the compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals,” O’Reilly said. “That is where the compelling argument is. We’re Americans, we just want to be treated like everybody else.”

“That’s a compelling argument, and to deny that you’ve got to have a very strong argument on the other side. And the other side hasn’t been able to do anything but thump the Bible.”

I wonder if this is part of the expected end to the courtship of the Christian right or just an O'Reilly idiosyncrasy.

[kimmy]

For those who really honestly believe in small government, it's the obvious position. The question, for them, is not "why should the government legally sanction gay marriages?" but rather "why should the government be involved in marriage at all?"

Bill says that he's always supported the idea of civil unions, and remains "meh" on the use of the word "marriage". I can't vouch for that, but I see no reason to doubt it.

One thing I will point out: if you have seen Bill O'Reilly's famous interview with David Silverman, you're familiar with the "tide comes in, tide goes out, you can't explain that" exchange, where Silverman was (for the first and only time in his life) struck momentarily speechless, able to respond only with the facial expression that everyone now recognizes:

or better known as

I read an interview with Silverman in which he was asked what was going through his mind at that precise moment. Silverman responded that that was the moment where he realized that the Bill O'Reilly you see on TV is a character he portrays. He explained that prior to the on-air segment, he had an excellent chat with O'Reilly backstage, where Bill asked him many good questions and was up-to-date with American Atheists and seemed to have a thoughtful and well-informed understanding of atheist issues. Then they get on-air, and Bill comes out with "tide comes in, tide goes out, you can't explain that", and that's when Silverman says he realized that it was just a game that O'Reilly plays for his audience.

I have not watched the Jon Stewart-Bill O'Reilly debate, although I heard it was excellent and well worth watching. However, people who have watched it say that they were similarly impressed with Bill O'Reilly in that he showed a level of insight and intellect and warmth that he doesn't normally share with his TV audience.

In short, I think that Bill O'Reilly isn't really a buffoon, he just plays one on TV.


-k

Edited March 31, 2013 by kimmy

[Mighty AC]

The O'Reilly-Stewart debate was really good. I think you're right about Bill's dumbass Christian right shtick though. He was in character for most of the actual debate but during the interview portion some of his real personality came through.

I wonder if this shift in his on air persona is a calculated move though. Many analysts have predicted the tea party and Christian influence over the repubs will diminish as they move back towards sanity. Bill may just be trying to keep his act relevant.

[Mighty AC]

Bill may be putting on a show for the crazies, but it looks like Rush is the real deal. Limbaugh on marriage equality: ‘Who’s to say you cannot have sex with a child?’ Yep...to Rush equal marriage rights are a slippery slope to legalized pedophilia.

[GostHacked]

Since it is just an act, why do people take Bill-o seriously on anything?

[bush_cheney2004]

Bill may be putting on a show for the crazies, but it looks like Rush is the real deal. Limbaugh on marriage equality: ‘Who’s to say you cannot have sex with a child?’ Yep...to Rush equal marriage rights are a slippery slope to legalized pedophilia.

This is/was possible before so called "equal marriage", where marriages for males is permitted after age 16 (with parental consent), and before age 16 for females under certain circumstances in Canada. Technically. "equal marriage" rights for consenting adults could also lead to inter-familial marriages, incest, etc., which are currently illegal. Rush is pushing these kind of possible outcomes for obvious reasons.

[Guest Derek L]

For those who really honestly believe in small government, it's the obvious position. The question, for them, is not "why should the government legally sanction gay marriages?" but rather "why should the government be involved in marriage at all?"

Bill says that he's always supported the idea of civil unions, and remains "meh" on the use of the word "marriage". I can't vouch for that, but I see no reason to doubt it.

One thing I will point out: if you have seen Bill O'Reilly's famous interview with David Silverman, you're familiar with the "tide comes in, tide goes out, you can't explain that" exchange, where Silverman was (for the first and only time in his life) struck momentarily speechless, able to respond only with the facial expression that everyone now recognizes:

or better known as

I read an interview with Silverman in which he was asked what was going through his mind at that precise moment. Silverman responded that that was the moment where he realized that the Bill O'Reilly you see on TV is a character he portrays. He explained that prior to the on-air segment, he had an excellent chat with O'Reilly backstage, where Bill asked him many good questions and was up-to-date with American Atheists and seemed to have a thoughtful and well-informed understanding of atheist issues. Then they get on-air, and Bill comes out with "tide comes in, tide goes out, you can't explain that", and that's when Silverman says he realized that it was just a game that O'Reilly plays for his audience.

I have not watched the Jon Stewart-Bill O'Reilly debate, although I heard it was excellent and well worth watching. However, people who have watched it say that they were similarly impressed with Bill O'Reilly in that he showed a level of insight and intellect and warmth that he doesn't normally share with his TV audience.

In short, I think that Bill O'Reilly isn't really a buffoon, he just plays one on TV.

-k

I never saw the episode with Silverman, but I’m forced to ask those that either deride or are surprised by Bill O’Reilly from time to time, if they have actually ever watched his show (aside from Media Maters clips) and/or read any of his books? (I’m reading Killing Lincoln and have read Bold Fresh, Pinheads and Patriots and Culture Warrior and have enjoyed all of his books)

The “persona” painted of him by his critics is highly inaccurate…….. As are the charges that he is in bed with the GOP and/or Tea Party (That’s the guy on after him)……..

Edited April 2, 2013 by Derek L

[Pliny]

For those who really honestly believe in small government, it's the obvious position. The question, for them, is not "why should the government legally sanction gay marriages?" but rather "why should the government be involved in marriage at all?"

-k

Exactly. The institution of marriage has been heavily subsidized by government and death or inheritance lawsas well. Divorce is another matter.

Why should gays be denied the advantages? But really why should there be advantages. Gay divorces will be pretty ugly, I think.

I think they also violated the Constitution when they gave everyone a holiday at Christmas, seems like a law regarding

an establishment of religion, particularly Christian religious establishments. You could argue it is about the Christian religion in general and not a particular religious establishment. Still it is beneficial to Christian Religious establishments.

Edited April 2, 2013 by Pliny

[Mighty AC]

This is/was possible before so called "equal marriage", where marriages for males is permitted after age 16 (with parental consent), and before age 16 for females under certain circumstances in Canada. Technically. "equal marriage" rights for consenting adults could also lead to inter-familial marriages, incest, etc., which are currently illegal. Rush is pushing these kind of possible outcomes for obvious reasons.

Yep, I believe knocked up females under 16 can be married in Alberta, with parental consent.

Slippery slope arguments hold little water. All the same alarmist, slippery slope arguments were made by the Christian right in Canada almost 10 years ago. They made claims that equal marriage would lead to legalized bestiality, incest, pedophilia, etc. Granting equal marriage rights to all human beings does not open the door to any other alarmist claim. As always when creating new laws there is a risk that poor writing can create loopholes that have to be filled, but it's a minimal risk.

The fact that guys like Limbaugh and Robertson use their alarmist arguments to push for the denial of rights instead of a call for well written equal laws shows their true intentions.

[Pliny]

Yep, I believe knocked up females under 16 can be married in Alberta, with parental consent.

Slippery slope arguments hold little water. All the same alarmist, slippery slope arguments were made by the Christian right in Canada almost 10 years ago. They made claims that equal marriage would lead to legalized bestiality, incest, pedophilia, etc. Granting equal marriage rights to all human beings does not open the door to any other alarmist claim. As always when creating new laws there is a risk that poor writing can create loopholes that have to be filled, but it's a minimal risk.

The fact that guys like Limbaugh and Robertson use their alarmist arguments to push for the denial of rights instead of a call for well written equal laws shows their true intentions.

Why do slippery slope arguments hold little water? The subject of gay marriage is a perfect example of the slippery slope in actuality. Privileges are granted to married couples per the dictionary definition of marriage in recognition of formal vows taken. Then unmarried couples, living common law, don't get those privileges and someone thinks they should because hardships are experienced in taxation, splits or inheritance laws, so laws are made to include them, then gays want those privileges. It's a slippery slope in plain view.

You grant a "right" to someone and then the law has to hold the line, eventually it breaks down, the "right" expands, mainly because it is a right granted by government where laws are to be applied equally to all. What's wrong with polygamy, for instance. It is an accepted model and part of the fabric of some cultures. Is western society multi-cultural? Can it deny parts of some cultures besides those that attempt to supersede or override Canadian justice and penal codes? Who gets hurt in polygamous relationships?

[Mighty AC]

Slippery slope arguments hold little water because the imagined consequences are not automatic. Each additional change has to be won on its own merit.

The fact that existing marriage laws no longer exclude same sex couples does not automatically make it acceptable or legal to marry a horse or bang a child. Equal marriage rights have and continue to be won on logical reasonable grounds just like interracial marriages in the 60's. Those who advocate for legalized bestiality, pedophilia or polygamy will have to win those rights with their own set of reasonable arguments.

[Guest Derek L]

Hmmm and Tonight's talking points:

April 2, 2013

The left-wing media, Rush Limbaugh and me:

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/index.html

Edited April 3, 2013 by Derek L

[Pliny]

Slippery slope arguments hold little water because the imagined consequences are not automatic. Each additional change has to be won on its own merit.

The fact that existing marriage laws no longer exclude same sex couples does not automatically make it acceptable or legal to marry a horse or bang a child. Equal marriage rights have and continue to be won on logical reasonable grounds just like interracial marriages in the 60's. Those who advocate for legalized bestiality, pedophilia or polygamy will have to win those rights with their own set of reasonable arguments.

Each privilege granted one sector will lead to a demand for inclusion or equal privilege from another. The substance is irrelevant. It is highly unusual to argue to eliminate an initial privilege granted, it is generally argued to add to it.

Of course privileges don't follow automatically. They will be argued. They can't be argued at all if no one has a privilege in the first place.

[Mighty AC]

That's a long way to say nothing. Like I said the alarmist consequences of slippery slope arguments are not automatic and must be fought for separately, thus the entire slope premise holds no water.

[Pliny]

That's a long way to say nothing. Like I said the alarmist consequences of slippery slope arguments are not automatic and must be fought for separately, thus the entire slope premise holds no water.

Don't know how you can conclude that when it has already occurred. I will say you never know where it will take you but

when you provide the opportunity it will go somewhere.

[The_Squid]

Don't know how you can conclude that when it has already occurred. I will say you never know where it will take you butwhen you provide the opportunity it will go somewhere.

Perhaps they should have thought about that when they let straight people marry each other. It was inevitably going to lead to gay marriages eventually....

[Mighty AC]

Straight to legalized bestiality and pedophilia according to the Christian right or the so called 'moral majority.'

First off those arguments are the same dehumanizing, immoral statements that were made when interracial marriage rights were being fought for. Second, using slippery slope arguments just indicates that a person has no actual grounds for their position and thus has to invent a possible eventual problem.

What guys like Rush don't realize is that by resorting to the invalid slippery slope concept they are actually making a case for equal marriage. Their argument states that there is nothing inherently wrong with equal marriage rights for homosexuals but they believe it will lead to legalized bestiality and pedophilia. The simple response to that, and any other slippery slope argument, is great we know where to draw the line then. Gay marriage is allowed, but banging animals, children or any living creature that cannot knowledgeably consent to sexual intercourse is not. Problem solved.

[Bonam]

Mighty AC, is your assertion that slippery slope arguments are inherently and always invalid? The slippery slope argument can be a fallacy, but it can also be a valid argument when the steps down the slope are well defined.

[Guest]

If a slippery slope can be identified it can be avoided.

I have the same argument with regards to the issue of assisted suicide. It will inevitably lead to the euthanization of non consenting elderly patients who can't afford medical care. Then the disabled, then the ugly, and on.

Unless you don't let it.

[Pliny]

Perhaps they should have thought about that when they let straight people marry each other. It was inevitably going to lead to gay marriages eventually....

The definition of marriage being the union of a man and a woman was not contested before government attached rights to it. Only when someone benefits from a situation will you see someone else demanding inclusion and the possibility of a slippery slope developing.

What actually is the benefit of marriage when government benefits are not considered. There is simply a commitment to one another. Perhaps a vow of trust established. I'm guessing there may be a few gays interested in commitment but for the most part they probably prefer the freedom of promiscuity. Why complicate the relationship with legal implications?

[Pliny]

If a slippery slope can be identified it can be avoided.

I have the same argument with regards to the issue of assisted suicide. It will inevitably lead to the euthanization of non consenting elderly patients who can't afford medical care. Then the disabled, then the ugly, and on.

Unless you don't let it.

There has to be a benefit to someone and that is all that is necessary. He will then plead his case. He will seek support. He will engage a sympathetic politician. You know how it works. It's progressivism where should that stop? Some don't think it should stop until the total State has been realized. I'm sure you have a limit somewhere at which point you become a Conservative.

[Guest]

There has to be a benefit to someone and that is all that is necessary. He will then plead his case. He will seek support. He will engage a sympathetic politician. You know how it works. It's progressivism where should that stop? Some don't think it should stop until the total State has been realized. I'm sure you have a limit somewhere at which point you become a Conservative.

That's exactly my point. I would not deny two people the right to marry because of the possibility of that happening. One has to be aware and stop that from happening. Unless he has a point. In which case it wouldn't matter.

A good example is the tragic case out of the UK that came to an end this week with the jailing for life of a father of umpteen kids who had killed about six of them in a house fire. Forgetting for a moment that awful aspect of the case, look at his welfare. He defrauded no-one, as far as I know, but by playing the system he managed to get benefits of $100000/year. He had a full size snooker table on which to wile away the hours he wasn't working.

I can't imagine anyone advocating for a complete denial of welfare payments to anyone who applies just to keep ******** like him from taking advantage of the system. The trick is to make sure he can't, while still providing welfare to deserving cases. Make sure the slope isn't slippery.

Edited April 5, 2013 by bcsapper

[Mighty AC]

Mighty AC, is your assertion that slippery slope arguments are inherently and always invalid? The slippery slope argument can be a fallacy, but it can also be a valid argument when the steps down the slope are well defined.

Yes I believe they are always invalid. The concept is we should not allow step 1 because step 1+n is undesirable. This is invalid because each step is a separate event requiring separate arguments.

[Bonam]

Yes I believe they are always invalid. The concept is we should not allow step 1 because step 1+n is undesirable. This is invalid because each step is a separate event requiring separate arguments.

Unless step 1 leads by reasonable and substantiated arguments to step 2, and then step 3, and then step 4, all the way to n, which is the undesirable step. As long as steps 2 through n can reasonably be viewed as consequences (or likely consequences) of step 1, rather than their own independent events, then the argument is valid.

Think of an obvious example. Should the US have nuked the USSR during the cold war?

Step 1: Send the missiles at them. Immediate consequences: They get destroyed, we win the cold war, yay.

Step 2: They detect the incoming nukes.

Step 3: They decide to retaliate in kind.

Step 4: They send nukes at us. We get destroyed. Oh no~

What is the difference between this and a fallacious slippery slope argument? Only that we know that there are very strong arguments that step 1 in fact leads to 2 leads to 3 leads to 4.

In the end, the slippery slope is merely an argument that illustrates the eventual consequences of an action. It is justified if the consequences, however many steps down the road, can reasonably be tied to the action. It is fallacious if the consequences cannot be reasonably tied to the action.

[Mighty AC]

It comes down to how we define what steps are. I've been treating steps like decision points.

Using the equal marriage and Rush Limbaugh example: Legal bestiality is not a consequence of step 1, it requires one or more decisions (law changes) to be made in between. Since, each step requires decisions to be made, the slippery slope concept is fallacious.

In your nuke example I'd argue that there is only 1 step and then consequences, since, there are no more decisions to be made by the actor in step 1. In my opinion, your example is not a slippery slope example, but rather just a list of the direct consequences of step 1.

If the slippery slope concept is used as a synonym for predicting the direct consequences of a single action then it still fallacious in the equal marriage example, but not fallacious 100% of the time.

Edited April 5, 2013 by Mighty AC