Senate meeting event

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Did anyone, by any chance, see the C-SPAN senate conversation on today? I believe the speaker was Sen. Rick Santorum. It seemed very lengthy, and if I heard correctly, I did not agree with what he had to say.


It seemed like he was supporting a defensive marriage amendment to the constitution, and his reasonaing behind it didn't sound to well-thought. It seemed as if he were saying: Marriage will collapse if it isn't stipulated what marriage is. He then went on to describe a lot of "horrible" things that would occure if marriage weren't protected.

1. Wouldn't this be like a slippery slope fallacy?

2. Also, most of the information he was using to support his case rested on "the majority would agree marriage needs to be protected." That doesn't seem like a relevant reason to make such a claim.

3. Most of the information he supplied had no real bearing on the situation, it was a lot of philosophy quotes and analogies that didn't make sense.

He also showed declining marriage rates in belgium (I think) HOw the hell does this affect the issue? If you legalize gay/lesbian marriage, marriages will all of the sudden drop??? Will straight couples stop marrying???? That didn't make sense.

Please tell me if I misunderstood him. I don't think gay marriage should have any impact on the number of straight marriages.

[Spice Runner]

I didn't see the C-Span coverage of the senate.
But if Santorum ranted about marriage collapsing and marriage rates dropping if gay marriage is allowed, that sounds like a slippery slope fallacy to me. If its not, he's still an idiot.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

That is what it sounded like. I couldn't follow his reasoning at all. He acted as if people would stop getting married and it needed to be protected right now!

Anyone who disagrees with him was "telling little lies to himself so he could sleep at night."

[Spice Runner]

Fundie morons like him typically don't use logical reasoning. Whenever they open their mouths, they leave us thinking WTF?

[Talon Karrde]

2. Also, most of the information he was using to support his case rested on "the majority would agree marriage needs to be protected." That doesn't seem like a relevant reason to make such a claim.

Why not? Isn't that why we elect representative leaders, to represent our beliefs?

[Talon Karrde]

Fundie morons like him typically don't use logical reasoning. Whenever they open their mouths, they leave us thinking WTF?

One could say the same thing about "non-fundies" such as yourself. Fundies just happen to think that you have a right to your opinion just as he does his.

[Elfdart]

When it comes to law, the "slippery slope" is not a fallacy. Legal decisions are based on precedent, unless the legislature makes new law or a higher court overrules the lower court.

The problem with fag-bashing losers like Santorum is that they create false or ludicrous slippery slopes. He is hung up on the idea of incest being legalized, which makes me wonder if he has a really hot sister or something. There are rational, practical reasons to outlaw incest without reaching for Leviticus, while there aren't any such reasons for making gay marriage illegal. And don't get me started on our own local hero, Senator John "Turtlefucker" Cornyn. Suffice it to say that only humans can consent to have sex or enter into contracts with humans.

I understand Cornyn and Santorum high-fived each other after a meeting. They should be glad the Supreme Court overturned the sodomy laws, since before the ruling they could have faced jail time. Under the sodomy laws, it was illegal for an asshole to be touched by a prick.

[Vympel]

When it comes to law, the "slippery slope" is not a fallacy. Legal decisions are based on precedent, unless the legislature makes new law or a higher court overrules the lower court.

Don't understand what you mean- Precedent is based on applying principles established in previous cases to new ones, so long as both cases have sufficiently similar facts to merit the comparison (if not, the case is distinguished, and voila, new precedent).

I understand Cornyn and Santorum high-fived each other after a meeting. They should be glad the Supreme Court overturned the sodomy laws, since before the ruling they could have faced jail time. Under the sodomy laws, it was illegal for an asshole to be touched by a prick.

LOL.

[Durandal]

I understand Cornyn and Santorum high-fived each other after a meeting. They should be glad the Supreme Court overturned the sodomy laws, since before the ruling they could have faced jail time. Under the sodomy laws, it was illegal for an asshole to be touched by a prick.

Oh THAT'S going in the FUQ.

[Spice Runner]

One could say the same thing about "non-fundies" such as yourself. Fundies just happen to think that you have a right to your opinion just as he does his.

I respect his right to have an opinion. However I don't respect him trying to take the definition of marriage that a certain group holds and making a constitutional amendment.

[Andrew J.]

2. Also, most of the information he was using to support his case rested on "the majority would agree marriage needs to be protected." That doesn't seem like a relevant reason to make such a claim.

Why not? Isn't that why we elect representative leaders, to represent our beliefs?

True, but we also have safeguards to protect minorities from being dominated by majorities. This is a republic, not a pure democracy.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

It was very disturbing to say the least. Every senator who came on after him (who supported his idea) used the same bogus logic and arguments. I think every other senator was for it.

[RedImperator]

It was very disturbing to say the least. Every senator who came on after him (who supported his idea) used the same bogus logic and arguments. I think every other senator was for it.

That seems about right, considering the vote. 54-46 against, if I recall correctly.

That's right, they didn't even get a majority, let alone a supermajority. They won't get one in the House, either. The issue isn't dead yet, but I predict what we'll see now is the same thing we've been seeing with the flag burning amendment--everybody makes a lot of noise during election years, the amendment never manages to pass both houses, and then it winds up back at the bottom of the pile because even Senators and Congressmen are smart enough to realize they've got more important things to do than waste time on twiddledick issues like this.

[Elfdart]

I understand Cornyn and Santorum high-fived each other after a meeting. They should be glad the Supreme Court overturned the sodomy laws, since before the ruling they could have faced jail time. Under the sodomy laws, it was illegal for an asshole to be touched by a prick.

Oh THAT'S going in the FUQ.

That joke is pretty old. I know John Henry Faulk used it back in the seventies. From this day forth, let Senator Cornyn be dubbed:

Turtlefucker!