Aha...so the slippery slope argument is valid. The key distinction is that in the case of gay marriage, the slope provides for the continued REMOVAL of rights, whereas the slope for say, legalization, provides for the continued ADDITION of rights.
While we'd all agree not EVERY right should be granted, its certainly preferable to have too many rights, vs too few. This is a pretty cool conclusion, I dig it. In the words of Stan (or is it Kyle?): "I've learned something here today...." > > Touche, Sir G! Your foil is always sharp. > > I would say that there's a difference here: In both cases you're > talking about the federal gov't legislating morality and controlling > freedom rather than allowing the states to do it. In both cases > that's wrong. > > Further, personal freedoms only "slip" when they deprive another of > his or her personal freedoms. I guess we can extend this to > wolverines on the premise that they aren't capable of making adult, > sound mind judgements. > > Put another way, the slippery slope argument is historical fact where > applied to ever more powerful centralized authorities. When applied > to personal freedoms the line is clear: where your pursuit of > happiness inhibits another's is where your freedoms end. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:159957 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
