Lazy title: Blog about gay marriage.

Some slippery slope arguments are only sound so far as there exist few mechanisms to retard or stop the slippages referred to in their conclusions. To argue that myriad, broadly believed to be immoral, relationships will form as consequence and must therefore be accepted because they rest on like premises, is simplistic on its face, and highly insulting to boot. Adult homosexuals may have their arguments logically extended for use in pro polygamy, bestial, what have you, marriage, but the inability to argue from the different predicates for homosexual relationships against the predicates of other relationship, would be the fault of the courts or legislature, not homosexuals.

From the standpoint of equal protection, and how that might be used to assist in the legalizaion of unwanted consequential relationships supposed to be caused by gay marriage, the more relevant questions to a society which disdains them are what constitutional arguments, and what legal distinctions, exist to support prohibiting them.

To the matter of religious freedom, ala the Constitution, it should also be considered that marriage as an institution is ancient, and inherently natural in formation in any society where the mutual benefits of marriage are understood, and where loyalty is favored and may have associations which extend past the limitations that exist in most major religions. Inversing the more common argument that government should not interfere with religion, it can then be argued that giving into the demands of specific religions is favoritism because it prevents other religions from having legal recognition of what they recognize, the moral acceptability of, in this case, gay marriage.

The legalistic arguments against gay marriage boil down to telling homosexuals not that their aspirations are wrong, but that the possible assistance to other groups request for the same level of recognition, means they should be indefinitely prevented from achieving their goal. The moral arguments boil down to, the Bible says so, that’s it.

Health arguments might have validity, I don’t know, but that is for science, allowing for new understandings thereby, to determine, not philosophical and theological argumentation.
Thus have I spoken.

“But others do it too.” “Not all are like that.” Do those comments annoy you as well?

Am I the only one who finds it highly annoying how some people feel the need to state the obvious about how “not all men are like this” and how some women do “it” too?
Suppose you are discussing religion, and instead of debating the facts and merits of what’s in the Koran, if that’s the religion in question, someone has to interrupt with what the Bible says and how that justifiess or condemns the Koran. Or, if some 15 year old girl wants to vent about boys, someone has to talk about how not all boys are bad. Really? It’s not only stating the obvious, it, at least in the religious debate example, is bad logic, because it serves as a distraction and method of avoidance.

It seems as if people think they are smart for making these points. What? Some liberals are pro gun. Some conservatives are environmentalists. Oh, my mind can’t take it. Thank goodness I’ve been saved from that stereotype.

How much would humanitarian interest and effort change if the US left Iraq?

I base this question on the notion that US involvement in global matters seems to increase interest in them, so, whatever the security implications could be, I wonder how much media coverage would change if the US left. If it decreases, which I lean toward believing it would, would that also lessen the affect on the public, thereby reducing their activism and donation on behalf of the Iraqi people? By how much, if at all, would this happen?

I don't blame Austria for what Josef Fritzl did

But its punitive system, at least in the following example, is a joke, and not a funny one.

The father [Josef Fritzl] faces up to 15 years in prison if convicted on
rape charges, the most grave of his alleged offenses. However, prosecutors are
investigating whether he can be charged with "murder through failure to act" in
connection with the infant's death, a crime punishable by up to 20 years in
prison.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080501/ap_on_re_eu/austria_captive_daughter

Really, what's the point? Well, he likely doesn't have many years left anyway. He's in his early 70s, 73, if I'm not mistaken. I also feel sorry for his wife, who, by the accounts I've read and heard, was truly unaware of what happened. I just imagine the poor woman wanting to scratch her face in guilt and terror.

The only real justice, admittedly in the revenge sense of the word, would be for all of that family to tear the demon dad to shreds, but that would make them into monsters, or teach them lessons they shouldn't be taught, but there's no doubt he would deserve it.

Austria, increase the punishment for rape. 15 years for multiple charges of rape, especially ones that lead to forced births, is not enlightened and civilized, it's flat evil.