Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

The New Coffee Room

  1. TNCR
  2. General Discussion
  3. Why stop at throuples?

Why stop at throuples?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Discussion
13 Posts 7 Posters 215 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • 89th8 Offline
    89th8 Offline
    89th
    wrote on last edited by
    #3

    One of my most repeated (and annoying) arguments, back in the old coffee room and early TNCR days, against same-sex marriage was the slippery slope, specifically that polyamorous marriages were much more logically defendable than same-sex marriages.

    Doctor PhibesD 1 Reply Last reply
    • JollyJ Jolly referenced this topic on
    • CopperC Offline
      CopperC Offline
      Copper
      wrote on last edited by
      #4

      The IRS tax forms will have to change to allow hundreds of deductions for hundreds of your relationships.

      1 Reply Last reply
      • LuFins DadL LuFins Dad referenced this topic on
      • 89th8 89th

        One of my most repeated (and annoying) arguments, back in the old coffee room and early TNCR days, against same-sex marriage was the slippery slope, specifically that polyamorous marriages were much more logically defendable than same-sex marriages.

        Doctor PhibesD Offline
        Doctor PhibesD Offline
        Doctor Phibes
        wrote on last edited by
        #5

        @89th said in Why stop at throuples?:

        One of my most repeated (and annoying) arguments, back in the old coffee room and early TNCR days, against same-sex marriage was the slippery slope, specifically that polyamorous marriages were much more logically defendable than same-sex marriages.

        You could just as well use the slippery slope argument as a reason to abolish all forms of marriage

        I was only joking

        1 Reply Last reply
        • JollyJ Jolly referenced this topic on
        • KlausK Offline
          KlausK Offline
          Klaus
          wrote on last edited by
          #6

          Just get rid of the legal notion of marriage and replace it by contracts that arbitrary groups of people can make. Problem solved forever.

          1 Reply Last reply
          • AxtremusA Away
            AxtremusA Away
            Axtremus
            wrote on last edited by
            #7

            "Get your government hands off my marriage!"

            1 Reply Last reply
            • JollyJ Offline
              JollyJ Offline
              Jolly
              wrote on last edited by
              #8

              Why yes!

              Let's fuck up society beyond all recognition, clearing the way for The Man On The White Horse, who will swoop in and dictate what will bring us back to Sanity!

              Damn, you're head-banging stupid.

              Stable and prosperous societies begin with stable and prosperous families. The best way to ensure anarchy and revolution is to first tear apart the family, then the rest of the underpinnings of stability are easy to knock over.

              “Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”

              Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton

              Doctor PhibesD 1 Reply Last reply
              • JollyJ Jolly

                Why yes!

                Let's fuck up society beyond all recognition, clearing the way for The Man On The White Horse, who will swoop in and dictate what will bring us back to Sanity!

                Damn, you're head-banging stupid.

                Stable and prosperous societies begin with stable and prosperous families. The best way to ensure anarchy and revolution is to first tear apart the family, then the rest of the underpinnings of stability are easy to knock over.

                Doctor PhibesD Offline
                Doctor PhibesD Offline
                Doctor Phibes
                wrote on last edited by
                #9

                @Jolly my point was that the slippery slope argument isn’t a very good method, since it can be used to stop us doing or changing anything, ever.

                I was only joking

                89th8 1 Reply Last reply
                • JollyJ Offline
                  JollyJ Offline
                  Jolly
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #10

                  The problem with ignoring slippery slope arguments, is that sometimes there actually exists a slippery slope.

                  “Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”

                  Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  • Doctor PhibesD Doctor Phibes

                    @Jolly my point was that the slippery slope argument isn’t a very good method, since it can be used to stop us doing or changing anything, ever.

                    89th8 Offline
                    89th8 Offline
                    89th
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #11

                    @Doctor-Phibes said in Why stop at throuples?:

                    @Jolly my point was that the slippery slope argument isn’t a very good method, since it can be used to stop us doing or changing anything, ever.

                    Not really, the slope only becomes slippery when there is a significant departure from reason and logic.

                    For example, one could argue the concept of marriage between one man and one woman, adult, and not of the same blood line, not only is vastly supported from a civilized/historical perspective, but also from a health, biological, child-producing perspective. Whereas the concept of two men, or even more adults, simply reflects the concept of a incorporated/unions because...whatever!

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    • 89th8 Offline
                      89th8 Offline
                      89th
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #12

                      9cc3b3a0-405d-4699-87f6-3e54b629ab5f-image.png

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      • 89th8 Offline
                        89th8 Offline
                        89th
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #13

                        Hope the above diagram helps to prove I'm right and you're wrong.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        Reply
                        • Reply as topic
                        Log in to reply
                        • Oldest to Newest
                        • Newest to Oldest
                        • Most Votes


                        • Login

                        • Don't have an account? Register

                        • Login or register to search.
                        • First post
                          Last post
                        0
                        • Categories
                        • Recent
                        • Tags
                        • Popular
                        • Users
                        • Groups