4,994
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 353:
Line 353: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Comments: Yes, I think the "Line-drawing" section is problematical
::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
==Section on [[%22Same-sex_marriage%22#Line-drawing_and_the_.22slippery_slope.22_argument|Line-Drawing & Gay Rights]]==
(I tweaked the phrasing to read "Line-drawing and the slippery slope argument," because I think it's best to avoid the phrase "gay rights" here, as I don't think it's Conservapedian consensus that gay marriage is related to legitimate gay "rights.")
RSchlafly says "It is an unsourced gay rights opinion, that maybe belongs elsewhere. It is just one of many gay rights opinions, and it strays too far from the subject matter." I agree. In its present form, on the face of it, it's a personal essay and unsourced opinion by [[User:SpeakerOfTheDead]]. It would not be allowed at Wikipedia.
Both paragraphs begin with weasel terms: "Opponents of same-sex marriage suggest..." and "Gay rights workers suggest..."
In order for it to be valid content in this article, SpeakerOfTheDead needs to show ''by citing sources'' that the slippery-slope argument is an important part of the same-sex marriage debate, not just a peripheral add-on.
That is, he needs to show that opponents are saying something along the lines of "The reason I oppose gay marriage is not so much because of gay marriage in itself, but because of what it could lead to." Rather than "I oppose gay marriage for these moral/religious/societal reasons, oh and by the way here's a bunch of other problems: it would also inevitably lead to legalizing bestiality, etc."
And in my opinion I'd like to see something more than that one remark by Rick Santorum
If this can't be done, I agree that it doesn't belong in the article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:23, 16 May 2007 (EDT)