Do same sex marriage opponents commit slippery slope fallacy? (VIDEO)

[valet]

Alan answers the challenge that opponents of same-sex marriage are committing the slippery slope fallacy when they argue that same-sex marriage will lead to other forms of "marriage."

 

[Crakface]

If another morally corrupt group of people piggy back off of homosexuals then obviously the slippery slope is not a fallacy its just that homosexuals are in denial and dont give a fukk as long as they got theres. Ideologically they have to agree with whoever comes behind them......................... pause.

 

[nineteeneightysix]

Smart dude...

I used this EXACT same argument with my sociology Professor, who was a black lesbian, and she hated me for it...

At the end of the day, if gays use the argument that "if consenting adults choose to get married, then they should have the right to get married"...Then this argument can be used for EVERY single type of union involving consenting adults...

If 5 gay men want to inter-marry, then logically how can we say that it is 'wrong'?

 

[JuvenileHell]

Smart dude...

I used this EXACT same argument with my sociology Professor, who was a black lesbian, and she hated me for it...

At the end of the day, if gays use the argument that "if consenting adults choose to get married, then they should have the right to get married"...Then this argument can be used for EVERY single type of union involving consenting adults...

If 5 gay men want to inter-marry, then logically how can we say that it is 'wrong'?

I don't see the problem here...if they're all okay with it, then I don't see the problem.

 

[DEAD7]

Or we could remove the rights attached to marriage altogether.

 

[sun raw]

Smart dude...

I used this EXACT same argument with my sociology Professor, who was a black lesbian, and she hated me for it...

At the end of the day, if gays use the argument that "if consenting adults choose to get married, then they should have the right to get married"...Then this argument can be used for EVERY single type of union involving consenting adults...

If 5 gay men want to inter-marry, then logically how can we say that it is 'wrong'?

then the obvious answer to that is that marriage is for two legal consenting adults, i imagine a person who supports gay marriage isn't necessarily in favor of polygamy and i think you'd be hard-pressed to find many people in favor of polygamy, unless they're hardcore mormons

the problem i think that people have is that they believe the argument is "marriage is anything you want it to be" which is really far from the truth

 

[Family Man]

The slippery slope is more about family than marriage. Fags will now try to raise kids and shyt. Children shouldn't be in a household with two fakkits trying to raise them. Keep the fakkits away from the children. Why do you liberal CACs and new age c00ns hate the kids?

 

[sun raw]

there are many many people not fit to raise kids in the united states but nothing's stopping them from doing so

also kids are terrible, they can go to hell

 

[GoddamnyamanProf]

1. If the definition of marriage is expanded to include same-sex couples, then it will also be expanded to include other kinds of marriages, such as polygamy and bestiality.
2. These other kinds of marriages are dangerous or bad for either the people involved or for society.
3. We shouldn't allow these other kinds of marriages.
4. Therefore we shouldn't allow same-sex marriages.

I think this summarizes the argument against same-sex marriage being used here. The weakness of this position is clear, however. If what's bad about same-sex marriage is only extrinsic, in that it is allegedly conducive to other marriages that are bad, why can't those other kinds of marriages be opposed in virtue of their own badness? The argument "A is harmless but A leads to B, and B is harmful" depends on their being no possibility of preventing the move from A to B. In the case of the expansion of marriage, this is simply not credible. If the state can show a reasonable interest in prohibiting polygamy, for example (as has been done since the mid-1800s), why should the institution of same-sex marriage be expected to change that?

The reason why opposition to same-sex marriage is melting away is that people are recognizing that (a) no one is harmed by the practice; (b) some people are benefited by the practice. If legally binding monogamous relationships are good for society, as many would argue, society itself benefits by not excluding same-sex couples. If sexual promiscuity has a negative effect on society, as many would argue, it makes no sense to oppose measures, such as same-sex marriage, that work to reduce promiscuity.

^ Discussion over.

Guy in the video spends all his time pleading that he's not using a slippery slope fallacy, then concludes with "so when you expand marriage to include same-sex couples, you open it up to defining marriage any way you want!" aka the exact fallacy he was claiming not to use. Truly an exceptional case of idiocy.

Hey conservative clowns, how about staying the fukk out of people's personal lives?

 

[tmonster]

If 5 gay men want to inter-marry, then logically how can we say that it is 'wrong'?

why would I give a shyt enough to even find myself in a conversation where i am pontificating why they are wrong for doing THAT?
serious question

 

[tmonster]

then the obvious answer to that is that marriage is for two legal consenting adults, i imagine a person who supports gay marriage isn't necessarily in favor of polygamy and i think you'd be hard-pressed to find many people in favor of polygamy, unless they're hardcore mormons

the problem i think that people have is that they believe the argument is "marriage is anything you want it to be" which is really far from the truth

why does it have to be TWO? I can see why it has to be ADULTS and I can see why everyone involved has to be consenting, but why doe sit have to be TWO?

 

[tmonster]

^ Discussion over.

Guy in the video spends all his time pleading that he's not using a slippery slope fallacy, then concludes with "so when you expand marriage to include same-sex couples, you open it up to defining marriage any way you want!" aka the exact fallacy he was claiming not to use. Truly an exceptional case of idiocy.

Hey conservative clowns, how about staying the fukk out of people's personal lives?

so glad I did not bother watching the video:zfg:

 

[tmonster]

Smart dude...

I used this EXACT same argument with my sociology Professor, who was a black lesbian, and she hated me for it...

At the end of the day, if gays use the argument that "if consenting adults choose to get married, then they should have the right to get married"...Then this argument can be used for EVERY single type of union involving consenting adults...

If 5 gay men want to inter-marry, then logically how can we say that it is 'wrong'?

but you have no receipts though :zfg:

 

[sun raw]

why does it have to be TWO? I can see why it has to be ADULTS and I can see why everyone involved has to be consenting, but why doe sit have to be TWO?

I don't think it necessarily has to be two but I also don't see polygamy being the next cause due to too many bad associations with Mormons and shyt. I also think marriage as an institution has problems that need to be addressed, problems that are magnified even more when you get into the area of more than 2 people marrying.

 

[tmonster]

I don't think it necessarily has to be two but I also don't see polygamy being the next cause due to too many bad associations with Mormons and shyt. I also think marriage as an institution has problems that need to be addressed, problems that are magnified even more when you get into the area of more than 2 people marrying.

long as it is their problem and not mine