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

[Dooby]

Polygamy, in the United States, is probably mostly known when talking about Mormon, which is embroiled in a whole lot of shyt involving underage brides and coercion. So the issue is that they're not consenting and they're not adults. And the incest taboo exists partly because of the effects of inbreeding and partly because when you're talking sexual relations between family members, you're entering the realm of sexual abuse.

Pure speculation. And of course it would be legal only between consenting adults...ffs is that the best you have?

 

[GoddamnyamanProf]

But it's a valid argument. And no, because we are not saying consenting adults should do anything they want until trying to justify homosexuality came along.

And who's in the deep red and who's in the deep green? Just remember that. You're the one with the Scarlet L.

Allowing two people to marry is a just cause and nobody is being harmed. If you're not a homosexual and you dont associate with them, simply allowing them the free will to be with the person they love like anyone else should have absolutely zero effect on you. All of these false comparisons have long been disproven time and again. Furthermore, taking a stance against marriage rights for no tangible reason results in harm to individuals and to our credibility as a moral societym You have no logical OR objective moral ground to stand on. No, fairy tales from a thosand years ago are not valid.

Rep is irrelevant because there's a lot of shytty posters like yourself that are quick to neg in lieu of being able to hold a conversation. The fact that you have positive rep and the WOAT title says it all.

 

[GoddamnyamanProf]

Pure speculation. And of course it would be legal only between consenting adults...ffs is that the best you have?

So if you're now dismissing the actual moral issues often related to incestual and polygamous relationships and contending that only those between consenting adults with no abusive nature would be legal...the question then becomes again: What's the problem? The fukk business is it of yours?

 

[sun raw]

Pure speculation. And of course it would be legal only between consenting adults...ffs is that the best you have?

What's pure speculation? That stuff about polygamy and the church of latter day saints is pretty true. And you'd be hard pressed to find instances of incest that didn't involve sexual abuse. Additionally, polygamy would involve having to restructure many things about marriage as they relate to tax, custody, etc. Do you want the moral argument or the political argument? I gave you both.

Look ultimately these scenarios are besides the point because gay marriage fits itself into the framework of marriage as it is defined today. They're not talking about multiple people marrying, they're talking about two consenting adults that want to be recognized as bonded under law.

 

[tmonster]

It was difficult to word it. I'll try again.

The argument is:

Why should you restrict consenting adults from doing something?

If you use that argument to justify something being right, how many other deviant behaviors can use that same exact argument?

Lots.

So who would be able to tell polygamists or incestuous people, no?

no that's not the argument
you forgot something:zfg::yasure::youthink::zfg:

 

[nineteeneightysix]

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

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

I am in agreement...

The "consenting adults" argument pretty much justifies all types of perverted fukkery....

but you have no receipts though :zfg:

I don't get it...

 

[Dooby]

So if you're now dismissing the actual moral issues often related to incestual and polygamous relationships and contending that only those between consenting adults with no abusive nature would be legal...the question then becomes again: What's the problem? The fukk business is it of yours?

Why are you labeling me? Not once did I say anything disparaging of gay marriage itt.

 

[Pinyapplesuckas]

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.

people still dont know homosexuality does not equal pedophilia?

 

[Dooby]

Allowing two people to marry is a just cause and nobody is being harmed. If you're not a homosexual and you dont associate with them, simply allowing them the free will to be with the person they love like anyone else should have absolutely zero effect on you. All of these false comparisons have long been disproven time and again. Furthermore, taking a stance against marriage rights for no tangible reason results in harm to individuals and to our credibility as a moral societym You have no logical OR objective moral ground to stand on. No, fairy tales from a thosand years ago are not valid.

Rep is irrelevant because there's a lot of shytty posters like yourself that are quick to neg in lieu of being able to hold a conversation. The fact that you have positive rep and the WOAT title says it all.

Hm you seem to be taking a strange tangent to the argument at hand. You claimed the slippery slope argument the video author used is not valid. Are you still trying to argue that or are you trying to change subjects here.

So this is the argument. Consenting adults partaking in an activity that brings no harm to others and the partaking in this activity has no effect on others should make that activity right? Am I correct? Is this your stance?

 

[Family Man]

people still dont know homosexuality does not equal pedophilia?

I'm not talking about pedophilia. By default two fakkits should not be allowed to raise kids.

 

[Pinyapplesuckas]

I'm not talking about pedophilia. By default two fakkits should not be allowed to raise kids.

whats the logic then?

 

[nineteeneightysix]

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

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

I am in agreement...

The "consenting adults" argument pretty much justifies all types of perverted fukkery....

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

(1) I was a university student taking a sociology class when the debate about gay marriage led to all the changes in the Canadian law...My professor who was a lesbian brought up the topic, I thought as a professor, she was being VERY biased in supporting same sex marriage, instead of taking a more objective stance...Being the person that I am, I challenged her...

She did like my challenge...She tried to say that "oh, I know you are going to talk about bestiality, necrophilia and paedophilia, but in those situations there is an issue with consent, a dead body, under age child and animal can't give consent"

Then I asked her "what if 20 adult gay men or women consented to intermarry with each other?"...She quickly brushed off the subject, I didn't want to embarrass her, so I dropped it...

(2) People are different...Some people don't really think about existence and the meaning of these social rules that we are just making up as we go along...They are just happy following tradition and social norms...

Some people can't help but to think about all the hypocrisy in human society...

(3) Just to expand...I DON'T believe in "right or wrong" "good or evil"...Gay marriage is NOT wrong, group marriage (polygamy) is NOT wrong, sex with a girl who has had her first period or a boy who has had his first ejaculation is NOT wrong...

In the grand scale of the universe, NO action is right/wrong or good/evil...

Actions have consequences, and to determine whether an act was right/wrong and/or good/evil, one will have to know the FINAL consequence of that action, but that's IMPOSSIBLE for any human to do because we only to about 80 years, and time keeps pushing forward...Therefore, we ultimately can never know if any act was good/evil or right/wrong, because we can never know the final consequence of that act...

However, in the small scale of human society, I understand the need for law/religion to keep people within the boundaries of what the majority deem socially acceptable...

In conclusion,
I am a thinker with multiple perspectives...I don't allow myself to think in terms of right/wrong or good/evil...Consequently, I have a critical open-mind about people and their behaviours...

 

[Jhoon]

should the government legislate such ideas? lets take it further: who is capable of raising children?

I'm not talking about pedophilia. By default two fakkits should not be allowed to raise kids.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

Pure speculation. And of course it would be legal only between consenting adults...ffs is that the best you have?

Its not speculation at all.... underaged wives are a big and well documented problem in Mormon camps... incest is a big and well documented problem in the south

Much of people's gripes with gay marriage is actually what's largely speculative. Nobody is using gay marriage as justification for other alternative forms of marriage.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

^ 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?

but but but fags, and children! and stuff!