Wow, lucky you.But how does one end up in situations like this? I don’t have an occassion to dabate the issue with people in real life.
This is actually precisely why it’s an excellent argument. Not to get graphic but masturbating into either end of the digestive tract does not equal sex. Since homosexual “sex” is not really sex, they cannot get married, since marriage is for the sake of sex.I’d argue that this is a poor argument. Human sex organs don’t care how they’re stimulated, they just like BEING stimulated. This is why humans masturbate. This is why someone can derive sexual pleasure from sticking their penis into another consenting adult’s anus.
If we allow miscegenation soon enough people will be marrying dogs! If we allow marriage between races we might as well legalize it between species.Easy, you employ reductio ad absurdum to show homosexuality is no different to any other form of ‘alternative’ relationships such as polygamy, pedophilia, incest or even bestiality and if homosexuality should be tolerated, these others should be tolerated too to avoid favouritism.
As I did in this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=586160&page=8
Are you attempting to say that a slippery-slope argument is always invalid? Because it isn’t, though it’s easy to take too far.If we allow miscegenation soon enough people will be marrying dogs! If we allow marriage between races we might as well legalize it between species.
That said homosexual marriage should never be permitted.
interracial marriage is not the same as same sex marriage as there are only superficial differences between the partners of an interracial marriage, wheras a man and a man is objectively, materially different to a man and a woman.Are you attempting to say that a slippery-slope argument is always invalid? Because it isn’t, though it’s easy to take too far.
If you are attempting to compare opposition to gay marriage to opposition to interracial marriage, again: then why do Catholics oppose it and many Protestants not? Catholics never had a taboo on “miscegenation”.
The only problem with the reductio ad absurdam is, most of the elite apologists for gay marriage are already advocating things like bestiality. And necrophilia, if you got permission while the person was alive. I’m not kidding.interracial marriage is not the same as same sex marriage as there are only superficial differences between the partners of an interracial marriage, wheras a man and a man is objectively, materially different to a man and a woman.
And the reductio ad absurdum argument is fantastic, since the ‘we should allow every kind of affection/love as long as no one gets hurt’ argument allows for a lot of things - including bestiality
The slippery slope argument was already used against interracial marriage, it has left a bad taste in people mouths. You’ll have to come up with a different angle ofattack since using the slippery slope argument reminds people too much of discrimination against interracial marriages.Are you attempting to say that a slippery-slope argument is always invalid? Because it isn’t, though it’s easy to take too far.
If you are attempting to compare opposition to gay marriage to opposition to interracial marriage, again: then why do Catholics oppose it and many Protestants not? Catholics never had a taboo on “miscegenation”.
Society has already gone to hell, why the hell not in the name of freedumb, we are already allowing the slaughter of the unborn!interracial marriage is not the same as same sex marriage as there are only superficial differences between the partners of an interracial marriage, wheras a man and a man is objectively, materially different to a man and a woman.
And the reductio ad absurdum argument is fantastic, since the ‘we should allow every kind of affection/love as long as no one gets hurt’ argument allows for a lot of things - including bestiality
I can see that, though I wouldn’t necessarily agree—it’s certainly a valid position, RE: tactics.The slippery slope argument was already used against interracial marriage, it has left a bad taste in people mouths. You’ll have to come up with a different angle ofattack since using the slippery slope argument reminds people too much of discrimination against interracial marriages.
If you try that argument with an average person they’ll think you’re a bigotI can see that, though I wouldn’t necessarily agree—it’s certainly a valid position, RE: tactics.
I was referring to your opinion on the slippery slope being a bad idea, when I said it was a valid position. I wouldn’t use the slippery slope myself, I have better arguments than that.If you try that argument with an average person they’ll think you’re a bigot
Absolutely true - what is wrong for a necrophiliac to do what he wants with a dead body.The only problem with the reductio ad absurdam is, most of the elite apologists for gay marriage are already advocating things like bestiality. And necrophilia, if you got permission while the person was alive. I’m not kidding.
I believe the expression is “defies parody”.
Not if you ridicule them by showing how all their arguments are purely emotional and how they do not have a reasonable basis for allowing same sex marraige but not incestuous and polygamous marriage as well.If you try that argument with an average person they’ll think you’re a bigot
Yeah, they can’t use the slippery slope fallacy if it is already happening.The only problem with your theory is that it is actually happening that people are looking beyond gay marriage to what they should advocate for next—most are thinking polygamy, some are thinking pederasty. When people are actually sliding down the slope, the slippery slope becomes a valid argument.
AFAIK the response to that is that animals (along with children) can’t consent.Absolutely true - what is wrong for a necrophiliac to do what he wants with a dead body.
We might find it disgusting and appaling, but that is merely a matter of taste - as long as he isn’t hurting anyone why should we care what he does in his private life.
As for bestiality, the Australian atheist philosopher Peter Singer has put together a good case for why bestiality should be legalized too - after all if homosexual relationships are just as natural and normal as traditional heterosexual relationships on what basis can you argue that other loving relationships are not?
Not if you ridicule them by showing how all their arguments are purely emotional and how they do not have a reasonable basis for allowing same sex marraige but not incestuous and polygamous marriage as well.
If they cannot respond satisfactorily to your arguments but still insist they are right, then they have no basis for believing what they do and are irrational - and not worth arguing with as they are behaving little better than animals.
You should not care so much what other people think - frankly most people are not very intelligent and prefer to go with the crowd than think for themselves- for me at least, all that matters is who is right and who is wrong.
Ah, well firstly bestiality groups like Furry Fandom argue that animals can give consent.AFAIK the response to that is that animals (along with children) can’t consent.
Wait, I thought furries liked drawings of anthropomorphic animals and dressing like them not necessarily sex. Now, if you want the creators of Soft Paw locked up I say go for it.Ah, well firstly bestiality groups like Furry Fandom argue that animals can give consent.
Secondly, we don’t ask animals for consent to eat them, their eggs and use their fur and milk so that hardly constitutes an objection.
It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law. source