This logical fallacy is called “Slippery Slope.” If you need a link to an explanation of how it is logically errant to use this argument, I can provide one here.… What of a 40yo man and 16yo boy who truly love each other? What harm would their marriage have?
(1)Allowing a gay couple to marry in NO WAY effects the fertility rate of any other couple on the planet. There is NO EFFECT on the ability of anyone to reproduce, nor would it in ANY WAY effect the ability of a town, state, or country to sustain its population. This is a total red herring based on poor logic and no evidence.
(2)The reason to extend this in America is that we have this basic understanding in our country: that unless there is clear and present evidence that a behavior is injurious or harmful either to the self or to others, that in the name of freedom and individual liberties we permit the behavior. And in the case of legal benefits/privileges/rights, in America we also extend them as far as reason dictates, following the same limitations of harm or injury, and also within the parameters of the 14th amendment, that justice must be distributed equally and fairly (in other words, not withheld simply for prejudicial reasons).
.
Look, I expected an emotional response from you. Please let someone with the capability to argue effectively take up your case.This logical fallacy is called “Slippery Slope.” If you need a link to an explanation of how it is logically errant to use this argument, I can provide one here.
Secondly, this situation is a crime already under law. A crime, mind you. No one is advocating that a crime be institutionalized in marriage.
You are just flailing away, calling me emotional, and now dishonestly refusing to address the reasoning that I gave to you in response to your request.
There is nothing emotional in my arguments. Please see two posts above for my numbered reasons (there are 2).Look, I expected an emotional response from you. Please let someone with the capability to argue effectively take up your case.
So, your response is slippery slope? I have not heard anyone here asking to marry a cow or their daughter.Really? So, what is your reason that incestuous and polyamorous marriages don’t have that legal right. And, please, try to avoid the larkin31 emotional response to the question. Provide a logical reason. The only bar I’ve seen set for homosexual rights is that no harm is done…surely these two groups can make the same claim. What of a 40yo man and 16yo boy who truly love each other? What harm would their marriage have?
Actually, it is called case history. In the not so distant past, sodomy was a crime, mind you, which was overturned in Lawrence v Texas. This overturned a previous SCOTUS ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick. It essentially questioned whether other prohibitions on the private sexual behavior of consenting adults are unconstitutional, and whether laws can be justified merely through invocations of morality without the demonstration of any actual harm.This logical fallacy is called “Slippery Slope.” If you need a link to an explanation of how it is logically errant to use this argument, I can provide one here.
Secondly, this situation is a crime already under law. A crime, mind you. No one is advocating that a crime be institutionalized in marriage.
You are just flailing away, calling me emotional, and now dishonestly refusing to address the reasoning that I gave to you in response to your request.
Here is your challenge to us again.You obviously haven’t been paying any attention whatsoever. It is rational for society to support and maintain an institution that fosters the growth and development of society. Procreation is the method by which growth occurs. That is very reasoned. No one has yet put forth a reasoned argument in favor of extending marriage to intrinsically non-procreative relationships…
Sodomy was a hypocritical crime, enforced primarily only against gay men.Actually, it is called case history. In the not so distant past, sodomy was a crime, mind you, which was overturned in Lawrence v Texas. This overturned a previous SCOTUS ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick. It essentially questioned whether other prohibitions on the private sexual behavior of consenting adults are unconstitutional, and whether laws can be justified merely through invocations of morality without the demonstration of any actual harm.
This expressedly sets precedent for the “slippery slope”, but it isn’t a fallacy in the realm of jursiprudence. See Muth v. Frank, Martin v. Ziherl, and State v. Holm. If you think the amount of challenges regarding these concurring “morality” laws is limited in any scope, you’re wrong. The same principles apply to the gay marriage subject.
and, I appreciate the information, and the reasonable attempt to respond to my points. I recognize that gay marriage is a difficult, contentious subject. But we can also discuss points directly and reasonably.Actually, it is called case history. In the not so distant past, sodomy was a crime, mind you, which was overturned in Lawrence v Texas. This overturned a previous SCOTUS ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick. It essentially questioned whether other prohibitions on the private sexual behavior of consenting adults are unconstitutional, and whether laws can be justified merely through invocations of morality without the demonstration of any actual harm.
This expressedly sets precedent for the “slippery slope”, but it isn’t a fallacy in the realm of jursiprudence. See Muth v. Frank, Martin v. Ziherl, and State v. Holm. If you think the amount of challenges regarding these concurring “morality” laws is limited in any scope, you’re wrong. The same principles apply to the gay marriage subject.