Swivel-eyed loon speaks on gay marriage

[Old Greg]

The old and the new all make it clear that marriage should be between man and woman. And they key point is if we are to open it to gays then why not open it to incest and animals as well - in the former the consent would be there for sure. Let's just open it up completely so it can be defined in any way or form. If it has no holy or religious connotation then why does it matter how or who defines it. Let's make it completely ambiguous -

21st Century marriage "the communion of two living beings"

22nd Century marriage "the communion of two things"

1. Look up slippery slope. Here's some extracts.

Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope is an informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground.

Fallacy [edit]

The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A leads to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established[clarification needed] before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not done—an argument that supports the relevant premises is not fallacious and thus isn't a slippery slope fallacy.

2. Having done 1, look at the merits or otherwise gay marriage on its own terms. Is your objection that it can't produce children? Is it that the nature of marriage is immutable?

[Old Greg]

<pedant>Gay people aren't allowed to marry the gay person that they are in a relationship with</pedant>

Plenty of gay people manage to get married - Michael Barrymore, for example.

Excellent pedantry.

[vetran]

Gay people aren't allowed to marry is a key difference.

Gay people want a civil partnership described as a marriage (which, whilst odd to me, is fine due to a registry office wedding being described as a marriage) and to force churches to be willing to conduct the ceremony (which is in my mind the sticking point and quite mad, if they wait a bit it will happen).

[TheFaQQer]

Is that supposed to be a lot of denominations? Do you know how many there are in each religion?

I think the point being made is that when someone says

the basic principle is that it is between a man and a woman - this is agreed upon by all religions/faiths.

that there is plenty of evidence that the latter statement is bollocks.

Of the world's major religions, only Islam seems to be the one which says that marriage must be between a man and a woman. Branches of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism do not.

[Mich the Tester]

1. Look up slippery slope. Here's some extracts.

On about slippery phallusies again?

[Old Greg]

Gay people want a civil partnership described as a marriage (which, whilst odd to me, is fine due to a registry office wedding being described as a marriage) and to force churches to be willing to conduct the ceremony (which is in my mind the sticking point and quite mad, if they wait a bit it will happen).

No they want to have a marriage instead of a civil partnership. They want access to the same institution rather than an 'equal but separate' institution to use the Jim Crow laws terminology.

The legislation is not talking about forcing any church to conduct a ceremony.

[TheFaQQer]

1. Look up slippery slope.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

[d000hg]

So nor marriages for the 80 year olds

Obviously eew, granny sex.

[d000hg]

I'd recoil if you came onto me but that doesn't mean I think homosexuality is immoral.

Logic fail, I'm afraid.

You're being deliberately evasive now.

[Old Greg]

Obviously eew, granny sex.

Like Abraham and Sarah?