Well, yours was post #75 so clearly there has been plenty of discussion. But you asked me what I think about her having sex with various men. First, the author is entitled to do this. Her life is not my business but since she is an author, I figured it could be very interesting. She may live to regret this. Especially if she wants to cling to her friend and or even marry him, then see him move away with some other woman. It seems to me she has a very uncertain future.
No my opinion doesn't. Logic does. The chances of the slippery slope possibility are as likely to happen as not to happen. That's a fact. So the slippery slope is a logical fallacy. That isn't my claim it's logic.
Interesting thread. Given what SCOTUS said what arguments can be made against polygamy? I'm sure there are arguments against polygamy I haven't thought of but the obvious arguments against it could also be used to shoot down gay marriage.
The slippery slope I presented though is equally likely of occurring as the one you presented, you don't like it because it takes the appeal to emotion out of your fallacy. You claim that it's a fallacy. You are correct but you are equally guilty of said fallacy.
You commented on it. But I'll explain it again If we let same sex couples marry, than plural marriages will not happen. The reason why this is a fallacy is that it's equally likely that plural marriage will be legal as illegal. It's a prediction, not an argument. See the beauty about predictions is that you can make millions of them and if you're right once all the sudden your Nostradamus. So unless you have a time machine you are just making a prediction. The reason your prediction is a fallacy is because you are appealing to the fear of the outcome. Make sense?
So you are saying if Oil Prices go down then only idiots will bet that Solar energy and Wind companies will suffer? This is the same thing one event has direct relation to an associated event. For example Gay marriage sets a precedent and opens the door to Polygamy marriage, and opens the door to other forms of unions. If you deny that, please explain why.
Sorry I don't see a direct relation. How does same sex marriage set a precedent? What is the precedent? Is it because they're all just perverts to you? I don't think that is a precedent. What precedents did interracial marriage set? The exact same ones? If no explain the difference.
Interracial marriage did not redefine the concept, Gay Marriage redefines marriage and sets precedent for any other union.
That is a matter of opinion. So marriage to you is only defined by sex? No other aspect? Seems you're pro plural marriage as long as it's heterosexual. Further plural marriage didn't redefine the concept it's been around longer than singular marriage. One could say limiting it to one man and one woman redefined it and thus that rule opened the door for same sex marriage.
Good point, I suppose marriage has always changed. I guess I am mostly against this because i do think its perverse.
Cool, that's perfectly fine. You are entitled to your opinion. Though I disagree with it, I respect that.
