Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Redbeard The Pink]

Rule 3?  I was focusing on Rules 1 (timing is everything) and 2 (turn about is fair play).  Maybe we have different rule books...

Not "Rule 3." The "Rule OF 3." Reading, bro.

The Rule of 3 dictates that, in the vast majority of cases, comedy is funniest when presented with a rhythm of 3. If you had followed this rule, you might have built a shorter quip that built up to the "fuck off" in 3 stages, used the phrase 3 times with steadily increasing humor value (or changed the formula to something unexpected on phase 3), or any number of other options. Instead, you shit out a good paragraph or so worth of overkill. 

Nice job.

Perhaps you are right.  What was the non-fallacious argument in their favor.  Keep it simple for this idiot.  Was it all are or should be treated equally regardless of their qualities or conduct (false equivalency).  The idea that one does not want to be on the wrong side of history (appeal to novelty).  The bullying claims of where is my empathy (appeal to pity).  Or was it the whole everyone else agrees so you should too (appeal to popularity)?  Was there another one which was not a fallacy?

Where are the non-fallacious arguments in YOUR favor?


Nobody is claiming that everyone should be treated the same regardless of their conduct. That's a Straw Man. What marriage-equality-proponents are claiming is that every adult, consenting couple that wants to get legally married should be able to regardless of their genders.


The idea that one does not want to be one the "wrong side of history" isn't an appeal to novelty, it's an appeal to fear. Get your fallacies straight. Furthermore, that isn't an argument for allowing gay marriage, but for supporting it. Anti-gay thinkers are objectively on the wrong side of history right now, and it's clearly pissing them off. Nobody is saying that's why gays should be allowed to marry, though, so again...Straw Man.


As for the empathy thing, secular morality is primarily sourced by empathy toward the suffering of others. You may feel bullied when someone questions your empathy, but if you show such a lack of it, then those questions are rightly asked. Nobody is trying to make you feel sorry for gay people. They're trying to make you understand and empathize with their suffering. If you do not have the capacity to do that, then you lack empathy, plain and simple.


As for the appeal to popularity, that only applies to ideas that are popular for bad reasons. If the consensus claim is based on little to no evidence, and/or a bad interpretation of that evidence, and/or logical fallacy, then it makes sense to redress that claim and examine it more closely. Those are not the reasons for the consensus claim on homosexuality, though. That consensus claim is generated by experts looking at evidence and finding that homosexuality is ubiquitous throughout both nature and human culture, that it is essentially harmless to the success of any species where it appears, that sexual orientation is set long before choice is a meaningful factor, and that it is generally harmful to force individuals to change or ignore their sexual orientation. In short, the current, secular claims regarding homosexuality are popular for some really, really good reasons.

Ha ha.  Appeal to fear?  Not at all.  Explanation of precedential jurisprudence.  I am not saying what if someone sues for these so be afraid!!.  I am saying people will and have already filed suits using the reasoning of obergefell.  You stated you had no moral qualms with X so you were okay with it.  I am stating a la Lawrence V. Texas your moral qualms are not sufficient justification for permission or prohibition and you would be wise to consider the unintended impacts of what you permit and prohibit prior to doing so, rather than solely focusing on the impacts desired.  

Suits filed and suits won are not the same thing. Until a polygamist or child marriage advocate wins their case and gets the marriage they want, your argument is a Slippery Slope Fallacy. Period.

Very much so.  And I find it highly offensive to my fundamental right to dignity and security for you to comment on it.  Stupid people have as much right to expression without ridicule as everyone else.  Just because I do not conform to your beliefs of intelligence does not mean I am not intelligent in my own way.  (he tries to make another funny.  ho ho....ooooohhhhh )

To put it bluntly, I do not care. Nobody has a right to express themselves without ridicule. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from reactions to your speech.


I don't believe that everyone who doesn't share my beliefs is inherently unintelligent. I do believe, however, that people who repeatedly and routinely display unintelligence are unintelligent. Because evidence.

Ha ha.  As has been discussed before in this thread.  A child is deemed at law to have informed consent to a fundamental right at the age of 5 years or greater.  Furthermore a parent may act on behalf of the child to ensure their dignity and security by contraction into a relationship which conveys as much.  This is in the law now.

For guns. A child can make an informed decision about whether to handle a firearm at a much younger age than they can make an informed decision about who to marry. Furthermore, there are states in America where the age of sexual consent is lower than the age of legal adulthood, and in some states parents can actually consent to have their children married off younger than 18 (unless that's been fixed since I was a kid). The age of consent is still generally 16 or 17 in those states, though, indicating that virtually all of modern America is agreeing on the fact that informed sexual consent isn't possible until at least one's late teens. To be frank, the scenario you're describing is already in place for adolescents who are old and mature enough to make informed decisions about their futures. There is no evidence to suggest that the new ruling will somehow expand this to include younger children.


Slippery. Fucking. Slope.

I like your argument to ignorance to prove you wrong.  Tell you what; show me proof of one country with legalized same sex marriage prior to 1990.  I'll wait.  Nothing?  But it is legal in 21 developed countries now.  How can this be?  When 1990 was the present it did not exist anywhere so according to your logic it should have never happened.  Oh wait.  Equality won and bigotry lost, so gays may now get married.

 

This is in no way a response to the point I made. It is also a barely intelligible word salad. Get it together.

So what of a child's right to equality?  Why do you discriminate against that?  Are you some sort of bigot?  Surely children have a right to dignity and security and historical precedence does show this has been met through child marriages.  Hmm?  I wonder if we will finally stop being bigots and recognize a child's right to equality.  Where can I find some mature looking 15 year old to marry a young looking 18 year old to put in front of the news to get sympathy for the cause of child equality!!  Preferably one whose evil oppressive parents refuse to grant parental consent to the marriage.

See above argument pertaining to guns and informed consent by minors. Nice attempt at appeal to emotion, though (not really).

Ha ha.  You need to let Equilax know that as he said I was an unfeeling monster who has less emotion than a wasp that lays eggs in a spiders brain.  Did you think the arguments to atheism and recognition of same sex were founded on logic?  The former is based upon an argument to ignorance (because I have not experienced it directly, it must not be) the latter is based on the aforementioned fallacies of false equivalency, appeal to novelty, appeal to pity, and (more recently) appeal to numbers/popularity.

You can be an emotionless, non-empathetic dick and still construct arguments that are designed to appeal to the emotions of others (apparently). 

A house built on logic?!  

HA HA!!  You are definitely a better comedian than I am!

That much is certainly true.