Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

Ok, Anima...look...

We could go back and forth like this forever, but the bottom line is this:

[quote='Redbeard The Pink' pid='1005785' dateline='1437934282']
Your whole argument stems from the fact that we don't really know what will happen now that gay marriage is legal in the U.S. This is an argument from ignorance. In this case, it takes the forms of the Slippery Slope fallacy and the Special Pleading fallacy.

To the contrary! My original and simplified argument to biology is logically sound and not a fallacy. While it seems some were getting caught up in the scenario it was distilled as followed:

1. Orientation (same sex) -> Act (same sex) -> Particular Act Result (lack of conception) -> Universal Act Result (extinction due to lack of conception)

This argument serves to objectively determine the value of the orientation (and subsequent act). It is not predicated on a fallacy nor is it fallacious in reaching its conclusion. Test of the argument was even made in regards to another subject which was not homo orientation, but was in regards to murder as:

4. Orientation (killer) -> Act (killing) -> Particular Act Result (killing death of a person) -> Universal Act Result (extinction due to the killing death of people).

Thus the formulation of evaluation as defined in #1 and #4 may serve as sufficient means for determining the objective valuation of a given orientation and subsequent action.

Now if there is an argument to ignorance it would be the one taken on behalf of the homos stating they are not hurting anyone. As may be objectively determine by the argument above (and any number of anecdotal arguments by people who have been hurt or harmed by homos) their orientation and the subsequent acts are not beneficial and indeed harmful to biology and society. So the argument they are not hurting anyone is based on an ignorance fallacy, by which it is claimed sufficient proof of them hurting others or society do not exist, therefore they are not hurting anyone. This is a text book argument to ignorance. In which you hope after making the change sufficient evidence does not become available of them hurting anyone. Fingers crossed!!!

"Oh, well now that this is legal, some other, obviously reprehensible form of marriage (or worse) will definitely become legal." = Slippery Slope

"Oh, but Jurisdictional Precedence was designed to actually be a slippery slope, so this doesn't count as a Slippery Slope fallacy." = Special Pleading.


Oh, and by the way, the Netherlands was the first country in the world where same-sex couples could apply for limited rights, and that was in 1979. Denmark became the first country in the world to actually legalize same-sex unions in 1989. Both of those happened before 1990. Many European countries have had legally recognized same-sex unions for over 20 years now, and we have yet to see any of the kind of backlash your'e describing. Why do you think that is?

Now I did not say limited rights. I said marriage recognition; which you note occurred in 1989. Which does proceed my 1990 threshold (which may easily be moved forward to counter the argument you were making of just because it happened in the limited fashion in the present is not to say it will be extended in the future. To which my response was to illustrate an example where it was limited in the then present that was then extended in the then future, which is our current past). But since the point of the task was to illustrate precedential jurisprudence is based on previous rulings to determine if sufficient justification or support exists for extending the ruling further your data point of limited rights (1979) to legalization of same sex unions (1989) to recognition by many European countries for over 20 years now (some time in the 1990s) to US recognition of same sex union (2015) to... serves as an example of exactly what I am talking about.

As already explained, an argument is a slippery slope when it states the subsequent shall follow from the precedent for no other reason than the precedent occurring. Once again, I have not done this. I have explained how the subsequent shall follow from the precedent due to the victorious argument of the precedent. I fail to see how you may state the argument for same sex couples is valid for them, but is not valid for polygamous, incestuous, or child marriages. Sounds like special pleading where you endeavor to say the argument is only applicable to the groups you wish to include (which is to say the groups you "do not have a problem with") and not applicable to the groups you wish to exclude. Otherwise we must say the argument is to be applied to all evenly (you know equality) in which case there is no logical reason why we may permit the former and deny the latter. Now I imagine you (as me) will argue that is the way the courts and precedential jurisprudence works... AND YOU WOULD BE RIGHT; JUST AS I AM!! That is the way it works! Pointing that out is not special pleading, but rather a statement of fact regarding the process of jurisprudence.

No matter how many words you stuff into a post, that's all you've got. Nothing you've said particularly amounts to anything else, except desperately trying to convince everyone that the whole reason gay marriage is legal now is that a bunch of evil judges managed to force it on us using what you purport to be logical fallacy. Really, though, fear-mongering is at the heart of what you're doing, and the reasonable-minded can easily see there is no reason to be scared.

The argument to the law was in reference to how the law works. I did not say I liked it anymore than you do. As it is the Justices who voted in favor did not interpret the cases in the manner they themselves have always interpreted those cases (so are they hypocrites? I am sure you will say this case was different. So special pleading again?) Furthermore the justices did not follow the standard set by the Supreme Court in Washington V Glucksberg in determining a substantive right. They have utilized this standard in every substantive right case since before Glucksberg and was simply enumerated in Glucksberg.

In summation, the arguments against are either in accordance with legal precedence (which you want to call slippery slope though it is not) and are logically sufficient. The arguments for are based on fallacies of equality (everyone should be treated equally), novelty (people are evolving), pity (you are not evolving), special pleading (well this is different), and ignorance (there is not sufficient proof they are hurting anyone).