Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

We could go back and forth like this forever, Animal. Your argument is a slippery slope. I have thoroughly explained why. You're making it because you're a pissed off bigot. Your side lost, both in court and in this thread. Get over it and move on. I know I will.

You have not explained why other than to state any argument which states something may follow is a slippery slope (which is to falsely argue every causal argument is slippery slope). In this manner you endeavor to state present condition is the only condition which has, does, or will ever exist (for consideration and evaluation). It is not much different than say Ron Paul saying if we legalize all drugs today everyone is not going to go out and get high right away. His statement is correct in that everyone will not do so right away (turns out it is not a first order system but rather a second order system which requires time to react). However, if you legalize every drug than the rate of usage will go up and the incidence caused by that usage will also go up. You would say this is a slippery slope and fear mongering because we do not know what will happen (which is an argument to ignorance). You remind me of a quote by Sun Tzu:

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war. Defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."

Saying we do not know what will happen (even when we have a pretty good idea of what will happen) you then seek to compel acceptance by stating anyone who considers any causal outcome of a change is a slippery sloped bigot of hatred. You seem to think the current conditions will remain (which would negate the point of change in the first place) because we have no definitive example of the impact of a given change occurring. Even if there are examples of impact of the changes (particularly negative ones which do not support your view) you will say none of them are definitive as to lead to the concluded outcome; such as the progression of cases from Lawrence to Windsor to Obergefell to Brown to... This is the continuum fallacy pure and simple. Afterwards you then argue support for your continuum fallacy by means of the argument to ignorance (which you already did by saying show me one litigated and victorious case of the logical outcomes as if their prior or present lack of existence is proof of their eminent nonexistence).