Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

The Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy, and claiming it's true in the legal world is Special Pleading, which is also a logical fallacy. Until you have an argument based on facts and not textbook examples of bullshit, fuck off.

I really wish it was special pleading. Alas it is reality and more to the point what precedential jurisprudence is and was designed to be. Like I said we already see it in regards to polygamous lawsuits in Montana, Utah, and Colorado. You are fine with polygamy so you do not care, but are you so short sighted to believe that no one will sue for something you are not fine with?

But by your own statement will you be fucking off? I have already shown the pro position is contingent upon one of three fallacies of false equivalency, argumentum ad novitatem (appeal to novelty), or argumentum ad misericordiem (appeal to pity). Since your position is based on fallacies (I have not heard a single argument otherwise) than according to you, you should fuck off. And when you are done fucking off you should fuck off from there. And when you get back from fucking off from there you should fuck off again ad infinitum.

Where are the child marriages that will inevitably follow then?

Go try and marry a child, see how that works out for you.

This reminds me of when the BBFC tried to ban Manhunt 2 because it would "cause harm". They took it as far as the high court, just as with gay marriage, in a desperate attempt to make slippery slope vague bullshit arguments. It finally got released and... nothing happened. Big surprise.

Where? The polygamous communities in northern Arizona and southern Utah. You cannot honestly believe the next time they do a raid on those compounds these people are not going to try to argue in accordance with the law that the age restriction on marriage is a violation of their fundamental rights. That they had the consent of the parents and the relationship was meant to convey dignity and security to the parties involved. For being so empathetic you guys seem to be exceptionally bad at empathizing with those who think or would do what you would not.

Furthermore, you are basing your comments on how you understood the law to be. But under that law same sex marriage was prohibited. They has changed the law to make it legal. You need to look at the situation in accordance to how the law has been changed and not how it was. It seem each of you think you could just make this small change and not effect anything else. You would each be right had this been done through the states themselves. Since the change was made at the federal level it will not be nuanced as you wish to believe and will have more unintended consequences than each of your are considering.