The New Slippery Slope Argument for Same-Sex Marriage

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/slippery-slope/


Slippery Slope Fallacy
Explanation
Slippery slope arguments falsely assume that one thing must lead to another. They begin by suggesting that if we do one thing then that will lead to another, and before we know it we’ll be doing something that we don’t want to do. They conclude that we therefore shouldn’t do the first thing. The problem with these arguments is that it is possible to do the first thing that they mention without going on to do the other things; restraint is possible.
Example
(1) If you buy a Green Day album, then next you’ll be buying Buzzcocks albums, and before you know it you’ll be a punk with green hair and everything.
(2) You don’t want to become a punk.
Therefore:
(3) You shouldn’t buy a Green Day album.
This argument commits the slippery slope fallacy because it is perfectly possible to buy a Green Day album without going on to become a punk; we could buy the album and then stop there. The conclusion therefore hasn’t been proven, because the argument’s first premise is false.

I am sick of people using a fallacy as evidence. Please learn how the fallacies work before you try to engage in argument.

 

Here... I proved completely and accurately why same-sex marriages should exist. The argument in its entirety is irrefutable. There's no way you could go otherwise.

1. Men and Women have equal rights.
2. If you are a man, you have the right to marry a woman. And if you are a woman, you have the right to marry a man.
3. If you are a woman, you have the right to do what men do. And if you are a man, you have the right to do what women do. (This by 1) (provided that the action is possible).
4. Therefore, Men have the right to marry men, and women have a right to marry women. (This by 2 and 3).


Some would say that (2) is wrong and that it should read that men and women only have the right to marry the opposite sex. So...

1. If you were to say that a person could only marry a person of the opposite sex, the reason would have to be: a) sexual reproduction must be possible for married couples, b) since it is a better type of sex, c) Only men should marry women and only women should marry men, d)"the parts don't fit", or e) If the popular opinion opposes gay marriage, it should be illegal.

1a. Suppose, “Since sexual reproduction is not possible in same-sex relationships, same-sex marriages shouldn't be allowed.”
2a. You effectively eliminate all marriages in which sexual reproduction is impossible (since the condition of not being able to sexually reproduce is defined as a reason that a marriage should not be able to take place).
3a. Heterosexual couples who can not sexual reproduce can be married
4a. Therefore, no matter the relationship, being able to sexually reproduce shouldn't be the issue that determines whether or not two can be united (By 3a‘s contradiction of 2a).
5a. So, we've ruled that not being able to sexually reproduce should not be a factor used to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

1b. Suppose that heterosexual sex is the best sex. (between 2 people)
2b. There exist people who think homosexual sex is better that heterosexual sex. (between 2 people)
3b. Something “being the best,” unless as it were to be determined by a comparative analysis, is simply "one opinion among many".
4b. Thus heterosexual sex "being the best sex" is an opinion that carries the same weight as the opinion of homosexual sex "being the best sex".
5b. Hence, by difference in opinion, 1b is wrong (correctly stated, it would read: Some people believe heterosexual sex is better than homosexual sex).

1c. You can’t support a position by using the position as the reason for why it should be true.
2c. The overlying question is: For what reason would you be able to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples?
3c. 1(c) says “Only heterosexual couples should be able to marry” is the reason answering the question in 2c, which asks why only heterosexual couples should be married.
4c. Hence, this reason does not support the viewpoint that only heterosexual couples should be able to marry (by 2c and 3c over the rule 1c).

1d. Suppose "the parts don't fit" in homosexual sexual activity is the reason that homosexual marriage cannot exist..
2d. Sex is putting body parts together (Yes, it has degrees - physical contact)
3d. Homosexuals can't have sex.
4d. Some homosexuals have homosexual sex.
5d. "The parts fit" making this reason wrong as well.

1e. When there is no viable reason that exists to support a certain opinion, that opinion is nullified.
2e. All possible reasons supporting heterosexual-only marriages (that I can think of) have been disproved, making them not viable
3e. Therefore all opinions against same-sex marriage are nullified.

2. None of the reasons in (1) hold true.
3. If we were to say, “Marriage is to only be a union between a man and a woman,” there would be a contradiction.


4. Therefore, since all points in the argument have been fully supported, proving all opposing notions to be false, it can be said with no room for interpretation otherwise that same-sex marriage is an undeniable right for the people living under the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States of America!

 

oops... made a mistake in argument 1b - erase suppose that

 

Anyone against homosexual marriage at this point is either homophobic or a religious zealot. Either way they should be mocked, publically and relentlessly.