4/2/2013 4:12 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 4:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 3:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 3:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 3:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 3:25:00 PM (view original):
Slippery slope fallacies are good places for people with low brain power to rest.
What part of "gays need equal rights to get married" is a slippery slope fallacy to polygamy?

Are you implying that a man can love a man but a man cannot love a man and a woman?

Who has the low brain power if that's what you believe?
So you don't think that's a slippery slope fallacy?

Interesting.
Nope.   Care to take a shot at answering any of the three questions?   I'll post them in bold, and add a comment, to make sure you know which ones I'm talking about.

What part of "gays need equal rights to get married" is a slippery slope fallacy to polygamy?   Equal rights for all.

Are you implying that a man can love a man but a man cannot love a man and a woman?  The ability to love more than one person.

Who has the low brain power if that's what you believe?   Contradict either statement.

Your argument that allowing gay marriage on the grounds of equal rights then forces us to allow polygamy on the same grounds is the very definition of a slippery slope fallacy.

Good try, though.
So it's "equal rights for all except bisexuals/polygamists?"

That's fine if that's what you're saying.

Well, other than shitting all over your arguments for allowing gay marriage.
4/2/2013 4:13 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 4:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 4:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 3:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 3:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/2/2013 3:23:00 PM (view original):
Has the American Sociological Association ever backtracked on a finding?  Are they infallible?
I'm sure they have. What's your point? There is evidence showing that children of gay couples are just as well off as children of straight couples.
Swamp's favorite source indicates that gay couple adoption has been legal for less than 20 years. 

How much evidence can there be?
Twenty years worth.

And anyway, we're allowing gay couples to adopt already. Allowing them to marry doesn't change the fact that they are raising children.
Well, even if the earth is only 10,000 years old, that's a pretty small sample size, right?
You ignored the second part. We're already allowing gays to raise children. Allowing them to be married while they do it can only be a positive.
4/2/2013 4:14 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 4:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 4:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 3:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 3:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 3:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 3:25:00 PM (view original):
Slippery slope fallacies are good places for people with low brain power to rest.
What part of "gays need equal rights to get married" is a slippery slope fallacy to polygamy?

Are you implying that a man can love a man but a man cannot love a man and a woman?

Who has the low brain power if that's what you believe?
So you don't think that's a slippery slope fallacy?

Interesting.
Nope.   Care to take a shot at answering any of the three questions?   I'll post them in bold, and add a comment, to make sure you know which ones I'm talking about.

What part of "gays need equal rights to get married" is a slippery slope fallacy to polygamy?   Equal rights for all.

Are you implying that a man can love a man but a man cannot love a man and a woman?  The ability to love more than one person.

Who has the low brain power if that's what you believe?   Contradict either statement.

Your argument that allowing gay marriage on the grounds of equal rights then forces us to allow polygamy on the same grounds is the very definition of a slippery slope fallacy.

Good try, though.
So it's "equal rights for all except bisexuals/polygamists?"

That's fine if that's what you're saying.

Well, other than shitting all over your arguments for allowing gay marriage.
Once again, you completely missed the point. No one is arguing for or against polygamy. If you would like to, we can. Using polygamy as a reason for denying gay marriage is a slippery slope fallacy.
4/2/2013 4:18 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 4:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 4:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 4:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 3:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 3:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 3:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 3:25:00 PM (view original):
Slippery slope fallacies are good places for people with low brain power to rest.
What part of "gays need equal rights to get married" is a slippery slope fallacy to polygamy?

Are you implying that a man can love a man but a man cannot love a man and a woman?

Who has the low brain power if that's what you believe?
So you don't think that's a slippery slope fallacy?

Interesting.
Nope.   Care to take a shot at answering any of the three questions?   I'll post them in bold, and add a comment, to make sure you know which ones I'm talking about.

What part of "gays need equal rights to get married" is a slippery slope fallacy to polygamy?   Equal rights for all.

Are you implying that a man can love a man but a man cannot love a man and a woman?  The ability to love more than one person.

Who has the low brain power if that's what you believe?   Contradict either statement.

Your argument that allowing gay marriage on the grounds of equal rights then forces us to allow polygamy on the same grounds is the very definition of a slippery slope fallacy.

Good try, though.
So it's "equal rights for all except bisexuals/polygamists?"

That's fine if that's what you're saying.

Well, other than shitting all over your arguments for allowing gay marriage.
Once again, you completely missed the point. No one is arguing for or against polygamy. If you would like to, we can. Using polygamy as a reason for denying gay marriage is a slippery slope fallacy.
Your principle arguments have been "doesn't affect you", "makes more people happy", "doesn't infringe on the rights of others" and, finally, "creates equal rights for everyone".

Which one does polygamy violate?
4/2/2013 4:18 PM
None of them.
4/2/2013 4:19 PM
But just because we allow gay marriage, doesn't mean we have to allow polygamy.
4/2/2013 4:19 PM
Or we could allow it if you want.
4/2/2013 4:25 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 4:19:00 PM (view original):
But just because we allow gay marriage, doesn't mean we have to allow polygamy.
Why wouldn't we?  Based on "doesn't affect you", "makes more people happy", "doesn't infringe on the rights of others" and, finally, "creates equal rights for everyone".

Do you think some people who are OK with gay marriage would object to polygamy?
4/2/2013 4:27 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 4:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 4:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 4:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 3:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 3:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/2/2013 3:23:00 PM (view original):
Has the American Sociological Association ever backtracked on a finding?  Are they infallible?
I'm sure they have. What's your point? There is evidence showing that children of gay couples are just as well off as children of straight couples.
Swamp's favorite source indicates that gay couple adoption has been legal for less than 20 years. 

How much evidence can there be?
Twenty years worth.

And anyway, we're allowing gay couples to adopt already. Allowing them to marry doesn't change the fact that they are raising children.
Well, even if the earth is only 10,000 years old, that's a pretty small sample size, right?
You ignored the second part. We're already allowing gays to raise children. Allowing them to be married while they do it can only be a positive.

So a marriage certificate would magically make them better parents?

How so/

4/2/2013 4:35 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 4:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 4:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 4:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 4:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 3:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 3:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/2/2013 3:23:00 PM (view original):
Has the American Sociological Association ever backtracked on a finding?  Are they infallible?
I'm sure they have. What's your point? There is evidence showing that children of gay couples are just as well off as children of straight couples.
Swamp's favorite source indicates that gay couple adoption has been legal for less than 20 years. 

How much evidence can there be?
Twenty years worth.

And anyway, we're allowing gay couples to adopt already. Allowing them to marry doesn't change the fact that they are raising children.
Well, even if the earth is only 10,000 years old, that's a pretty small sample size, right?
You ignored the second part. We're already allowing gays to raise children. Allowing them to be married while they do it can only be a positive.

So a marriage certificate would magically make them better parents?

How so/

So you're saying that it doesn't make a difference if parents are married or unmarried?

I wonder if there's any data on that?

Actually, I'm lying, I know there's data on that.
4/2/2013 4:38 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 4:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 4:19:00 PM (view original):
But just because we allow gay marriage, doesn't mean we have to allow polygamy.
Why wouldn't we?  Based on "doesn't affect you", "makes more people happy", "doesn't infringe on the rights of others" and, finally, "creates equal rights for everyone".

Do you think some people who are OK with gay marriage would object to polygamy?
We don't have to allow anything. Changing who we allow to get married today doesn't forever release us of any ability to restrict marriage. 

If polygamists want to get married, let them bring their case to the courts. That's not the issue we face today.
4/2/2013 4:43 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 4:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 4:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 4:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 4:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 4:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 3:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 3:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/2/2013 3:23:00 PM (view original):
Has the American Sociological Association ever backtracked on a finding?  Are they infallible?
I'm sure they have. What's your point? There is evidence showing that children of gay couples are just as well off as children of straight couples.
Swamp's favorite source indicates that gay couple adoption has been legal for less than 20 years. 

How much evidence can there be?
Twenty years worth.

And anyway, we're allowing gay couples to adopt already. Allowing them to marry doesn't change the fact that they are raising children.
Well, even if the earth is only 10,000 years old, that's a pretty small sample size, right?
You ignored the second part. We're already allowing gays to raise children. Allowing them to be married while they do it can only be a positive.

So a marriage certificate would magically make them better parents?

How so/

So you're saying that it doesn't make a difference if parents are married or unmarried?

I wonder if there's any data on that?

Actually, I'm lying, I know there's data on that.
I'm asking about gay parents.

How much of that whole 20 years of data(really less because most places have been 10 year or less) on gay parenting compares married gay couples to unmarried gay couples?
4/2/2013 4:44 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 4:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 4:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 4:19:00 PM (view original):
But just because we allow gay marriage, doesn't mean we have to allow polygamy.
Why wouldn't we?  Based on "doesn't affect you", "makes more people happy", "doesn't infringe on the rights of others" and, finally, "creates equal rights for everyone".

Do you think some people who are OK with gay marriage would object to polygamy?
We don't have to allow anything. Changing who we allow to get married today doesn't forever release us of any ability to restrict marriage. 

If polygamists want to get married, let them bring their case to the courts. That's not the issue we face today.
Are you for more individual rights or less individual rights?   If it's more, why are you mentioning marriage restrictions when you've already said polygamy breaks none of your Big Four.
4/2/2013 4:52 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 4/2/2013 2:45:00 PM (view original):
Are children better served being raised in gay-parent households or straight-parent households?
If I found information that showed that African American households raised children worse than white households, would you then say African Americans shouldn't be married?
4/2/2013 4:53 PM
Mike, I'd like to argue with you, but if you're going to disrspectful and compare gay people marrying to someone marrying a toaster, I don't see the point.
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.