in no way is making a determination, based on shifting trends, a logical fallacy. If anything, it's more logical than to just assume nothing irreparable will happen.
I don't know which of your previous arguments you were referring to, so I'll address both.
1. "gay marriage leads to underage marriage/marriage to inanimate objects/polygamy et cetera"
This is a slippery slope argument that is fallacious. Gay marriage isn't associated with the legalisation of any of those other modern "taboos", and yet you're forcing that casual relationship to exist out of nothing. By doing so, you make the assertion that we should
oppose same sex marriage because we should
oppose underage marriage/marriage to inanimate objects/polygamy.
What you're doing is making unsubstantial conjectures which obscure the debate and divert attention away from SSM. Furthermore, you're making an appeal to fear.
Understand this: you're allowed to make inferences on what
may happen in the future, given that you reasonably acknowledge casual relationships and uncertainty. But that is not what you're doing: you're overextending the extent of which you are able to claim casuality, and abusing this to justify an opinion.
(If you want a reason as to why your conjectures are unsubstantiated, then here it is: same sex marriage is about legality between two consenting adults. None of the more extreme issues you've posited a casual relationship with same sex marriage can is of the same.)
2. "bigger problems are obscured by left-wingers making stupid requests"
You are making the assertion that we should oppose the opposition because they are backing causes which get in the way of "pressing matters".
What you're doing is shifting attention from the debate at hand to other worrying issues, then coming back and asserting that the opposition is incorrect. This is an appeal to emotion. You're not addressing the current issue, but using other, unrelated issues to back your position.
So in the end you haven't brought any substance into the debate, but have only (consciously or not) used dirty tactics to fallaciously back your position.
There has clearly been an increased influx in transgenderism, homosexuality and infidelity through the continued aim of eliminating the theocratic foundations of Australia's legal and cultural roots through increased secularisation. You're either in denial or tolerant of the aforementioned.
Yeah that's correct. I lean towards "tolerance" towards the above, but now you're shifting the attention away from the discussion at hand.
Here, my views are irrelevant. I'm pointing out the fallacies in your arguments.
Secondly, transgenderism and infidelity has
nothing to do with the SSM debate at hand. And regardless of whether homosexuality is a growing presence or not, that isn't the debate.
This is not the trend you were using previously. Polygamy and pedophilia are not transgenderism nor infidelity.
You're continually injecting irrelevance into your arguments.
People assume the 'No' voters justifying themselves with the religious argument are 'anachronistic' and 'obstinate' but it's not that we're reluctant to change but rather the change that's being proposed will have negative repercussions.
If this is addressed in relevance to our previous discussion, then this is irrelevant. If not, then I have no problems which what you've wrote here.
Apology accepted. Don't do it again.
so join in!
