Quote# 116892

Basically, if you cede homosexuals the right to marry, it turns into a slippery slope.


It's not what giving homosexuals the right to marry that's the problem. It's what giving homosexuals the right to marry represents. It represents that our society has become one that supports and tolerates something that is against biology, against the fundamental parts of being a human, tolerates something that natural selection has weeded out a long time ago and for good reason, tolerates something that is, on all levels, wrong.

I am not religious. But I will not tolerate something that runs contrary to the basic functions to the human race. If we endorse homosexuality, we open the freedom to bestiality, to polygamy, to incest. THAT is UNTHINKABLE. The legalization of same-sex marriage will be used as precedence to legalize marriage in that respect, and so, it follows logically, if you advocate for same-sex marriage, you advocate for polygamy, for beastiality, for incest legalization. Do you really?

Society is not prepared to accept homosexuality. How do I know this? you ask. Well, quite simply, the fact that same-sex marriage is not legal is perfect evidence.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. That is the way the law writes it, and quite frankly, the law does not need to be agreed with. Humanity has survived quite adequately for millennia without homosexuality, so your "stagnant society" argument holds no water.

Once again, I am okay with putting all of the homosexuals away from society and letting them do whatever. But by allowing them to marry, I allow them into my society, into a society that does not wish for them to be there. Violence from religious group follows. Allowing homosexuals into society will only ensue instability. But even on a smaller scale, same-sex marriage enables homosexual couples to receive the same benefits that heterosexual couples receive. They should not receive equal treatment, at least in the same system.

Aister, you miss an ultimate question. Why do homosexuals fight for the right to marry? Because they want to force themselves unto society.

tl;dr, my main arguments
Slippery Slope
Society is not prepared to accept homosexuals, and the legalization of marriage will allow homosexuals to force themselves onto society.
Heck, it's just wrong.

Being with someone you love is not against the law. Wanting to marry a person of the same gender is. I'll admit freely--while I can see where religion comes from, where racial attitudes comes from, I do not understand homosexuality. At all. And the fact that it causes many people in society qualms because the sight of a man cuddling with another man is quite frankly disgusting means that it is thus indecent.


Xeru, BattleDawn 34 Comments [2/19/2016 4:35:15 AM]
Fundie Index: 13
Submitted By: randy
Username:
Comment:



1 2 | bottom

niv

if natural selection had weeded something out, shouldn't it be gone by now?

now, to your main arguments:
- slippery slope is fallacy, when you can't show the process that will cause it.
- according to the polls society already accept homosexuals and marriage equality.
- heck, just say you don't have any valid arguments.

2/19/2016 4:44:43 AM

Skidie

*This message sponsored by six flags, in slippery slope service, we`re still the second best!*

2/19/2016 5:05:57 AM

Kuno

Society is not prepared to accept homosexuality. How do I know this? you ask. Well, quite simply, the fact that same-sex marriage is not legal is perfect evidence.

We cannot legalize SSM because SSM is illegal? Logic, you’re doing it wrong.

2/19/2016 5:07:45 AM

Oxymoron's Razor

<something that natural selection has weeded out a long time ago>

Yet it still exists. Weeded out? I think not.

< If we endorse homosexuality, we open the freedom to bestiality, to polygamy, to incest.>
< it follows logically, if you advocate for same-sex marriage, you advocate for polygamy, for beastiality, for incest legalization.>

No we don't, because people are allowed to have individual opinions on different aspects of a general topic, in this case marriage.
That being said, only 1 of those is entirely legally impossible: Bestiality, due to one party being incapable of giving informed consent (To bang that well used, yet often ignored, drum).
The other two are technically acceptible, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult. The main objections are 1) legal difficulties if/when a polygamous relationship ends for one or more of the parties and 2) Health risk issues for the offspring of incestuous relationships.

Local laws may vary, but remember: In many places it was once both illegal and socially unacceptable to marry either 1) someone from a different racial background, 2) someone from a different social class, 3) someone of a different religion or 4) two or more of the above. Attitudes have changed a lot in regards to those, laws banning them have been revoked, the world keeps spinning and none of the slippery slope arguments used against legalising them have come to pass.

<Humanity has survived quite adequately for millennia without homosexuality>

Homosexuality has been shown to exist in various human civilisations in the past, so your argument here is just wrong.

<But by allowing them to marry, I allow them into my society, into a society that does not wish for them to be there>

They're already in "your" society, whether you want to let them get married or not. And as for society not wanting them there, I would like to point out, with rare pride, my home country Ireland. Despite being predominantly Roman Catholic and heavily influenced by the church for decades, the general public still voted overwhelmingly in favour of allowing homosexual marriage, becoming the first country to do so by a vote of the general public. So, what was your argument again?

<But even on a smaller scale, same-sex marriage enables homosexual couples to receive the same benefits that heterosexual couples receive. They should not receive equal treatment, at least in the same system. >

Okay, now please explain WHY they shouldn't receive the same treatment as everyone else.

TL;DR: You, Sir, are an intolerant jackass and while I believe you are entitled to your own opinions, please keep them to yourself.

2/19/2016 5:09:47 AM

Malingspann

Xeru: "Humanity has survived quite adequately for millennia without homosexuality, so your "stagnant society" argument holds no water."

Non-fundie: (Shows evidence that homosexuality is at least as old as humanity and same-gender sex even occurs among animals.)

Xeru (jumps back wide-eyed and open-mouthed. Whips out cross): "THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU!!!!"

2/19/2016 5:58:59 AM

creativerealms

You realize that we call it a slippery slope to show its a flawed thought oatten. You're not suposse to actually run with that term.

2/19/2016 6:01:09 AM

creativerealms

As for homosexuality in nature I see homosexuality as a natural population control method, especially for humans who have no natural predators that keep our numbers in check. With a small number of the population attracted to the same sex they are unlikely to reproduce. Now this number is not high enough to stop population growth but at the very least slows it down.

2/19/2016 6:04:22 AM

Doubting Thomas

Basically, if you cede homosexuals the right to marry, it turns into a slippery slope.

At least they admit it's a slippery slope argument, but fails to understand that slippery slope arguments are fallacious.

Society is not prepared to accept homosexuality. How do I know this? you ask. Well, quite simply, the fact that same-sex marriage is not legal is perfect evidence.

This post was written in 2012 so society was less accepting then than it is now. But now a majority accept gay marriage and we have a SCOTUS ruling. But the idea that "We can't legalize it because there are laws against it" isn't a valid argument. Legal recreational marijuana use was a novelty back in 2012, too.

Humanity has survived quite adequately for millennia without homosexuality

It's interesting to spot a fundie in the wild who actually believes that there were no gay people until recently, or thinks that nobody was gay until it was legalized.

2/19/2016 6:12:46 AM

Rob aka Mediancat

Why should the law or society be based on what I, or anyone else, finds personally disgusting?

2/19/2016 6:26:46 AM

Mister Spak

"Basically, if you cede homosexuals the right to marry, it turns into a slippery slope. "

Before you know it, kangaroos will be allowed to vote.

2/19/2016 6:42:25 AM

ThEcOnFuSeD

At least he has the good sense to claim using a fallacy before he used it.

2/19/2016 6:55:11 AM

Thinking Allowed

And the fact that it causes many people in society qualms because the sight of a man cuddling with another man is quite frankly disgusting means that it is thus indecent.

Translation: EWE...THAT IS GROSS.


Why is it a lot of people always say 2 men together is gross, but not a peep of 2 women together? As a person in society, I don't find 2 people of the same sex cuddling together as gross or degradation of society.

2/19/2016 7:08:47 AM

Swede

Nope. We have "ceded" homosexuals the right to marry, in most of Europe, and before that we had registered partnership. Nothing whatsoever more has happened, than gays and lesbians getting married.

Homosexuality is biological; it's a safety valve against overpopulation and extra care-givers if something happens to parents. It's one of the fundamental parts of being human, and a product of natural selection.

The Netherlands have had same-sex marriage for about 15 years. I haven't heard anything about Dutch people wanting to marry their sheep.
Nope, I advocate gender-neutral marriage laws.

Society IS prepared to accept homosexuality. Even fundamentally religious Ireland voted for gender-neutral marriage laws.
It's legal in the US, since Obergefell vs Hodges. So, that must be perfect evidence that society IS prepared, right?

Humanity survived WITH homosexuality, and perhaps BECAUSE OF homosexuality.
Once again, we're okay with you being put away from society. You're the minority, you're on the wrong side of history.
Of course they should receive equal treatment! Isn't there an Amendment in the US constitution that says that very thing?
Why do they fight for the right to get married? Because they want to get married, funnily enough!

Heck, you're just wrong.

Most western countries have gender neutral marriage laws by now, so it's not against the law.
What about a woman cuddling with another woman? I have no problem with men cuddling, I react more to women cuddling. But I see that as MY problem, not theirs.

2/19/2016 7:14:01 AM

Musicalbookworm

You really should stop using "icky" as an argument against by age 8 or before.

2/19/2016 7:21:01 AM

Swede

Hello Thinking Allowed,

I just peeped about 2 women. :)
I'm not saying I find it gross or anything, I just start when I see it. Then I'm over it.

2/19/2016 7:30:18 AM



"Basically, if you cede homosexuals the right to marry, it turns into a slippery slope."

Well, at least he's aware of his slippery slope arguments...

"If we endorse homosexuality, we open the freedom to bestiality, to polygamy, to incest"

Oh, brother! INFORMED. CONSENT. When will you people finally understand those two very simple words!? Bestiality is not allowed because it does not conform to that simple rule! Homosexuality does!

...On a side note, polygamy, in fact, also does. Which is why I don't have a problem with it and think it should be legal as well. It's still informed consent between multiple adults, so...

"Society is not prepared to accept homosexuality. How do I know this? you ask. Well, quite simply, the fact that same-sex marriage is not legal is perfect evidence."

Okay, 1, even if homosexual marriage wasn't legal, homosexuality by itself was, dumbass.

Secondly: "it's illegal because it's not legal"? What kind of shitty argument is that?

"That is the way the law writes it [...] the law does not need to be agreed with."

...Are you real? If the law does not need to be agreed with, then it should be ignored even if it does condemn homosexuality!

"They should not receive equal treatment, at least in the same system."

Go f*ck yourself, you bigoted piece of shit!

"Heck, it's just wrong. [...] I do not understand homosexuality. At all. [...] is quite frankly disgusting means that it is thus indecent."

Ah, now we get to the root of the problem! You think man-on-man is "icky" and since you're too dumb to understand it therefore it should not exist. Considering your choice of words, would I be right to assume you have nothing against girl-on-girl considering that's hot? Thought so. You're just a hypocrite like soooo many of your kind.

2/19/2016 7:32:43 AM

LaLi

...because the sight of a man cuddling with another man is quite frankly disgusting means that it is thus indecent.

I think spinach is digusting. Yet you don't see me protesting against grocery stores to stop selling it. 'But it's icky!' is not a valid enough reason to be against anything.

2/19/2016 7:42:09 AM

Dr. Razark

"If we endorse homosexuality, we open the freedom to bestiality, to polygamy, to incest."

A. You forgot pedophilia.
B. Why does it lead to these?
C. Beastiality lacks informed consent. Aside from "feeling icky", can you provide some argument against polygamy and incest?


"Society is not prepared to accept homosexuality."

Large parts of society were not prepared to accept freeing the slaves. Most of them got over it.


"Well, quite simply, the fact that same-sex marriage is not legal is perfect evidence."

So, since it is legal now, your evidence is gone.


"That is the way the law writes it, and quite frankly, the law does not need to be agreed with."

And guess what happens when enough people don't agree with a law? How is Prohibition working out?


"Humanity has survived quite adequately for millennia without homosexuality"

Without?!? Honey, there have been gay humans ever since there have been humans.


"Once again, I am okay with putting all of the homosexuals away from society and letting them do whatever. But by allowing them to marry, I allow them into my society, into a society that does not wish for them to be there."

But now our society accepts them, and allows them to marry. By your logic, we should now remove those elements of society that are against gay marriage. Bye.


"Violence from religious group follows."

That's not a problem with homosexuals. That's a problem of those religious groups.


"But even on a smaller scale, same-sex marriage enables homosexual couples to receive the same benefits that heterosexual couples receive. They should not receive equal treatment, at least in the same system."

Why?


"Why do homosexuals fight for the right to marry? Because they want to force themselves unto society."

No. Because they want to be part of society.


"my main arguments
Slippery Slope
Society is not prepared to accept homosexuals, and the legalization of marriage will allow homosexuals to force themselves onto society.
Heck, it's just wrong."

Slippery slope is a bad argument, and you haven't shown how most of the things it leads to are wrong, or even how it leads to those things.
Some parts of society aren't prepared to accept homosexuality. But some parts of society aren't ready to accept the fact that the earth ain't flat. Why should we let ignorant bigots hold us back?
You actually have to show it's wrong. Simply asserting that it is, without evidence, means we can reject that premise without consideration.


"Wanting to marry a person of the same gender is [against the law]."

No it's not. You can discard that argument now.


"I do not understand homosexuality. At all."

I don't understand why people watch sports. That doesn't mean I'm going to call for it to be outlawed.


"And the fact that it causes many people in society qualms because the sight of a man cuddling with another man is quite frankly disgusting means that it is thus indecent."

There's over a billion Hindus in the world. That doesn't mean eating beef is indecent. There's even more Muslims and Jews, but I'm willing to bet you've never tried to ban a BLT.

2/19/2016 8:34:13 AM



"It represents that our society has become one that supports and tolerates something that is against biology"

Like marriage?

2/19/2016 8:41:55 AM

rubber chicken

Y'know what else is against biology ?

Contraception.

2/19/2016 8:44:32 AM

Anon-e-moose

"Basically, if you cede homosexuals the right to marry, it turns into a slippery slope."

Ted Faggard.

You could make a fortune in hiring out/selling facilities to China for their 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics: Ski Jump, Bobsleigh & Skeleton, Downhill Skiing & Slalom...!

2/19/2016 8:55:17 AM

freako104

Considering the Duggars I'd be far more worried about homophobes and transphobes

2/19/2016 9:36:12 AM

Kanna

"Society is not prepared to accept homosexuality. How do I know this? you ask. Well, quite simply, the fact that same-sex marriage is not legal is perfect evidence."

Uh....you've missed the boat on that one, Xeru. Too late, it's legal. Therefore, by your argument, society is just fine with it. I know, there are always a few who think themselves entitled to stick their nose into the private business of others, but they are mistaken.

2/19/2016 10:03:26 AM

Hakar

Everything else you do is also unnatural, and you don't mind any of it.

2/19/2016 10:24:58 AM



He fails down the entire thread. Logical fallacies, the "unnatural" argument, claiming that religions (implying Christianity) invented marriage, even claiming that priests are required for legal marriages in the US.

He's so far removed from reality, he's in a parallel universe.

2/19/2016 11:14:25 AM

1 2 | top: comments page