When it becomes very clear that rational argument and debate is over; when one side has clearly won, the other side has two choices. Firstly, they can give up. They can admit defeat, and move on. Their argument wasn’t strong enough, the facts were not with them. The right thing to do, is to admit this. Secondly, they can choose to become hysterical. This is usually accompanied by presenting prejudice as factual. Conservatives, when it comes to the same-sex marriage debate have lost the argument. And so, they choose the latter option. They become hysterical. Fallacy after fallacy is employed. We are treated to their creative ingenuity on quite a spectacular level when attempting to present prejudice as factual. Allow me to summarise their creative arguments against same-sex marriage, and what legalising marriage for same-sex couples will inevitably lead to in the minds of conservatives:
Strangely, none of this has happened in Canada, who legalised same-sex marriage in 2003 through the courts and 2005 nationwide. Perhaps the Marxist-Leninist, homosexual mafia like to wait over a decade before striking at the heart of the ‘soul’ of a nation and forcing churches to hire cross dressers.
Once all of these grievances have been aired in public, conservatives then tend to get defensive. They insist, after all of that, that they aren’t the bigoted ones after all. Their hysteria, leads to defensiveness. We are trying to silence them, they shout, as if the rhetoric of a Marxist-Leninist coup of crossdressing Priests represents a genuine threat. I guess it is a coping mechanism for subconsciously accepting that their hysterical arguments are intensely ridiculous. They insist that it is in fact the pro-same sex marriage majority – with our pesky historical and scientific facts – who are the bigoted ones, for not taking seriously the idea that gay marriage will lead to marrying a computer, or cross dressing Satan worshippers leading Sunday prayers, or a lesbian Queen with an artificially inseminated heir, or Jeremy Irons marrying his son, or a homosexual mafia raping children’s minds, or God destroying the World. And why would we not take those arguments seriously? They all seem mightily well thought out arguments to me. Hysterical conservatives. A gift that keeps on giving.
Futile Democracy 
I’m no to go point by point but some of those, the ones involving further reductions in marital / sexual limitations, are likely follow-on results of gay marriage being made generally legal.
“like follow-on results” is a lovely little creative way of saying “Here, let me employ a slippery slope fallacy….”
No slipper slope about it. It’s just a matter of logic and legal precedence.
Firstly, adult incest is already legal or non-criminal in several states and a further few limit the criminality of such to only parent-child and and/or adult-minor cases. It’s not that much of a stretch, in the wake of gay marriage providing non-reproductive reasoning in case law for marriage, to see further expansion of legal adult incest.
Secondly, like it or not, most of our age of sexual consent decision are utterly arbitrary and bound to neither a decent scientific or historical basis. We don’t let adults have sex with or marry “children” under 16 – 18 (varies by state) even if they’re completely biologically sexually mature because we think to do so is very wrong and/or sinful. Does that sound familiar? BTW there are already cases on various state dockets about this very matter.
Thirdly, how about polygamy? If we’re going to take basic cultural morality out of the govt.’s recognition of marriage, there’s no reason not to legalize it and it’s likely to successfully be brought to court, not the vote, thanks to gay marriage being legalized.
Of course, you could just say that society wouldn’t let anything this heinous and disgusting happen…but most said that about gay marriage for decades too.
As a last note – the only one of things I listed as probable unintended consequences of legalizing gay marriage that worries me is the softening / lowering / “muddying up” of age of consent laws.
Oh what a massive diatribe of nonsense.
“Firstly, adult incest is already legal or non-criminal in several states”
– Right. So, did heterosexual marriage lead to this? Did man loving woman lead to this? If man loves woman, who can’t man love daughter/sister/mother in that way, right? Slippery slope nonsense is fun! Are gay adult incestuous relationships legal in those states? Because if not, if a man can only marry his female cousin, then heterosexual marriage is to blame, right? I sense you’re going to try to wriggle out of that.
What slippery slope led directly to this? Given that certain Incestual relationships were permitted before gay marriage, and so have absolutely no relevance to this discussion.
As a side note, Canada legalised same-sex marriage in 2005, and in the eight years that has passed, no one is marrying their goat or their children.
“It’s not that much of a stretch, in the wake of gay marriage providing non-reproductive reasoning in case law for marriage, to see further expansion of legal adult incest.”
– Yes it is.And also, comparing a gay couple who are not related in any way, and are in fact, no different from a heterosexual couple in any way other than slightly different genitals, to incest, couldn’t be any more offensive if you tried.
“no reproductive reasoning”. Infertile couples? Couples that don’t want children? or the elderly? All banned from marriage? By this logic, we should ban all of those groups from marriage. But we don’t. We don’t because we believe marriage isn’t about reproduction (unless of course, you’re still living in Tudor times) it is the right to express that love. It is not simply a means to create offspring. If you believe your marriage is purely about reproduction, then your mechanical relationship is rather miserable in itself. “I married this woman, purely to reproduce”. How romantic.
Wedding vows would certainly be interesting if those who claim marriage is purely for procreation have their way: “To have, and to hold, and to fuck, and NOTHING else! Get fucking! WE NEED TO POPULATE THE EARTH BECAUSE OF THE GAYS!”
Your “secondly” point – no relevance again.
“If we’re going to take basic cultural morality out of the govt.’s recognition of marriage”
– This isn’t basic cultural morality. This is archaic, christian, conservative morality. Please don’t get the two confused.
“Thirdly, how about polygamy? If we’re going to take basic cultural morality out of the govt.’s recognition of marriage, there’s no reason not to legalize it and it’s likely to successfully be brought to court, not the vote, thanks to gay marriage being legalized.”
– True. If we are to stick to Biblical morality, polygamy would be perfectly reasonable. But polygamy is a concern that is not linked to gay marriage in any way, hence, slippery slope fallacy. It is a completely different issue, with different considerations. It is not based on any biological or genetic trait (as sexuality itself, is). It has nothing to do with this debate. It’s like saying “Well you eat animal meat, so why not eat humans?” It’s ridiculous.
And lastly, your constant use of fallacy after fallacy, all based on “… well this could happen!!” without any evidence whatsoever to back up your miserable bigotry, was the same tactic used to attempt to stop interracial marriage.
You obviously don’t under the actual nature of American juris prudence. Thanks to the arguments used to legalize gay marriage there are now codified into our system of legal precedence the necessary rulings and supported arguments to allow everything I’ve said to come about. All that stops it is public consensus, which is all that stopped gay marriage for so long.
As for interracial marriage – a bad argument on your part as its legalization was a direct precursor to- and argument used in support of gay marriage. It shows the accuracy of what you call the slippery slope.
As for adult incest – They the same as any other couple under law except for consanguinity…bigot! 😆
BTW – I’m in no way against gay marriage. If you don’t a Pagan ceremony, I’d even perform the sacrament for you. I’m just pointing out the legal ramifications of it being legalized under US secular law because our legal system has some odd characteristics that make some the arguments used against gay marriage to not be ridiculous.
Well they are driven to such lengths because, even though there is no real argument FOR gay “marriage,” and yet the pillow-biters’ agenda will likely win out anyway; the contras feel that they have to make extreme analogies. Which are frankly apropos, despite lame protests to the contrary. I mean, I have no idea why you cannot marry your sheep, if you can marry another man. There is no principled difference between bestiality and homosexuality. It is outrageous that one would think otherwise. Who are you to stand between a man and his fleece, just because you don’t approve?
But Mr. F.D. is quite right. Not sure why the nay-sayers bother. Either secede or give up.
Real Marriage is a regulation of reproduction. It is not a state-sanctioned love and/or affection. Where is Monty Python’s Life of Brian when you need it?
[…] “Becoming Sodom and Gomorrah” needs to be added to my list of terrible things same-sex marriage will lead to according to conservatives. This list so far […]
“I have no idea why you cannot marry your sheep, if you can marry another man.”
I’m sure you don’t. I’d imagine you don’t know what happens when escalators fill the basement with steps, either.
Reblogged this on The Syed Atheist and commented:
THANK YOU Queen for #EqualMarriage
Thank you for the link. I think! If you want rational debate, militant homosexual activists are the last people I would go to. Okay, second last, after Richard Dawkins’ atheist fanatics.
The dangers of SSM are absolutely phenomenal, as we shall see in the coming years. Already, the Dutch are preparing to recognise three-way relationships.
But much of this in the UK has been down to one man: Peter Tatchell. This man wants the age of consent reduced from 16 (I don’t think he ever say to what) and talks of “children’s sexual rights”. Mr Tatchell tends to get whatever he wants.
And you better believe it’s a socialist plot. From the Fabians to Lenin to the KGB, they knew that destroying the family and moral order was the way to destroy a country to take it over. That is a fact you are uncomfortable with, not surprisingly.
This will unleashed the power of Hell upon England. You ain’t seen nothing yet. This will change everything, like nothing before. Not even WWII.
http://www.realstreet.co.uk/2012/02/the-hidden-dangers-of-gay-marriage/
[…] is a wonderful step forward for human progress and equality. For a select melodramatic few, the World is about to end. One of the many charges against those who support same-sex marriage, is…. well… […]
Jonolan says: “Like it or not, most of our age of sexual consent decision are utterly arbitrary and bound to neither a decent scientific or historical basis. We don’t let adults have sex with or marry “children” under 16 – 18 (varies by state) even if they’re completely biologically sexually mature because we think to do so is very wrong and/or sinful.”
Jonolan also states: “As a last note – the only one of things I listed as probable unintended consequences of legalizing gay marriage that worries me is the softening / lowering / “muddying up” of age of consent laws.”
Of course my obvious first thought was, “What the hell does age of consent have to do with homosexuality anyway??” However, I felt compelled to address the not-so obvious for Jonolan. There is very sound logic for having laws against allowing children to be exploited by adults for sexual gain. To NOT have such laws would be akin to saying 10 year olds should have the right to drive simply because they can ride a bike–demonstrating some physical dexterity, enough to maneuver a mechanical structure, must surely mean they can drive. Of course, that’s a ridiculous argument. We all know 10 year olds do not have the emotional maturity and life experience to make the type of spur-of-the-moment decisions that must be made when driving a car.
If you consult the latest neurodevelopmental scientific research on brain development, you’d know that your argument is illogical anyway–we now know that the frontal lobe (specifically, the prefrontal cortex), the part of the brain responsible for impulse control and emotional regulation, is not fully developed until around age 25 (which would be why teens and young adults are notoriously bad decision makers). Thus, using your argument, perhaps you could make a case for RAISING the age of consent. Again, a CONSENTING adult sexual relationship, such as a mutual homosexual union, really has nothing to do with any arguments related to the age of consent. The implication that homosexuality is, in and of itself, an act of rape or forced/coerced sexual activity, is ludicrous–unless you are talking about sexual abuse involving a same-sex perpetrator, well then, you have an entirely different argument altogether.
I could really blow your mind by discussing the research on victim selection by sex offenders, which has less to do with sexual orientation (except in cases of true pedophiles, which are not as common as one thinks) than surely you are inclined to believe, but I’ll save that for later……
[…] few months ago I wrote on the absurd lengths conservatives will go to rhetorically when they’re losing an argument […]
Reblogged this on Take A Stand.