The slippery slope fallacy is often used to tell opponents of ssm that their views are not valid and so not even worth listening to.

Slippery slope fallacy only applies to relatively small initial steps: thus implying that the no vote is invalid because the yes vote thinks ssm is only a relatively small step.

It's patently untrue to think ssm is a relatively small step.

The media of Australia should be ashamed of their shoddy journalistic skills and inability to call such lines of false argument out when the yes vote accuses the no vote of using the false argument of the slippery slope when it patently is not for the reason outlined above.

Western Civilisation had better wake up to itself because were all dumb now. The witches wand of Hollywood will bring us all down if we don't grow a brain and get off the boring materialistic train of renovating houses to sell for paper profits rather than raising our children to think correctly and stay off dugs.

Wedge politics is being played by overseas interests to take advantage of our societies corrupted mental state: not being able to see through the bull dust comes down to educating our children properly and that starts with responsible parents who see that greed is a soulless exercise practised by heathens.

Greed is our weakness and those who seek to bring down our society know it.

Yes, the attack on the church and therefore Western Civilisation has been going on for a very long long time now: it isn't new but the kids don't know that!

To also then go on to argue that that there will be no further consequences is just nakedly giving the game away that the yes vote is using entirely incorrect argument,.. namely false accusation of the slippery slope argument,.. which fake journalism just pretends it doesnt notice is being slipped under its nose. What a charade.

What a pathetic country we are. What bias by an obviously corrupted profession that was once called journalism.

Greed is not good people: it is our societies weakness.

The slippery slope fallacy is more often used by
opponents of same-sex marriage. Proponents of
same-sex marriage merely explain why the slippery
slope fallacy is not valid in many cases.

Media ownership in Australia is notoriously narrow.
Mainstream media offers precious little diversity
and such diversity as there is runs along predictable
lines. Then of course we have the internet which
offers a vast supply of news and opinion. Especially
opinion.

Those of us who are torn between the desert of
mainstream media and the jungle of the internet need
sources where rational but diverse views can be found
on a wide variety of subjects.

I personally do not rely on any one source for my
information. I prefer a wide variety of sources.
We are a wealthy country, one which once espoused ideals
of justice and integrity. I am still optimistic - that
if one searches hard enough one can find news,
enlightened comment and quality entertainment. It's just
a matter of knowing where to look - and of course it
largely depends on one's personal agenda and preferences.

Not being gay myself is a good enough reason to vote no, given the sexualisation of kids and attacks on other members of the community.
Past performance is an indiactor of future performance, and I've never been one to give in or reward bad behavior, even when it was in my interest to compromise.

You don't need to convince me, I'm ready to vote now, and am looking forward to getting it over and done with.

'Vote Selfish, Because You're Not Gay and You Don't Want Your Young And Impressionable Kids Encouraged Or Housetrained By Crazed Leftist Trannies To Turn Gay.
Vote Selfish, Vote No'

the same ol' bulldust about lefties but the capital L iberal party voters hate copper internet and can't admit they give all their mates public assets and make their kids pay thru the wazoo.... yeh go business acumen: it's called running a country like its someone elses business so lol!

Oh, and I like the poetry from foxy!

The slippery slope argument is often called out wrongly as being fallacious.

In the SSM debate, we’re dealing with a change in law which needs to be coded precisely.
When an SSM advocate argues the need to change the law based on equality, then I often bring up the inclusion of polygamy.

This often triggers an accusation of slippery slope fallacy. But this is mistaken. When dealing with a law, the unintended consequence is a plainly obvious and logical consequence. It is the logic of the structure that informs us. The extension of the reasoning is not automatically fallacious.

Where the slippery slope argument becomes a fallacy is at the extremes. If one were to argue that people might want to marry their car, then the fallacy is more invoked. But there isn’t a black and white division, either.

Sometimes it’s easier to use the same logical structure to demonstrate a positive outcome.
F’rinstance, if I suggested that wisely investing $100 every week would see you with a nice nest egg for your retirement, then that statement would likely be acceptable all round.

However, if I suggested that wisely investing $100 every week would make you a millionaire by the time you are thirty and beautiful girls would falling at your feat, then that’s likely to be seem as a step too far.
It is the step too far that reveals the fallacy.

Not if you're a young person investing in cryptocurrencies.