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.

For many centuries marriage has enjoyed an honoured position in society as it denotes respect for others, responsibility and the nurturing of children.

I think public respect will diminish if the word marriage is allowed to be used to describe a homosexual union. This will be simply because many view homosexual acts as weird, abnormal and dirty..

I hold my marriage on a high level and have no wish to see its reputation drop as a result of homosexuals being part of the institute. Homosexuals can find another word that means homosexual union.

There certainly is a great deal of emotion associated
with the issue of same-sex marriage in this country.

People read all sorts of different things into it what the
outcomes will be if we allow it.
They argue as to what marriage means to them and
how they generally view homosexuality. That is quite
understandable in a country such as ours where religion
has played such an important role in our lives. However,
realistically, taking religion aside, we are suposed
to be a secular state and religious laws have no legal
status.
Marriage is basically a legal
contract between two consenting adults which in this
country is controlled by the government. Like taxes.

Prior to 2004 - marriage was not defined under our
laws. Former Prime Minister John Howard
did so in 2004 by Amending
the Marriage Act to make it only between a man and
a woman to the exclusion of all others.
The Marriage Act can therefore be changed back. The
government has the power to do so. It can also include
all the "protections" voters deem as necessary.

Each society views its own patterns of marriage, family,
and kinship as self-evidently right and proper, and
usually as God given as well. If we assume that there
is only one "right" family form, then of course any
change will be seen as heralding the doom of the whole
institution. It is important therefore to recognise
that there is an immense range in marriage, family,
and kinship patterns and also that these patterns
have changed through time. The family patterns of
other cultures also challenge many of our assumptions about
the nature of marriage, family and kinship.

In any case people will have an opportunity to make their
feelings known through the postal vote on this issue.
Best to make it count.

As a liberal, I see no need to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, however, the slippery slope argument is frequently used usually by the opponents of any law. For example, Labor used the same argument against CHAFTA arguing that employers would be able to bring in large quantities of unskilled Chinese labour, yet 2yrs later and we are still to be swamped by the yellow peril.

Of course, any war is won one battle at a time and the left is very unlikely to be satisfied with one victory. One only has to look at Labor extolling the virtues of a plebiscite until the libs adopted it.

The question is whether if SSM is legalised whether the left whingers then try and make it illegal to refuse service based on religious grounds, and for those that say rubbish, it is already being discussed within Labor and the Greens.

Foxy writes:
“If we assume that there is only one "right" family form […]”

There’s no assumption happening.
Whether it be “right" or otherwise, there is only one form.
Any other “form” is a biological dead end.

I think the problem might be confusing the wanting access something with the something itself.

One has to be totally blind and pig headed to deny the slippery slope arguement. Regressives will take us to sodom and Gomorrah quickly.

//Any other “form” is a biological dead end.//

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jFqhjaGh30

Yep, and you can't go letting folk getting married if they can't produce issue. That's why we should test people for fertility before they get married, and only let the marriage proceed if they can procreate.

Now some of you might be thinking that this all sound a tad Orwellian, that it isn't the place of the State to be sticking it's nose into its citizen's reproduction, and that sort of thing is for authoritarian regimes like China with their one child policy. But thinking of marriage as a decision between two individuals tie the knot is lefty nonsense that will inevitably and swiftly lead to bad things happening. The only correct and proper way to think of marriage is as a State-controlled breeding program.

Toni Lavis writes:
“Yep, and you can't go letting folk getting married if they can't produce issue.”

. . which is, of course, your common or garden variety straw man.

Your specious argument relies on the notion that procreation is mandatory where it is not.
I’m simply pointing out that SSM embodies the impossibility of procreation and deems procreation of no value.

You’re perfectly free to down play procreation, but that tortured reasoning seems rather at odds with your existence.

Goodness me all these arguments - about what marriage
is - it's about religion, it's
about procreation, it's against nature...

Marriage is not about religion. Marriage is a secular
contract presided over by government. Like taxes.
If marriage is about procreation then we should also
ban marriages that take place later in life, beyond a
couple's child-bearing year or we might also consider
banning marriage for heterosexual couples who don't
want children.

Marriage is against nature?
Homosexuality occurs quite often in nature. If you've
never seen a pair of male dolphins doing miraculous
things with their blowholes, you haven't been watching
enough SBS. There are actually some animals that
spontaneously change sex from male to female and vice
versa so relying on the "nature" of things is rather
a bit misleading.

Foxy writes:
“Homosexuality occurs quite often in nature. If you've
never seen a pair of male dolphins doing miraculous
things with their blowholes”

Exactly.
Support marriage equality for gay dolphins.

Toni Lavis writes:
“Yep, and you can't go letting folk getting married if they can't produce issue.”

. . which is, of course, your common or garden variety straw man.

Your specious argument relies on the notion that procreation is mandatory where it is not.
I’m simply pointing out that SSM embodies the impossibility of procreation and deems procreation of no value.

You’re perfectly free to down play procreation, but that tortured reasoning seems rather at odds with your existence.
Posted by Dustin, Sunday, 3 September 2017 10:55:06 AM

==>>Dustin has argued well...

For many centuries marriage has enjoyed an honoured position in society as it denotes respect for others, responsibility and the nurturing of children.

I think public respect will diminish if the word marriage is allowed to be used to describe a homosexual union. This will be simply because many view homosexual acts as weird, abnormal and dirty..

I hold my marriage on a high level and have no wish to see its reputation drop as a result of homosexuals being part of the institute. Homosexuals can find another word that means homosexual union.
Posted by Banjo, Saturday, 2 September 2017 11:22:36 AM
==>>

Basically, I agree with Banjo!

The alterations that family patterns are undergoing
can't be halted by laws or sermons, for they are
the products of much more encompassing social and
economic developments. The changes in the family are
perhaps even more extensive than is generally realised.

Not only is the family consisting of a husband
who works and a wife who stays home to care for their
children no longer the norm; it exists in fewer households.
One reason for the demise of that family is the sharp
increase in the number of women in the work force.The
two-paycheck, dual-career marriage is now typical.

There have been so many changes with marriage and family.
We have single-parent families, we have co-habitation,
we have people marrying more than once,
we have re-constructed families (divorce and re-marriage),
we have childless couples,
we have "open marriages," we have people choosing to remain
single. We have gay couples and Gay-Parent families.

The reality is that what we see today (as opposed to what
may have been the norm decades ago) is the existence of
alternative patterns - an increasing tolerance of a variety
of alternative family styles.

This is primarily due to the nature of post-industrial
societies whose hallmarks are economic and cultural diversity
combined with a highly developed sense of individualism.

In this environment people tend to make decisions about
marriage, divorce, abortion, child-rearing,
and the like in terms of what they, personally, want -
rather than in terms of traditional moralities,
obligations to kin, or the other impersonal pressures
that previous generations unquestioningly accepted.

Pursuing their own vision of self-fulfillment, or responding to
the social and economic predicament in which they find
themselves, many people are modifying the family system to suit
their individual needs.

Significantly enough, some of these variant family patterns
are becoming recognised, formally or informally, by such
official agencies as the Bureau of the Census, the State
and Federal courts, the Taxation Office, and Government
Welfare Departments.

It could be, that we are moving to a situation in which
variants of marriage and family patterns
will simply come to be taken for granted.

I read an article of a case where a daughter was marrying her mother under the now SSM law.

Josephus,

Do you have a link to this article?

--

Suggesting that polygamy or incestuous relationships would be next, if same-sex marriage were to be legislated for, is indeed the slippery slope fallacy.

The Slippery Slope argument is fallacious when it is used to appeal to extreme hypotheticals instead of addressing the issue at hand. Particularly when no logical reason is given for the inevitability of the extreme hypotheticals.

In no way does the size of the initial step make a difference to whether the argument is fallacious, this is something the OP has made up.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/162/Slippery-Slope
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

So, no, it’s not a “false argument” at all.

CE,
I could have added that the only reason for homosexuals wanting the word marriage is to steal some of our good reputation that the homosexuals do not have. Their antics at the Sydney gay madi gras show they have not earned it.

«I read an article of a case where a daughter was marrying her mother under the now SSM law.»

Of course, the author has to make a living...

Anyway, since when do human-made laws determine whether one is married or not?

//I could have added that the only reason for homosexuals wanting the word marriage is to steal some of our good reputation//

You don't have a good reputation, Banjo.

Dear Josephus,

A daughter marrying her mother - under SSM laws?
That would be quite extraordinary in this country
because in our Marriage Act the marrying of relatives is
forbidden.

Every society has an incest taboo, a powerful moral
prohibition against sexual contact between certain
categories of relatives. But although no society allows
people to mate with anyone they choose, different
societies have quite different ideas about who might
be a prohibited marriage partner.

In the US for example, all fifty states prohibit marriage
between a person and his or her parent, grandparent,
uncle or aunt, brother or sister, and niece or nephew;
an additional twenty-nine states regard marriage between
first cousins as incestuous, but the remainder do not make
any distinction between siblings (brothers and sisters) and
cousins.

In these societies there are usually no separate words for
"brother" and "cousin": they are regarded as the same kind
of relative, and the incest taboo is therefore extended to
first, second, third, and even more distant cousins as well.

A few societies actually extend the taboo to social as well
as sexual behaviour. Among the Nama Hottentots, an adult
brother and sister could not be alone together or even
speak to one another, and a Crow husband could not talk to
or even look at his mother-in-law.

Some cultures, on the other hand, are very specific about whom
people may or should marry, as well as whom they may not.
Therefore, although certain societies consider it incestuous
to marry a child of one's mother's sister, or of one's father's
brother, they may expect - or even require - that one should
marry a child of one's mother's brother, or of one's father's
sister. Biologically, of course, each type of cousin is
equally close; but social norms define one union as
revolting, the other as desirable.

Where did you read about the case that you cited - and in
which country did this happen?

Hey Toni,
I personally may not have a good reputation, but hetrosexual marriage does, because of its respect for others, responsibility and the nurturing of children.

It is the sexual practices of homosexuals that give homosexuals a poor image.

Suggesting that polygamy or incestuous relationships would be next, if same-sex marriage were to be legislated for, is indeed the slippery slope fallacy.
<<

Dearest AJP,

If you want to dismiss the concerns of those against ssm by describing their concerns as the slippery slope fallacy(and therefore worthy of not being listened to, hence dismissed!) then you have to first describe ssm as a relatively small step: IT IS NOT! SSM IS PATENTLY NOT A RELATIVELY SMALL STEP!

The yes vote has not a foot to stand on in this respect...

In no way does the size of the initial step make a difference to whether the argument is fallacious, this is something the OP has made up.
<<

AJP is simply wrong!

No, I don’t, Cupric Embarrasment.

<<If you want to dismiss the concerns of those against ssm by describing their concerns as the slippery slope fallacy …>>

I have far better ways to dismiss them, such as pointing out the fact that they either have no rational basis, or are irrelevant to the topic of same-sex marriage.

<<… then you have to first describe ssm as a relatively small step: IT IS NOT! SSM IS PATENTLY NOT A RELATIVELY SMALL STEP!>>

Well, if you say it with the Caps Lock on, then I guess it MUST be true!

You and your sock puppet (i.e. mememememememe) are yet to explain what the size of the initial step has to do with whether a Slippery Slope argument is fallacious (perhaps we can get to whether same-sex marriage is a relatively small step after that). I even provided you with three links to get you started.

So far, your only rebuttal to this is to assert that I am “simply wrong”.

Dear Banjo,

Heterosexual marriage has a good reputation?

Really?

As one commentator pointed out -

Two words. Las Vegas.

Shotgun weddings that last 43 minutes aren't really the
pinnacle of morality. It's an affront that a heterosexual
couple jaked up on cocaine and the better part of an
entire bar can slur "I do" with the full support of the law.

There is no decent, scientific, medical, or moral reason
why two loving consenting non-related adults should not
be afforded the same rights as the majority.

Dear foxy,

Does everyone get married in lost vegas? (You may aswell call the whole world addicted to heroin!)

There is no decent, scientific, medical, or moral reason
why two loving consenting non-related adults should not
be afforded the same rights as the majority.
<<

This conclusion has no support from its preceding statements: that's why the NO vote exists and has every right to exist!

Are you some sort of feminist or other deluded type?

Dear CE,

We're not talking about "everyone" here.

And nobody is saying that you are not
entitled to your "no" vote.

Do try to keep up.

Dear foxy,

no need to tell me what the conversation is mate!

Dear CE,

I'm a female, Not your mate.

And obviously someone has to keep you informed.

Dear foxy, gays can't have kids!

...sorry about that little truth!

Dear CE,

Due to the rapid advances in the availability and
technology of artificial insemination lesbian women
are able to become mothers without having had any
heterosexual relationships at all.

Therefore your statement that gays cannot have
children is not a "little truth" but a great big
lie.

The can also have children from previous marriages,
through adoption, and surrogacy.

Just to clear things up.

//It is the sexual practices of homosexuals that give homosexuals a poor image.//

Oral sex?

Jesus, it's another bloody Puritan. Let me guess: you believe that sex should only be had conventional missionary, under the covers, with the lights off, only for the purposes of procreation, and that if either party enjoys themselves too much some sort of sin has been committed.

What's next on the list in the Cromwellian Crusade Against Joy?
Banning Christmas?

//Dear foxy, gays can't have kids!

...sorry about that little truth!//

Nah, bollocks. There is nothing preventing human parthenogenesis, or 'virgin birth' - the development of an embryo from an unfertilised egg cell. Look it up in your Bible, Cu(II) Embarrassment.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/family-friends/patricia-spann-and-daughter-misty-spann-allegedly-in-incestuous-marriage/news-story/deb553e8369b91fd7df91110ba2dd3a3

The case may be child may not be the biological daughter?

Toni Lavis,
Jesus did have a human father, Mary was artificially inseminated and had no sex with a man till Jesus was born. She was still a virgin till Jesus was born.

//Jesus did have a human father//

Heresy.

Toni, to have kids by scientific means is obviously not really having kids.

If you want to push the boundaries of what's right and wrong go ahead but I have the right to say the application of technology has moral implications : like most people admit, including the science community!

//Toni, to have kids by scientific means is obviously not really having kids.//

Well according to the Gospels, parthenogenesis doesn't have to occur by 'scientific means'. But I guess you know better than the Bible, eh Cu(II) Embarrassment?

Toni, your circular conversation only gets you back to hating religion! This is exactly what the no vote is based: ssm is an attack on Western Civilisation!

We won't blink mate...

//Toni, your circular conversation only gets you back to hating religion!//

Bit of a non-sequitur there, mate. How does my pointing out that the Bible features a virgin birth equate to me hating religion?

Are you on drugs?

Toni, unlike the rest of us you don't seem to realise why gays need drugs!

Dear Toni,

Time to stop feeding the trolls.

//Toni, unlike the rest of us you don't seem to realise why gays need drugs!//

Nobody needs drugs. But some people take them anyway...

//Are you on drugs?//

Well, he didn't say no...

So that's informative.

None of you know what a troll is... look in the mirror and you might find out!

Dear Banjo,

What does a person's private sex life have to do with
the issue of marriage?

We don't judge what heterosexual couples do in the
privacy of their bedroom before granting them the
right to marry so why should we make it our business
to judge anyone else? As long as it is between two
consenting adults and doesn't
hurt anyone else - it frankly is none of our business.
And calling anyone by derogatory names is rather
rude. That is something that most people were taught not
to do - at
a very early age. Also why make assumptions and
generalisations about what kind of sex practices people
engage in. When words such as "dirty" and "disgusting"
and "these queers"
come into play in this discussion it is not an indication
of someone who is willing to engage in issues seriously
and thoughtfully as AJ pointed out earlier.