They’re intentionally conflating issues. This is fear mongering because they know gay marriage is next. Personally I say keep gay marriage and get rid of no fault divorce. Watch the faggots squirm as they are legally bound to an actual marriage.
Problem is, gay marriage was decided on the federal level in a similar way as Roe v Wade, and with similar problems. Which is the only reason the Supreme Court would come for it to begin with.
Just like no matter how you feel about abortion, the overturning of Roe v Wade was likely the correct decision...no matter how you feel about gay marriage, it should probably be returned to the states as well.
This is the correct take. It's the left trying to maintain their coalition of anti whites. They're a fractious bunch given that blacks in general don't think well of fags. So they have to try and conflate the two to whip up support.
They've slapped interracial in there so they can smear anybody who votes against it. They don't give a shit about interracial. It's just a cheap trick to get protection for the gays.
I'm torn between they are just trying to agitate their people or that they actually believe it. I mean, whenever they get a win it's immediately on to what's next so, maybe they just expect it.
The people in power now are the radicals of the 70's, and you can see what the slow march through the institutions has done.
Now, the problem is that the Anti-Left doesn't think like the Leftists. They literally can't think like we do. We all have our own long-term agendas, but many of us are satisfied with something even as simple as this.
One of the most important lessons I've learned about the Left is that they are never talking to you. They are only talking to themselves or each other.
You're outside of their moral framework. You're not of the General Will. You are utterly worthless and non-human. They aren't talking to you, and they wouldn't waste time considering your perspective. You're not people. Everything you are seeing is their perspective, just projected onto you as a strawman, to control other Leftists.
This was something I had to learn the hard way. I had a friend who said he was a moderate when I first met him. Years go by, and as I find out his views, oh, he's a MODERATE leftist - as in a Bernie Bro / demsoc. I tried talking to him about woke progressive shit one time, and he said that it doesn't matter.
What you just articulated sums up exactly how they think. They never care about your views. No matter the respect you give them or consideration of their viewpoints - it's irrelevant, because to them, you are not on the same side.
Every single leftist sees you as an enemy. Their megalomaniac nature assumes that since their opinion must be the right one, you must be a retarded monkey by default.
The problem is that I don't think it's a personal failing for most of them. The issue is that the ideology itself is so radical and cynical that it basically only operates under those kinds of power-dynamic pretenses.They are all collectively lying about one thing or another so long as it gets them closer to seeing power, because they think that only power can actually solve their problems.
Frankly at this point I wish they actually would, even though I have nothing against consensual racemixing. My problem is when its promoted by every single aspect of the media and used as a vector for slow genocide.
At the very least, it should be decided at state level, just like sodomite unions. The federal government doesnt exist to dictate any form of morality to the states, and yet over the past 100 years its attempted to force one set of beliefs onto the entire country even though the U.S. varies greatly between states and cities.
I agree. I’m fine with voluntary association and consensual romance but you’d have to be blind not to see the obsession with it in the media. Beaten out only by the lgbt obsession
As long as they start with gay marriage first. Homosexuality is a net social debt, and has no claim to the religious institution. The state should not support homosexual unions of any kind. They produce no benefit for the state. They do not contribute to the welfare and future security of society. I can tolerate degeneracy, but I will not support it.
While Im not as hung up on mixed race couples, I do understand the existential and social degradation it ultimately causes. There is no reason to support it. It does not contribute to a healthier society. Its a personal indulgence at best and therefore shouldn’t be guaranteed by the state. It guarantees the production of lesser quality offspring, increases the rate of failed family units and creates social tension and a lack of cohesion.
Granted I don’t see gay marriage or interracial marriage going away. From a Christian view I’d say that marriage is a man and woman but I can’t make that a law. Don’t care about interracial marriage. People are free to associate with whoever. Or not associate with whoever (at least they should be). Plus I have some different ethnicities in my family tree so i have no issues with it.
From a Christian view I’d say that marriage is a man and woman but I can’t make that a law.
Well maybe not you personally, but there is certainly nothing constitutionally stopping such a law by the states. That was the norm for the vast majority of America's existence. Laws fundamentally exist to enforce morality and morality is derived from theology, even the faggot stuff has its own perverted theological basis.
I always figured they could go do a civil contract with a lawyer.
They specifically rejected civil unions, because it was never about them associating, or even getting the benefits of being married without providing the benefits of a marriage to society.
It was always about power. They wanted to force people who disagreed to call it a marriage. They wanted people who objected to bake the cake, officiate the ceremony, file the paperwork.
SCOTUS making stuff up and an almost century long campaign of a highly organized elite gay minority going back to the International Congress for Sexual Reform on a Scientific Basis in the 1920s.
From a Christian view I’d say that marriage is a man and woman but I can’t make that a law
You most certainly can. It's amazing how something went from unthinkable for millennia to unthinkable to not support it being permitted. As long as we play along, society will continue to go to hell.
Only formal fallacies are valid. Everything else that gets called a fallacy is simply rhetoric. Nine times out of ten when a progressive dismisses something as a fallacy, they are just trying to stop people from noticing reality.
If the slippery slope is a fallacy, why is it so prophetic? The sexual revolution and gay rights has led to pedophilia. Women's rights has led to women leaving their husbands and murdering their children. SCOTUS legalizing contraception by fiat led to legalizing abortion as Justice Black predicted.
The old religious right actually underestimated how slippery the slope was. They would tell you to stop being hyperbolic if you could tell them about current year.
Fundamentally, I don't give a shit that you like it as a rhetorical device. If you use it as a rhetorical device, then you admit that if you Overturn Roe v. Wade, you re-establish slavery.
Now for everyone else:
Stop using a real fallacy as a rhetorical flourish.
Fallacies are errors in validity. Validity & Truth-value are independent.
A series of conjoined logical implications into a single implication is not a fallacy, it's boolean logic. The fallacy is when you assert that the thing which is not an implication is an implication. The fallacy normally arises when your argument is a series of conjoined, disjunctive implications (which you can't simplify to a single implication), being treated as a conjoined implications (which you can simplify to an implication). Meaning, you can't say if you go to the bank you'll be shot by the guard, because that's not a 1:1 relationship, like the ignition on your car.
It's not whether or not I like the slippery slope as a rhetorical device; it simply is one, as are most of the other not-actually-fallacies redditors like to throw out. Feel free to continue denying the reality in front of your eyes just because you don't like the obvious implications of the liberal logic that brought us here.
I don't know. I mean, on one hand gay marriage makes no sense whatsoever. On the other hand, marriage as an institution is fucked beyond belief and should be completely abolished or reset. And gay marriage ironically helps with that. The more lesbian divorces, the more the state and family-courts have to bend themselves into pretzels because they need to figure out how to make two 'victims' happy. In a traditional marriage it was easy to determine who is at fault and has to pay (hint: It's the man)
They’re intentionally conflating issues. This is fear mongering because they know gay marriage is next. Personally I say keep gay marriage and get rid of no fault divorce. Watch the faggots squirm as they are legally bound to an actual marriage.
Problem is, gay marriage was decided on the federal level in a similar way as Roe v Wade, and with similar problems. Which is the only reason the Supreme Court would come for it to begin with.
Just like no matter how you feel about abortion, the overturning of Roe v Wade was likely the correct decision...no matter how you feel about gay marriage, it should probably be returned to the states as well.
Apparently democrat voters are too stupid to ask why congress doesn't preemptively pass a bill codifying gay marriage
No more need be said.
This is the correct take. It's the left trying to maintain their coalition of anti whites. They're a fractious bunch given that blacks in general don't think well of fags. So they have to try and conflate the two to whip up support.
Not that it's been ineffective thus far.
It can be both. Marriage is a religious institution, and sodomy shouldn't be a protected class.
They've slapped interracial in there so they can smear anybody who votes against it. They don't give a shit about interracial. It's just a cheap trick to get protection for the gays.
I'm torn between they are just trying to agitate their people or that they actually believe it. I mean, whenever they get a win it's immediately on to what's next so, maybe they just expect it.
They believe it, because it's what they would do.
The people in power now are the radicals of the 70's, and you can see what the slow march through the institutions has done.
Now, the problem is that the Anti-Left doesn't think like the Leftists. They literally can't think like we do. We all have our own long-term agendas, but many of us are satisfied with something even as simple as this.
One of the most important lessons I've learned about the Left is that they are never talking to you. They are only talking to themselves or each other.
You're outside of their moral framework. You're not of the General Will. You are utterly worthless and non-human. They aren't talking to you, and they wouldn't waste time considering your perspective. You're not people. Everything you are seeing is their perspective, just projected onto you as a strawman, to control other Leftists.
You're so fucking intelligent man.
This was something I had to learn the hard way. I had a friend who said he was a moderate when I first met him. Years go by, and as I find out his views, oh, he's a MODERATE leftist - as in a Bernie Bro / demsoc. I tried talking to him about woke progressive shit one time, and he said that it doesn't matter.
What you just articulated sums up exactly how they think. They never care about your views. No matter the respect you give them or consideration of their viewpoints - it's irrelevant, because to them, you are not on the same side.
Every single leftist sees you as an enemy. Their megalomaniac nature assumes that since their opinion must be the right one, you must be a retarded monkey by default.
The problem is that I don't think it's a personal failing for most of them. The issue is that the ideology itself is so radical and cynical that it basically only operates under those kinds of power-dynamic pretenses.They are all collectively lying about one thing or another so long as it gets them closer to seeing power, because they think that only power can actually solve their problems.
Frankly at this point I wish they actually would, even though I have nothing against consensual racemixing. My problem is when its promoted by every single aspect of the media and used as a vector for slow genocide.
At the very least, it should be decided at state level, just like sodomite unions. The federal government doesnt exist to dictate any form of morality to the states, and yet over the past 100 years its attempted to force one set of beliefs onto the entire country even though the U.S. varies greatly between states and cities.
I agree. I’m fine with voluntary association and consensual romance but you’d have to be blind not to see the obsession with it in the media. Beaten out only by the lgbt obsession
As long as they start with gay marriage first. Homosexuality is a net social debt, and has no claim to the religious institution. The state should not support homosexual unions of any kind. They produce no benefit for the state. They do not contribute to the welfare and future security of society. I can tolerate degeneracy, but I will not support it.
While Im not as hung up on mixed race couples, I do understand the existential and social degradation it ultimately causes. There is no reason to support it. It does not contribute to a healthier society. Its a personal indulgence at best and therefore shouldn’t be guaranteed by the state. It guarantees the production of lesser quality offspring, increases the rate of failed family units and creates social tension and a lack of cohesion.
Granted I don’t see gay marriage or interracial marriage going away. From a Christian view I’d say that marriage is a man and woman but I can’t make that a law. Don’t care about interracial marriage. People are free to associate with whoever. Or not associate with whoever (at least they should be). Plus I have some different ethnicities in my family tree so i have no issues with it.
Well maybe not you personally, but there is certainly nothing constitutionally stopping such a law by the states. That was the norm for the vast majority of America's existence. Laws fundamentally exist to enforce morality and morality is derived from theology, even the faggot stuff has its own perverted theological basis.
How did they win? They claimed a right to associate? I always figured they could go do a civil contract with a lawyer.
They specifically rejected civil unions, because it was never about them associating, or even getting the benefits of being married without providing the benefits of a marriage to society.
It was always about power. They wanted to force people who disagreed to call it a marriage. They wanted people who objected to bake the cake, officiate the ceremony, file the paperwork.
SCOTUS making stuff up and an almost century long campaign of a highly organized elite gay minority going back to the International Congress for Sexual Reform on a Scientific Basis in the 1920s.
You most certainly can. It's amazing how something went from unthinkable for millennia to unthinkable to not support it being permitted. As long as we play along, society will continue to go to hell.
This is a crucial distinction that somehow got lost in all the caterwauling over "rights."
based
I’m against any and all interracial relationships, unless it’s a White guy having sex with a bunch of women of different races, then I’m cool with it.
I can’t believe they are trying this scare tactic. Well I guess I can believe it
"HURR DURR THE SLIPPERY SLOPE ISN'T A FALLACY"
Yes it is, and this is why.
slippery slope is just like conspiracy theories
they're spoiler alerts
Only formal fallacies are valid. Everything else that gets called a fallacy is simply rhetoric. Nine times out of ten when a progressive dismisses something as a fallacy, they are just trying to stop people from noticing reality.
Just because a Leftist abuses something, doesn't mean that thing is wrong.
Don't blame guns for bank robberies.
Don't blame fallacies for Leftists.
If the slippery slope is a fallacy, why is it so prophetic? The sexual revolution and gay rights has led to pedophilia. Women's rights has led to women leaving their husbands and murdering their children. SCOTUS legalizing contraception by fiat led to legalizing abortion as Justice Black predicted.
The old religious right actually underestimated how slippery the slope was. They would tell you to stop being hyperbolic if you could tell them about current year.
Asked and answered..
Fundamentally, I don't give a shit that you like it as a rhetorical device. If you use it as a rhetorical device, then you admit that if you Overturn Roe v. Wade, you re-establish slavery.
Now for everyone else:
It's not whether or not I like the slippery slope as a rhetorical device; it simply is one, as are most of the other not-actually-fallacies redditors like to throw out. Feel free to continue denying the reality in front of your eyes just because you don't like the obvious implications of the liberal logic that brought us here.
Okay, so you admit you want slavery enshrined, because that is as perfectly reasonable as your car starting as when you turn the key in your ignition.
i wish they would take a slash and burn approach to all the activist court cases.
I don't know. I mean, on one hand gay marriage makes no sense whatsoever. On the other hand, marriage as an institution is fucked beyond belief and should be completely abolished or reset. And gay marriage ironically helps with that. The more lesbian divorces, the more the state and family-courts have to bend themselves into pretzels because they need to figure out how to make two 'victims' happy. In a traditional marriage it was easy to determine who is at fault and has to pay (hint: It's the man)
That retarded fag union ruling made it a federal issues, even though it shouldnt be.
I think this is the motte for homosexual marriage.
'Rape or Incest cases' are the motte for abortion.
I'm not sure though. Leftist rhetoric is outdated by the time you see it in print.