Quote:
Originally posted by PatrickHenry,
Osborn, you and Starboy are both mistaken in thinking that "American" values have been made mockery of by majorities saying "No" to homosexual marriage.
Would you say, "I want to marry my daughter, I want to marry my mother, I want to marry my dog, I want to marry 47 wimmen. I want to marry my friend's two year-old daughter, and I WILL have sex with my wife. You may not violate my right to do so?"
Is there any line you would draw, beyond which marriage is not acceptable?
My argument is not based upon religion, but upon tradition. If you still haven't deduced this important distinction, then we are arguing past one another, and no further discussion is necessary or possible. You may continue to mischaracterize my argument to your heart's content. But you need to understand that you are engaging in a STRAWMAN argument, not directly responding to what I argue. |
If homosexuals can get married, then the next think you know people will be having sex with chickens. Your argument IS a logical fallacy, so don't go accusing anyone of a strawman. Tradition and Religion are both just as useless and dogmatic anyways. Incest is not an issue at hand, and extending a line does not mean removing it or extending it further.
And I see no reason why it should be illegal to marry incestually, it harms no one, it shouldn't be a crime. It will be frowned upon, of course, which is good, cause that shit is sick, but so will homosexuals being married, and that is fine, homosexuality i kinda gross, but grossness shouldn't be a crime. Then again, I guess detracting from the homosexual issue we are talking about is the goal of you fallacy anyways, so perhaps you should just ignore this paragraph.