|
Post by cestlefun17 on Dec 14, 2011 9:51:20 GMT -5
The point is that legalizing same-sex marriage does not require legalizing polygamous marriages. It is not an inevitable slippery slope but an entirely separate issue.
|
|
|
Post by SpukiKitty on Dec 14, 2011 9:52:26 GMT -5
I'll go for a game of Six-Way Chinese Bishonen! ;D
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Dec 14, 2011 12:37:54 GMT -5
The example I use is chess. As the rules of chess are currently written, it makes no difference if a man plays against a woman, a man against a man, or a woman against a woman: the rules of chess still play out in exactly the same manner. A toaster is not capable of playing chess, and three people cannot sit down at a chess board and play simultaneously without having to substantially change the rules of the game. What if you support consensual polygamy? The rules of chess (marriage) would require a change to allow three participants. That is the major difference. There is nothing wrong with changing the rules, just that the rules would need a change
|
|
|
Post by foolishwisdom on Dec 14, 2011 12:48:01 GMT -5
The example I use is chess. As the rules of chess are currently written, it makes no difference if a man plays against a woman, a man against a man, or a woman against a woman: the rules of chess still play out in exactly the same manner. A toaster is not capable of playing chess, and three people cannot sit down at a chess board and play simultaneously without having to substantially change the rules of the game. What if you support consensual polygamy? Six-way chess? What type of bullshit is that! There are actually 4-way chess boards. They're quite intresting en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-handed_chessThe example I use is chess. As the rules of chess are currently written, it makes no difference if a man plays against a woman, a man against a man, or a woman against a woman: the rules of chess still play out in exactly the same manner. A toaster is not capable of playing chess, and three people cannot sit down at a chess board and play simultaneously without having to substantially change the rules of the game. Makes me think of this pic: Remember: Fundies believe that reality is the one at fault; it doesn't matter how much you shoot down your arguments, they'll think up more ridicules ones, just to say "I told ya so!" I could imagine the homophobes making up another pedophile or bestiality argument involving the pawns and knights respectively. Or perhaps argue that the rules state playing with a king and a queen, not two kings or two queens. Or you shouldn't play your side with any bishops, since you are a "godless heathen" etc. SpukiKitty-Kitty has a point, you can't win against these people. Edit: Well looky what I found: www.buzzfeed.com/donnad/how-gay-rights-is-nothing-like-legalizing-beastali
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Dec 14, 2011 12:58:05 GMT -5
I could imagine the homophobes making up another pedophile or bestiality argument involving the pawns and knights respectively. Or perhaps argue that the rules state playing with a king and a queen, not two kings or two queens. Or you shouldn't play your side with any bishops, since you are a "godless heathen" etc. SpukiKitty-Kitty has a point, you can't win against these people. Except I've observed it happen. You can win, it's just hard and it takes time.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Dec 14, 2011 13:08:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Dec 14, 2011 13:09:12 GMT -5
...(Not like any of you need this explanation, but maybe it will make it even easier to annihilate the "Slippery Slope Fallacy" that Fundies throw out all the time. Very nice, Joe. Much more eloquent than my goto counter to the "Slippery Slope Fallacy". I've always gone with "Because dogs, houses, toasters, and children cannot sign the fucking contract, you dumbass!"
|
|
|
Post by SpukiKitty on Dec 14, 2011 15:19:11 GMT -5
I could imagine the homophobes making up another pedophile or bestiality argument involving the pawns and knights respectively. Or perhaps argue that the rules state playing with a king and a queen, not two kings or two queens. Or you shouldn't play your side with any bishops, since you are a "godless heathen" etc. SpukiKitty-Kitty has a point, you can't win against these people. Except I've observed it happen. You can win, it's just hard and it takes time. Yes, some people can be convinced to change. I never really meant you can NEVER win...just that many cases are rare.
|
|
|
Post by The_L on Dec 14, 2011 20:43:20 GMT -5
I am so tempted to illustrate this with a rage comic. It's FROM a comic.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Joe on Dec 15, 2011 16:07:43 GMT -5
I am so tempted to illustrate this with a rage comic. It's FROM a comic. Yarp.
|
|
|
Post by SpukiKitty on Dec 16, 2011 12:32:13 GMT -5
In fact, I found & downloaded it. Here it is! (I always thought the doggie looked cute ;D )
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Dec 16, 2011 12:37:44 GMT -5
Just to point out... it helps to post the source material when making a thread like this. Not later on down the line. But when you make the original post. >.>
|
|
|
Post by foolishwisdom on Dec 16, 2011 13:28:48 GMT -5
Except I've observed it happen. You can win, it's just hard and it takes time. Yes, some people can be convinced to change. I never really meant you can NEVER win...just that many cases are rare. Yeah, I never really thought of myself as the debating type, so I guess I was projecting. I'm just pissed off that people don't like the fact, or at least uncomfortable, that gender and sexuality is very fluid, and will go to ridiculous lengths to prove that wrong, just because they're afraid they might "like" someone when they "shouldn't". I just wish people would get the hint that anything dealing with your sexuality is just as random as other factors regarding your individuality. Just to point out... it helps to post the source material when making a thread like this. Not later on down the line. But when you make the original post. >.> ...not looking at me I hope, it's Joe's post, I found the source completely by accident.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Dec 16, 2011 13:29:27 GMT -5
How could I have been talking to you?
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Dec 17, 2011 7:55:58 GMT -5
The example I use is chess. As the rules of chess are currently written, it makes no difference if a man plays against a woman, a man against a man, or a woman against a woman: the rules of chess still play out in exactly the same manner. A toaster is not capable of playing chess, and three people cannot sit down at a chess board and play simultaneously without having to substantially change the rules of the game. Notification: Your metaphor doesn't exclude children. That's an open flank.
|
|