You want it to be a fallacy because it proves you wrong hence it should be off limits.

That is the truth.

I feel pity for you if you actually believe the slippery slope isn't a valid argument. I don't believe that though, you know its a valid argument, you just don't want it to be so you pretend its not.

__________________
Sic Semper Tyrannis






http://www.myspace.com/swoop187muzic

The only thing I think would be more amusing than that is if you took pity on people who didn't recognize namecalling or sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "if I can't hear you, it isn't true" as "valid arguments".

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Politely put, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, so here's a picture of a giant bat being cleaned with a toothbrush.

Who's to not say I cant marry a tree because the tree cant sign a contract? Using that logic, a person cant marry a person in a coma and thats happened before.

Who's to say I cant marry a car because I love my car and its a dependent because I sink tons of money into it? because it cant sign a contract?

I could make a valid argument that inanimate objects shouldnt have to sign a contract because they're inanimate objects and the government should have no right to tell me who I can and can not love and marry because I have First Amendment rights.

That's the slippery slope. Is it totally illogical, sure but that doesn't mean people are logical.

__________________
Sic Semper Tyrannis






http://www.myspace.com/swoop187muzic

Sure. If we accept your "slippery slope" argument, you do make a good case that blacks shouldn't be able to marry whites.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

I'm not the one arguing against the slippery slope.

You libs have about as good of an argument for gay marriage as I do for hitching a tree.

__________________
Sic Semper Tyrannis






http://www.myspace.com/swoop187muzic

You damn well know I NEVER said anything about interracial marriage.

You should apologize for that, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

__________________
Sic Semper Tyrannis






http://www.myspace.com/swoop187muzic

Here is a great example of the crazy people in this country that would jump on the slippery slope bandwagon.

Google

__________________
Sic Semper Tyrannis






http://www.myspace.com/swoop187muzic

It seems kind of ironic that it's always the "values voters" types that invent all sorts of weird sexual scenarios in this situation. If you want to fuck trees, I don't care, dude. However, since trees can't sign contracts, you won't be able to marry it.

Not so much. You're making the argument against interracial marriage without realizing it. You see, the problem with the "slippery slope" fallacy as a source of your argument is that it "works" equally well in all scenarios. You can't use the "slippery slope" argument against homosexual marriage without your exact argument also applying to people of different races, religions, or socioeconomic backgrounds marrying.

If we start allowing poor people to marry rich people, what's next, letting swoop marry oak trees?!?

And, as to your faux outrage and demands for apology, I feel disinclined to provide one for the express purpose of appealing to your political correctness. If you want warm fuzzies, go searching for them some place else. Maybe the oak that you're wooing will tell you that we're all unique snowflakes. I don't deal in your brand of hippie crap.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

errrrrrr wrong. minors cannot consent to marriage until the age of 16 and only then with parental consent. thats already law.

again its between PEOPLE for the purposes of joining property, and assuring spousal rights. animals have no property nor can they assert their spousal rights as that would require opposable thumbs and higher brain functions.

no its not dude. youre using fallacious reasoning.

two sane, adult people may be joined in purposes of property and obtain spousal rights to each other through the civil, legal contract known as Marriage.

notice i said, sane, adult, people, and i also specified the number. thats how it works.

No, he never said you said that but that your arguement could be used as effectively against inter-racial marriage, homosexual marrage and so forth. Your arguement has two big holes in it; a) its a logical fallacy... it makes no sense when examine and can be applied to everything> Having a bath is a slippery slope as soon people will try to have oceans in their homes and everyone will drown theselves> letting two hetrosexual people marry is a slippery slope, soon gays will want it and if I can marry arnother person why can't I marry a tree? Or a child? Why should I be able to marry a 6 year old? Under the slippery slope arguement these are all valid conclusions and thus absurd. QED

__________________

because a marriage license which you would need before being MARRIED has to be SIGNED BY TWO SANE, CONSENTING ADULTS AND NOTORIZED BY A CLERK OF THE COUNTY YOU ARE GETTING MARRIED IN. thats how the process works dude. trees are not people. cars are not people. they also have no sentience and CANNOT SIGN A DAMN THING.
seriously though enough with the straw men and fallacies.

Wow. Such an absolute statement without one iota of evidence to support such a conclusion.

__________________