A question?

[Tinker Grey]

But aside from emotional reasons, tax benefits and other government-recognized things such as the ability to visit loved ones in hospitals is what those who seek marriage legalization are after.

Oh, certainly.

I just think the conversation is constantly confused between ideas such as "allowed" vs. "regulated" vs. "prosecutable" vs. "encouraged."

In terms of government action, there is no reason to restrict gay marriage. There is no reason not to facilitate gay marriage. One person + one person. Simple. We already do it.

I'm indifferent on the issue of polygamous marriage. I think the government might be justified in not being inclined to facilitate something with that level of complication.

 

[quatona]

I was thinking straw man along the lines of misrepresenting the other side in efforts to make ones own argument seem more rational...

I see. Personally, I am not sure that the reasoning he tackles doesn´t exist out there. (It certainly isn´t mine, though).
Anyways...selecting a particularly poor line of reasoning and pretending it was the only one is fallacious, as well. I just can´t think of the name of this fallacy.

But, you're right, it's a slippery slope as well...

I guess I just found that the more annoying part.
I mean, if there were a good reason against gay marriage why not simply bring it to the table?

 

[Andreusz]

In South Africa, polygamy has been legal for a long time, but gay marriage has only recently been legalized. Slippery slope?
Anyway, neither of them seems to have had the slightest adverse effect on our society.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

In South Africa, polygamy has been legal for a long time, but gay marriage has only recently been legalized. Slippery slope?
Anyway, neither of them seems to have had the slightest adverse effect on our society.

And they won't have an adverse effect from what I can see...

Every argument against gay marriage is based solely on speculation since it's never been legal in this country, they really don't have any evidence to base their argument on.

For those who are for it, we can use other countries that have legalized as evidence for a basis on why there are no adverse effects.

 

[tulc]

I see. Personally, I am not sure that the reasoning he tackles doesn´t exist out there. (It certainly isn´t mine, though).
Anyways...selecting a particularly poor line of reasoning and pretending it was the only one is fallacious, as well. I just can´t think of the name of this fallacy. (emph. added)

Would that be "false dilemma"?

I guess I just found that the more annoying part.
I mean, if there were a good reason against gay marriage why not simply bring it to the table?

The problem is when they bring out their arguments people tend to blow them out of the water and being shown to be wrong tends to be unpleasant for most of us.
tulc(just a thought)