Spot the Strawman

[fantochechaussette]

Suggestion for a new game: How many Strawmen can you find?



[font=arial,geneva,helve,sans-serif]Same Sex Marriage Opens Door to Polygamy[/font]
[font=arial,geneva,helve,sans-serif]by Bill Wilson[/font]

[font=arial,geneva,helve,sans-serif]Polygamy will be the first of many bizarre arrangements that same sex marriage will unleash on society.

Pro-family groups have long argued that re-defining marriage to mean anything but the union of one man to one woman opens the door to a virtually unlimited number of strange groupings. Bob Knight of the Culture and Family Institute says polygamy could ride the coat-tails of same-sex marriage into legal status in the U-S.

“The polygamists are correct when they say that the homosexuals have created such a breech in the law that they can logically make their case now.”

“Once you do that, then there is no reason you should limit marriage not only to the opposite sexes but also to the number of partners.”

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council predicts that polygamy would be the next push by social liberals but he thinks it will take awhile to crystallize.

“We have to remember the first lawsuit against defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman was filed in 1971. And there have been dozens since. So it might take them a while to find a court that will give a receptive hearing.”

Knight isn’t sure we have that much time. He’s bracing for push in the near future.

“All you need is a few lunatic judges like you had in Massachusetts when they created so-called gay marriage. Who gets to decide what marriage really is? If its just who you feel you should be married to, then the door is wide open for any kind of marriage.”

The threat is believed real enough that the first ever amendment to specifically outlaw unions of "two or more" people is being considered in South Dakota. Two New Jersey Appellate judges ruled two-to-one against same sex marriage earlier this year. In their written opinion, they said that the same form of constitutional attack that same sex advocates mount against traditional marriage could also be made against statutes prohibiting polygamy. [/font]

 

[shirono]

I'm not so sure about the strawman fallacy, but this whole thing is just a slppery slope argument, which is in tyrn it's own logical fallacy.

The slippery slope argument

This argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the first event. For example:

"If we legalize marijuana, then more people would start to take crack and heroin, and we'd have to legalize those too. Before long we'd have a nation full of drug-addicts on welfare. Therefore we cannot legalize marijuana."

​

 

[quantumspirit]

The whole article was one big strawman.

 

[Spinrad]

Here is the strawman: Marriage should not be recognised by the state. It's a religeous ritual. The state should remian separated from all marriages. Contractual Civil Unions should replace marriage in secular society.

 

[shirono]

Here is the strawman: Marriage should not be recognised by the state. It's a religeous ritual. The state should remian separated from all marriages. Contractual Civil Unions should replace marriage in secular society.

OOOhhhh darn I should have spotted that, well it was a slippery slope argument too though.
I just need to study these fallacies a bit more I guess.

 

[Charles Darwin]

Be it slippery slope or strawman, the end result is the same: garbage

 

[shirono]

Be it slippery slope or strawman, the end result is the same: garbage

Exactly, no matter what logical fallacy is used the arguments are complete garbage.

 

[Phred]

In case no one's noticed, regular old marriage opens the door for same-sex marriage. We shouldn't be worried about banning homosexual marriage, we should get started banning heterosexual marriage right now!