I love this argument. They keep trying to tell me the slippery slop argument is some sort of logical fallacy. I keep saying but logically once you allow same sex marriage you have no choice but to allow polygamy. It is a logical consequence of removing the children from the scenario and making it about love that the number TWO in question becomes an accident. That means it does not really matter anymore. Its irrelevant. I get told all the time this is mean, this is absurd. Ahh, but do we not live in an absurd world. Being mean to children and women is considered equal rights. So read this because I live in the absurd nation of Australia. This is not happening in the back ground but very much out in the open.
anybody still think the one does not logically lead to the other. Because the activists seem to think that they do. You see these activists are using all the SSM arguments to justify there new “relationship”. “they can’t help it if they love more than one person.” That is the actual argument that is being made. That did not even take long. Any thoughts? Anyone want to still say that these things are completely different and that one won’t logically lead to the other. I mean “oh my goodness batman”
“For too long has Australia denied people the right to marry the ones they care about. We find this abhorrent. We believe that everyone should be allowed to marry their partners, and that the law should never be a barrier to love. And that’s why we demand nothing less than the full recognition of polyamorous families.”