I supported gay marriage, but the slippery slope we were warned about is happening!!!

[Pop23]

“Next on agenda will be child marriage. I guarantee it will come from a Muslim who says they want to marry a child. Child marriage laws will be eroded. Sounds unthinkable, yet few years ago so was men in women's bathrooms.”

Wrong.

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy, in addition to being ignorant, ridiculous, and moronic bigotry.

Obergefell in no way ‘changes’ or ‘erodes’ a state’s marriage law.

Gawd...just shut up, nobody takes your ramblings serious

But since he started posting on this thread he's used the word fallacy so many times I've been able to take full advantage of the USMB drinking game.......

Every time Clayton post the word fallacy, take a shot!

I'm gonna be crazy drunk anytime now!

Jones himself is a fallacy.

Thanks!

 

[Pop23]

Using RWnut 'logic', banning gay marriage is the slippery slope back to banning interracial marriage.

You do realize what a slope is right?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Using RWnut 'logic', banning gay marriage is the slippery slope back to banning interracial marriage.

I say let the faggots have their marriages. But a line MUST be drawn somewhere.

 

[Mac1958]

I strongly supported gay marriage and was happy when the SCOTUS made it the law of the land (despite my personal feelings against legislating from the bench). Yet the gay marriage opposition warned us about the slippery slope:

First, it was the persecution of Christians (notice not Muslims who are free to deny fag's service) to deny serves to a gay marriage based on religious beliefs. Yet the argument was the bakery is a bigot so please carry on.

Second, it was you can't say anything to offend the sensitive people of the world or the non-tolerant left will ruin your life.

Now, they want grown men to use the same bathroom, locker rooms and showers as women and young girls. This was unthinkable even 5 yrs ago and now the left is destroying anyone who disagrees with it.

Next on agenda will be child marriage. I guarantee it will come from a Muslim who says they want to marry a child. Child marriage laws will be eroded. Sounds unthinkable, yet few years ago so was men in women's bathrooms.

Next will be bigamy. It will go hand and hand with child marriage. This one is inevitable.

I am not sure I don't still support gay marriage, but the slippery slope is getting frightening!

My guess is that you would more open to discussing and considering these issues - even to the point of changing your mind or softening your stance a bit - if you were not attacked and called every possible name or threatened with some kind of "consequences" for simply expressing a concern.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who have zero (0) interest in changing hearts & minds, including yours. They just want to BEAT you and then rub your face in it.
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yeah, the end is nigh and all that shit.

Jeeez but you people do get all het up over nothing. There is nothing at all "frightening" about equality.

No christians have been or will be "persecuted". Quit whining.

Second, its the RWNJs who want to marry children and have repeatedly defended it on this board.

Third, bigamy? So what?

Fourth, no one wants grown men to use women's bathrooms.

Okay, you can go back to making up weird crap.

Alternatively, you could stop trying to control other people's private lives with bigger and more invasive laws, stop Peeping Tom, stop peeking at people's pee pee's and

MYOB

A transsexual male (many are transitioning to become lesbians) are simalarily situated to straight males.

If you allow one, you cannot prohibit the other.

It is the legal standard that overturned gay marriage bans.

You are either stupid or a dupe.

I'm betting both

If that legal standard exists, it existed before same sex marriage was held to constitutionally protected.

What the Fucks your point?

The standard exists, and if the State sanctions trannies in restrooms, the can't exclude other simalarily situated individuals.

You may be the biggest dupe of all time!

There's a difference between a transsexual and some guy who puts on a dress so he can sneak into the girls' room.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Yeah, the end is nigh and all that shit.

Jeeez but you people do get all het up over nothing. There is nothing at all "frightening" about equality.

No christians have been or will be "persecuted". Quit whining.

Second, its the RWNJs who want to marry children and have repeatedly defended it on this board.

Third, bigamy? So what?

Fourth, no one wants grown men to use women's bathrooms.

Okay, you can go back to making up weird crap.

Alternatively, you could stop trying to control other people's private lives with bigger and more invasive laws, stop Peeping Tom, stop peeking at people's pee pee's and

MYOB

A transsexual male (many are transitioning to become lesbians) are simalarily situated to straight males.

If you allow one, you cannot prohibit the other.

It is the legal standard that overturned gay marriage bans.

You are either stupid or a dupe.

I'm betting both

If that legal standard exists, it existed before same sex marriage was held to constitutionally protected.

What the Fucks your point?

The standard exists, and if the State sanctions trannies in restrooms, the can't exclude other simalarily situated individuals.

You may be the biggest dupe of all time!

There's a difference between a transsexual and some guy who puts on a dress so he can sneak into the girls' room.

Lol. Theres no difference. Theyre both freaks of nature.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Using RWnut 'logic', banning gay marriage is the slippery slope back to banning interracial marriage.

I say let the faggots have their marriages. But a line MUST be drawn somewhere.

We're always able to draw a line. The lines get drawn where laws draw them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yeah, the end is nigh and all that shit.

Jeeez but you people do get all het up over nothing. There is nothing at all "frightening" about equality.

No christians have been or will be "persecuted". Quit whining.

Second, its the RWNJs who want to marry children and have repeatedly defended it on this board.

Third, bigamy? So what?

Fourth, no one wants grown men to use women's bathrooms.

Okay, you can go back to making up weird crap.

Alternatively, you could stop trying to control other people's private lives with bigger and more invasive laws, stop Peeping Tom, stop peeking at people's pee pee's and

MYOB

A transsexual male (many are transitioning to become lesbians) are simalarily situated to straight males.

If you allow one, you cannot prohibit the other.

It is the legal standard that overturned gay marriage bans.

You are either stupid or a dupe.

I'm betting both

If that legal standard exists, it existed before same sex marriage was held to constitutionally protected.

What the Fucks your point?

The standard exists, and if the State sanctions trannies in restrooms, the can't exclude other simalarily situated individuals.

You may be the biggest dupe of all time!

There's a difference between a transsexual and some guy who puts on a dress so he can sneak into the girls' room.

Lol. Theres no difference. Theyre both freaks of nature.

So is a midget. What bathroom do you want him in?

 

[HUGGY]

Suppose you open a new bar & grill. You're building a great clientele but then a group of skin heads (or insert any other group here) starts hanging out there & driving off all your clients with money & class.
Should you not have the right to tell them to get the fuck out just because your opposition to them is politically or socially motivated?
Likewise I would not allow my bar to be overrun with freaks like cross dressers or transgenders. It's my business & I know who my target client is.

Simple! Call it a private club. Problem solved.

Not really. We have private clubs here and when the no smoking laws passed it included them. 16 private establishment owners got together & sued & LOST.

THAT is a different thing. I believe it, smoking in a public setting, is a health code violation not a social or moral situation. I doubt there is a law that would stand that would force a private club to be forced to have their bathroom placards changed to accommodate these silly laws.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

A transsexual male (many are transitioning to become lesbians) are simalarily situated to straight males.

If you allow one, you cannot prohibit the other.

It is the legal standard that overturned gay marriage bans.

You are either stupid or a dupe.

I'm betting both

If that legal standard exists, it existed before same sex marriage was held to constitutionally protected.

What the Fucks your point?

The standard exists, and if the State sanctions trannies in restrooms, the can't exclude other simalarily situated individuals.

You may be the biggest dupe of all time!

There's a difference between a transsexual and some guy who puts on a dress so he can sneak into the girls' room.

Lol. Theres no difference. Theyre both freaks of nature.

So is a midget. What bathroom do you want him in?

No, the freaks are trannies, crossdressers, and other assorted sexual deviants. Small people aren't freaks. Nice slur by the way.

 

[Pop23]

Yeah, the end is nigh and all that shit.

Jeeez but you people do get all het up over nothing. There is nothing at all "frightening" about equality.

No christians have been or will be "persecuted". Quit whining.

Second, its the RWNJs who want to marry children and have repeatedly defended it on this board.

Third, bigamy? So what?

Fourth, no one wants grown men to use women's bathrooms.

Okay, you can go back to making up weird crap.

Alternatively, you could stop trying to control other people's private lives with bigger and more invasive laws, stop Peeping Tom, stop peeking at people's pee pee's and

MYOB

A transsexual male (many are transitioning to become lesbians) are simalarily situated to straight males.

If you allow one, you cannot prohibit the other.

It is the legal standard that overturned gay marriage bans.

You are either stupid or a dupe.

I'm betting both

If that legal standard exists, it existed before same sex marriage was held to constitutionally protected.

What the Fucks your point?

The standard exists, and if the State sanctions trannies in restrooms, the can't exclude other simalarily situated individuals.

You may be the biggest dupe of all time!

There's a difference between a transsexual and some guy who puts on a dress so he can sneak into the girls' room.

Try that in court!

It was n no show in Obergfell.

You a bigot?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I support letting individuals use the bathroom that coincides with the gender they identify as, BUT,

at this point I believe that the laws should involve something along the lines of an affirmative defense on the part of the individual who might be accused of using the wrong bathroom.

IOW, the burden of proof is on the individual to show that he or she does in fact legitimately identify as male or female.

Beyond that I defer to the courts to sort it out.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Suppose you open a new bar & grill. You're building a great clientele but then a group of skin heads (or insert any other group here) starts hanging out there & driving off all your clients with money & class.
Should you not have the right to tell them to get the fuck out just because your opposition to them is politically or socially motivated?
Likewise I would not allow my bar to be overrun with freaks like cross dressers or transgenders. It's my business & I know who my target client is.

Simple! Call it a private club. Problem solved.

Not really. We have private clubs here and when the no smoking laws passed it included them. 16 private establishment owners got together & sued & LOST.

THAT is a different thing. I believe it, smoking in a public setting, is a health code violation not a social or moral situation. I doubt there is a law that would stand that would force a private club to be forced to have their bathroom placards changed to accommodate these silly laws.

I think it is all one & the same.

Government overreach.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If that legal standard exists, it existed before same sex marriage was held to constitutionally protected.

What the Fucks your point?

The standard exists, and if the State sanctions trannies in restrooms, the can't exclude other simalarily situated individuals.

You may be the biggest dupe of all time!

There's a difference between a transsexual and some guy who puts on a dress so he can sneak into the girls' room.

Lol. Theres no difference. Theyre both freaks of nature.

So is a midget. What bathroom do you want him in?

No, the freaks are trannies, crossdressers, and other assorted sexual deviants. Small people aren't freaks. Nice slur by the way.

A freak of nature is not a slur, although you apparently used it thinking it was.

 

[jwoodie]

I strongly supported gay marriage and was happy when the SCOTUS made it the law of the land (despite my personal feelings against legislating from the bench). Yet the gay marriage opposition warned us about the slippery slope:

First, it was the persecution of Christians (notice not Muslims who are free to deny fag's service) to deny serves to a gay marriage based on religious beliefs. Yet the argument was the bakery is a bigot so please carry on.

Second, it was you can't say anything to offend the sensitive people of the world or the non-tolerant left will ruin your life.

Now, they want grown men to use the same bathroom, locker rooms and showers as women and young girls. This was unthinkable even 5 yrs ago and now the left is destroying anyone who disagrees with it.

Next on agenda will be child marriage. I guarantee it will come from a Muslim who says they want to marry a child. Child marriage laws will be eroded. Sounds unthinkable, yet few years ago so was men in women's bathrooms.

Next will be bigamy. It will go hand and hand with child marriage. This one is inevitable.

I am not sure I don't still support gay marriage, but the slippery slope is getting frightening!

The disintegration of the nuclear family is the greatest social problem we have. I believe that "gay marriage" contributes to this problem by furthering the mockery of "traditional" marriage. However, I believe that "no fault" divorce and its attendant support/custody rules are an even bigger contributor. Given the choice, I would rather have the former than the latter.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I support letting individuals use the bathroom that coincides with the gender they identify as, BUT,

at this point I believe that the laws should involve something along the lines of an affirmative defense on the part of the individual who might be accused of using the wrong bathroom.

IOW, the burden of proof is on the individual to show that he or she does in fact legitimately identify as male or female.

Beyond that I defer to the courts to sort it out.

Why do you need a court to sort out biology?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Suppose you open a new bar & grill. You're building a great clientele but then a group of skin heads (or insert any other group here) starts hanging out there & driving off all your clients with money & class.
Should you not have the right to tell them to get the fuck out just because your opposition to them is politically or socially motivated?
Likewise I would not allow my bar to be overrun with freaks like cross dressers or transgenders. It's my business & I know who my target client is.

Simple! Call it a private club. Problem solved.

Not really. We have private clubs here and when the no smoking laws passed it included them. 16 private establishment owners got together & sued & LOST.

THAT is a different thing. I believe it, smoking in a public setting, is a health code violation not a social or moral situation. I doubt there is a law that would stand that would force a private club to be forced to have their bathroom placards changed to accommodate these silly laws.

I think it is all one & the same.

Government overreach.

Government overreach then by your standard would be telling anyone they have to have opposite sex separate bathrooms in the first place.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

What the Fucks your point?

The standard exists, and if the State sanctions trannies in restrooms, the can't exclude other simalarily situated individuals.

You may be the biggest dupe of all time!

There's a difference between a transsexual and some guy who puts on a dress so he can sneak into the girls' room.

Lol. Theres no difference. Theyre both freaks of nature.

So is a midget. What bathroom do you want him in?

No, the freaks are trannies, crossdressers, and other assorted sexual deviants. Small people aren't freaks. Nice slur by the way.

A freak of nature is not a slur, although you apparently used it thinking it was.

Midget is a slur. A freak of nature is not. Apparently, you haven't thought this through.

 

[Pop23]

Using RWnut 'logic', banning gay marriage is the slippery slope back to banning interracial marriage.

I say let the faggots have their marriages. But a line MUST be drawn somewhere.

We're always able to draw a line. The lines get drawn where laws draw them.

Exactly. And the law say you can't discriminate similarily situated individuals.

1. A guy with a dick that is sexually attracted to women. (Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner)

2. A guy with a dick that is sexually attracted to women (all straight males)

Are you really that stupid??

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

We all know smoking is a health hazard yet we need the government to protect us from what should be our own choice?
Why is it OK for a woman to choose abortion but not ok for Joe Blow to allow smoking in his bar? Are you not smart enough to not patronize an establishment that you deem unhealthy or otherwise unfit to earn your dollar?