What's your argument against this? Oh wait, you don't have one. Pathetic

It literally is a slippery slope.
>gays in 60s: just don't kill us, please!
>gays today: bake your child's wedding cake, bigot, she's due for bottom surgery and her groom is getting a flea dip, we don't have much time!

Guy looks like an incel

The "Slippery Slope" is only a fallacy if you don't present anything to back it up
Just point at all the pro-pedophilia articles popping up

Children & animals aren't consenting adults. Faggots aren't of a sound mind. Retard BTFO by his own argument.

The argument is called biology, which is fact.

Marriage is a pact. A union formed with one thing in mind, to have a family. It is a man and a woman who then have children, they use their combined income to raise children and then the children inherit their possessions. The children then go form families of their own. The only way love and sex equate into it is for the purpose of birthing children.l

Anything that deviates from this formula is hedonism and sinful.

Attached: 1534555314246.jpg (640x365, 34K)

Females are objects though, they're NPC's, they are mentally and emotionally equivalent to children.

>We're not pedophiles, you bigot!!!1!

Attached: 1537582493917.jpg (759x1024, 170K)

Hot if true.
>What's your argument against this?
None, not my business. No sandnigger god should tell anyone what they can or can't do. Getting married is the most retarded thing one can do anyways.

>Canada is faggots
>you can legally get a dog to suck you off here

Makes me think

They never ask or assume a womans opinion when attacking people for shit like this

That's because they too know that it doesn't matter

homosexuals are mentally ill! how can we prove they understand enough to consent? So homosexual are basically the same as dog fuckers.

Marriage is between a man and a woman, for the purpose of forming a family unit in which they can raise children and continue the human race.

When you replace one side of that with another man or another woman, you are modifying that slightly but if you accept that then you are basically saying you are open to further modifying it.

It no longer serves as a formation of a family unit for raising children and furthering the human race, it is serving as a form of possession over something else, saying instead that "I own this, by law this is mine" as opposed to " this is who i choose to procreate with and form bonds with".

Homosexuality comes in many forms of mental disease, not all are same kind of degenerate, but how degenerate they become only time will tell. Less rules and more freedom = more degenerate. Sex about passing on your genes of own race, then humans invented sex for fun, then fetishes, then somewhere along the way homosexuality, then interracial, then everything else. Sex should be only for children between same races, but i guess we can allow some sex for fun, but no need to go full retard.

He doesn't refute anything, he attempts to crudely psychoanalyze the strawman he built

>1 post by this ID

False. Argument claimed by opposition is "slippery slope between same-sex marriage and beastiality or pedophilia". Which is not a straw man because it is one of the most used arguments in the whole debate.
Then the point was made how the slippery slope was a fallacy because a bond between two parties in a marriage is not, as the opponent sees it, a pairing between a man and his sex object.

Buggery, bestiality and necrophilia are morally equivalent. Consent is a red herring (note that it's required neither from the bull that gets semen-harvested nor from the cow that gets inseminated).

This is the slippery slope. This would be considered a monster by me as a child and would be instantly arrested anywhere near children.

Why do faggots need to marry? And if they do, why not extend it to 3 or 4 or 5?

The reason marriage is between two individuals is because you need 2 different sexes to reproduce and have children. But in the case of fag marriage, this argument is already out of the window. So why limit it to 2?

I invite anyone hetero to frequent /b/ and /tv/. They try to break you. They post traps nonstop and there are even people proud enough to call themselves"cunnyposters". This is to indoctrinate you. Once you start liking traps, the flood gates are open. It's not actually a slippery slope as I see it, but rather an escalation of degeneracy needed to arouse you. I know I'm not saying anything new.

Marriage is not there to symbolise a bond of love. It's a contract for reproduction.

die

They, too, want to marry their sex object. It's that simple.

that's all being pushed by the liberals and not conservatives.

whenever someone says something like this, ask if they're gay, and if they're not tell them they're a bigot because they hate gays
if they're self-admitted faggots, you need do nothing, they already unmasked themselves

>why should two people completely unable to reproduce sign a love contract so that one or the other is legally obligated to commit when children are introduced

Attached: download.jpg (220x230, 4K)

and he's actually casting his own projection onto traditionalists.

>What's your argument against this?
they push the idea that the kid can consent

somehow it stops being a sick fetish the moment it consents?

So what hes trying to say is women arent my sex objects?
Wtf

Are you trying to claim that women are not sex-objects?

Attached: Untitled.jpg (696x699, 170K)

>sound mind
>implying all trannies aren’t mentally ill with a >50% probability of suicide

Attached: 1536953039368.png (773x268, 25K)

OP is a fag........
*checks flag*
........got.
Hmm, you're operating on multiple levels. Is this what 4D chess feels like?

I'm actually all for it cause then maybe they'll stop spreading aids.

>Once you start liking traps....
you were always gay to begin with.

>marriage is a loving bond between two consenting adults of sound mind
>not realizing marriage is about male /female pairings to produce and raise offspring.

How can they be so blind to their own degeneracy?

Attached: 1514580838091.jpg (600x532, 51K)

As long as there is a slippery slope that leads to me shooting you in the head I am all for it.

>a man and his SEX-OBJECT
they always have to redefine shit in order to "make a point"

>False. Argument claimed by opposition is "slippery slope between same-sex marriage and beastiality or pedophilia". Which is not a straw man because it is one of the most used arguments in the whole debate.
The slippery slope is from society accepting (even lauding), the practice of buggery, thus leaving no moral argument against accepting bestiality. "Consent" is either a non-starter or you'd be implying that a pet's consent should be required for elective veterinary surgery or a cow's for artificial insemination.

That's jews, not gays.
Jews used gays as a pawn. Doesn't mean gays want this.

Your logical fallacy is:
Hasty Generalization

thoughtco.com/hasty-generalization-fallacy-1690919

Medical competence comes into play here. You don't need consent to treat things that don't understand the consequences of refusal of treatment, which animals don't.

Slippery slope argument pretty much coming true. First you'd get stoned for being gay, then it became more accepting, then it became discrimination to hate, then gay marriage became legal, then they allowed people to cut their dicks off, then they made it discrimination for parents to prevent their kids from cutting their dicks off, now theyve got books to teach gay acceptance to toddlers who don't even know what they're genitals are for, and modern day 'cloversexuals' are using the success of the gay rights movement to promote pedophilia

The point is that consent is irrelevant (both legally and morally) to most society-accepted practices with animals, rendering the consent argument irrelevant as a basis to proscribe bestiality, thus rendering it morally equilavent to buggery.

Dont understand why Jow Forums gets bent out of shape over this picture like its a new thing, this shit has been around since I was a kid 50 years ago. Back then the theaters would do kids shows called pantomimes and the female lead (sometimes the good mommy character, sometimes the evil witch like pictured) was always played by a dude. The cast would also go around the schools drumming up the business, singing a song etc, and it wasnt unusual to see that kind of image as pictured sitting in front of the class reading a story to the kids.

>thus rendering it morally equilavent to buggery.
How did you derive that without a presumed equivalence between gays and beastophiles?

If there is no moral basis to judge or proscribe either sex practice, that makes the the such practices morally equivalent.

Sorry, phones arent easy to edit with. Ignore "the the".

I just gave you one. Consent + medical competence = it's OK to fuck a consenting adult human but nothing else, while also being OK to use animals medically.
Your argument implies you can only be morally consistent in seeing animal sex as wrong if you are also a vegan (or at least against medical research, vets, and anything but hunting).

Sadly, the answer is: “what the left does”. I actually feel bad for gays in that sense, they’ve seemingly been permanently culturally affixed to the left in some of the worst ways, that even the fallacy of the slippery slope argument is constantly proven right.

faggot butt peggers or lezzy pussy fisters are NOT of sound mind and deserve to be executed

>somehow a sexual preference can be resembled as love

That or we remember back in the 80s when faggots were crying they couldn't visit their aids infected butt buddy in the hospital because they allowed family visitors only and how its unfair.
So we gave them civil unions and they had all the same legal benefits as a married couple.
Then a short time later the faggots cried again that it wasn't enough, they need real marriage and weddings and even wanted ceremonies in churches.
Or when they cried about just wanted to be accepted and how its not like they're trying to get our kids to be gay now pic related is suppose to be ok.
Its because faggots have a history of always taking things further.
But oh, this time its not a slippery slope? Yeah fuck off.

Attached: gays.png (540x614, 491K)

I wonder why that could be?

Attached: 7EA56D04-5EE4-46F8-95AF-0540AA32B1B6.jpg (750x506, 139K)

Civil marriage is investment in reproduction, not "loving bond"

You could argue it was "loving bond" with religious marriage, but not civil one

Because in one case, they realize the character being played is evil, and the enjoyment of watching the play carries into meeting the character.
While today, there is no play it’s preaching, and so any attempt to say, this character was in the wrong, becomes bigoted, partly because it’s not a fictional character presented to them, rather it becomes a disgusting role model they want to force on kids.

>The people who say they don't want pedophilia are the real pedophiles

OP is a moron. Ignore.

The argument against it is that that slippery slope empirically exists, faggot.

Marriage is a bond between a man, a woman, and god, you asshole fucking sodomite. Prepare for hell.

Why could a civil marriage not be a living bond?
I love my wife, we just hit out 5 year anniversary.
We got married because we loved each other, not because of some bullshit "investment in reproduction" tripe.

That isn't at all what the post is saying.
Nice reading comprehension. I expected better of Denmark public education system.

Man and Man = no child
Woman and Woman = no child
Man and Woman = child
????????????????????

and yet somehow, The Party of the Slippery Slope manages to deliver anyway

>pedophilia
>two sound adults

I’m gonna gas ya

>it's OK to fuck a consenting adult human but nothing else
The is nothing other than the fact that it's the means of reproduction that makes sex an exception when it comes to animals.

they want tax benefits for fucking someone else in the ass

Attached: 1256480.jpg (750x422, 85K)

>1 post by this ID
>no facts, evidence or supporting data
This does not require an argument to be discarded.

Because marriage is something normal people do and fags deep down inside know they're not normal so they try to force everyone to treat them as normal people and their relationships as normal.

>82% of gays admit to being attracted to children.
>72% have admitted to having had sex with children.
>98% of all molested male children have been molested by gays.
Hmmmm
Make one think doesn't it?
It's as if we could lower counts of male child molestation simply by outlawing gays (1.7% of the population) from being around kids.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Attached: 1536672787730m.jpg (1024x707, 128K)

>epidemic
Wtf, is he saying that gay people are a disease? What a fucking bigot

What's pathetic is that people just let themselves be silenced through this utterly pathetic "fallacy" fallacy. The intent to slippery slope is literally built into the name Progressive.

1.
The fag uses the term "same-sex" marriage, then the fag is suprised when same-sex marriage is attached to the idea of sex.
2.
The difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is literally the sexual preference.
You can't have a straight man who prefers sex with other men. You can't have a fag who prefers sex with women.
You can't have a lesbian who prefers sex with men.
SEX-ual preference is the key aspect that defines same-sex marriage.
3.
In heterosexual relationships sex can have TWO functions: pleasure and procreation.
In homosexual relationships sex equals pleasure - hence the relationship is by definition based on hedonism.
This also applies to beastiality and pedophilia.
There are monsters who rape infants for example. They do it because in their sick minds that is pleasurable for them - there is no other fucntion other than sexual gratification.

>sodomite
Try "buggerer" (or butt-slammer, cock-sucker, ass-bandit, etc.), that way, atheists can hate them, too :)

I wonder how many non-rump robbers get gay-married just for the tax benefits. Too bad they won't be able use it to get out of being drafted for WWIII.

Gays have a worse divorce rate than straights. Gays always cheat when married. The ones who do not cheat are so few in number that they are statistically meaningless. None of you are committed or loving, but you do spread lots of disease, both social and biological.

>What is it if not a disease?
>Does being gay produce anything of value for society or culture?
Nope
>Does being gay spread STDs?
Yes
>Does being gay cost the healthcare system 600% more than none gays?
Yes
>Does being gay provide offspring to continue the human race?
Nope
>Does being gay now spread like a infection?
Honestly it's more than a disease it's a plague now that we let gay teachers in school system now they want to infect kids.
Being gay is not genetic! Gays can't reproduce so they have no choice but infect our children.
Needs to stop now!

Attached: 1536683928006.jpg (580x614, 58K)

OP was a drive by, tards.

Attached: 08D78D0C-1E5D-4452-A3F2-2A13E952C304.gif (480x360, 2.29M)

And I'm the cure.

Attached: IMG_8451.jpg (1180x842, 69K)

You're either going to be suppressed back into obscurity, or killed by new islamic demographics into the future
Whoops!

The drag queen minors always look high out of their minds. There should be mandatory drug testing of children in these situations.

"gay marriage" is an oxymoron, fuck off degenerate