Church is supposed to be separate from state. So separate them. Make all “marriages” the province of churches alone. Persons of any gender can then pick the church of their choice embracing whatever definition of “marriage” fits theirs.

Government would then only be in the business of granting “civil unions” to both straights and gays alike. This would be a contract that gender-neutrally defines the legal terms of the civil union with no moral dimensions.

Mainstream religious people would feel victorious for stopping the government from granting “marriages” to gays. Gay people would feel victorious by achieving exactly the same legal rights as straight people get from the government…and even the title too by simply joining alternative churches that perform gay marriages.

This keeps the moral holy wars about the definition of marriage among the churches and out of the provinice of public government, preserving equal protection of the law to all citizens.

The same facts can lead to multiple opinions. Well-informed voters can have different opinions on gay-rights.

And some people have very bad “facts” about history, but from the gay rights point of view have (stumbled on) the right “opinion.”

And I probably don’t want to know, but why would someone who compares “traditional” marriage to slavery, want marriage rights anyway?

http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/19/calif-high-court-will-hear-gay-marriage-appeal/

Unfortunately arguing with you is pointless, firstly because you´re not interested in the real topic which is the civil rights of gay citizens, at every opportunity you´ve tried to turn the debate into something else entirely.

Secondly you´re using a very rudimentary knowledge of logic and fallacies to support ideas you already have. That´s doing things the wrong way around. You need to use logic to arrive at a conclusion not arrive at a conclusion and then try to justify your position by twisting logic. I understand this is the process preferred by religious institutions like the Vatican, but that doesn´t mean it´s the most intelligent path…

I´ll explain once more because you obviously don´t understand what an analogy is:
An analogy simply transfers relevant information from point A to point B to make a point more clearly. It would only be a false analogy or a “strawman” if there were no true similarities associating point A and point B. The movie In the movie “A time to kill”, Matthew McConaughey shows that beautifully in his closing arguments in court when he describes a rape and attempted murder, and everyone is very touched- but he finishes by saying “and now imagine all those things happened, and the little girl was white”…

In the case of the so called “traditional marriage” and slavery there are a great number of parallels:

1. Both were widely accepted by society
2. Both existed in most civilizations
3. Both were practiced informally and formally
4. Both guarantee rights to certain groups whilst removing them from other groups
5. Both were enshrined into law
6. Both have great social/societal significance
7. Both have been opposed by various groups.
I can go on and on with a list, but hopefully it won´t be necessary.

Slavery and Traditional Marriage are therefor parralels in many ways, hence comparable. That means that using slavery as an analogy is not a fallacy, since the points being compared (equality, justice, discrimination & persecution) can be found in both matter A and matter B.

My suggestion to Steve Baba is to try to be a bit more serious in this discussion. This isn´t about you personally or your ability (or lack there-of) to use logic or understand fallacies.

The real subject, I´ll say once more is the civil rights of CITIZENS. CITIZENS WHO PAY TAX, CITIZENS WHO WORK, CITIZENS WHO HAVE CHILDREN, CITIZENS WHO HAVE RELATIONSHIPS AND ARE DE FACTO MARRIED, but unfortunately the law is being modified to persecute this group of people. Gays, like slaves are being treated like second class citizens. Gays like slaves are not having their rights enforced. The exclusion of gays from marriage is like the exclusion of slaves from basic human rights. That´s in no way a strawman, it´s a valid comparison, and a valid argument. Like I said before, if you don´t understand how logic works, stop pretending you do.

You start good arguments with non-strawman agreeable facts such as, “In the past the Bible was used by some to justify slavery. Slavery is wrong.” Therefore biblical arguments can be wrong.

Now let´s take this statement apart, logically.
1. Insults are not necessarily arguments and since a fallacy is a “failed” argument, your statement doesn´t make sense.
2. To insult is “To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence, or contemptuous rudeness”- that in no way means it´s a logical fallacy.

One can state that X or Y is an ignorant perception and that´s not a fallacy, it´s simply a fact. It could be perhaps insulting or unpleasant to hear, but it´s not a fallacy. My suggestion for people like Steve Baba who are interested in fallacies is that they first study logic. Try something simple like: Introduction to Logic by Harry Gensler.

If one doesn´t understand the process, it makes it terribly difficult to take apart the results. As it is incredibly difficult to have a discussion with people who think they know a great deal about a topic when they actually don´t.
I´ll give an easy example. If I say “The story of Jesus is a myth because it doesn´t withstand the principle of negative/exclsuionary evidence used by historians”– that is not a fallacy, perhaps offensive to some, but it´s a fact because that principle says:
1. If all the evidence or evidence to corroborate a proposition are untrustworthy.
2. There is no evidence verifying the proposition, when this should be present if the proposition is true.
3. If searches were done carefully and thoroughly to find corroborative evidence in the right places.

According to those principles we can state that the story of Jesus is a myth. that´s not a fallacy.

Now continuing with the “hateful/ignorant” point, as I´ve said previously it´s simply a matter of perspective. I believe, firmly, that anyone who believes anothwer citizen should have less rights than themselves does it from ignorance or hate- which may be based on a range of other situations or emotions, but is in essence a hateful and ignorant position. That doesn´t mean they are entirely hateful or entirely ignorant- simply regarding their particular position which is perceived as such. That´s not a fallacy.
ie: X believes purple people should not receive the same constitutional protections as green people.->
Hence X believes purple people are in some way inferior to the rest of society->

In my opinion that´s a hateful and ignorant position since according to the bill of rights all people should be treated equally.
Hence X is maintains a hateful and/or ignorant position
Therefor X is hateful/ignorant regarding this topic.

That is a logically sound argument.

The state should be marriage-blind. Let people marry whoever they want. Remove tax breaks. Get the state out of my love life.

Off topic: Why do blind people get a tax break, but deaf people don’t?

Insults distract from the main argument.

Insults are a logical fallacy, since even if the person making the argument is stupid (hateful, ignorant, pseudointellectual…) the argument is not false (or true) because the person making it is stupid (or smart).

For example if one were able to prove that a/some/most gays were stupid or ignorant, it would not mean that gay rights are wrong. (The stupid are for gay rights, so gay rights must be stupid).

Whether there is, was or not a group that opposes something like slavery (or anything else), doesn´t mean it wasn´t a mainstream and generally accepted practice. A section of purist libertarians and on the other hand purist femenists have always opposed marriage as an institution- that doesn´t mean it isn´t widely practiced and accepted. So before misrepresenting what a fallacy is, you should try to understand logic. An exception doesn´t necessarily invalidate a general rule. Irregular verbs don´t invalidate regular verbs.
You´ve taken an analogy and tried to swirve the argument into something else entirely with misinterpretations of fallacies and citing half-truths.

I can cite many biblical references that regulate if not endorse slavery, and even give suggestions to slave owners on how to behave etc… etc… That the bible contradicts itself is not an issue for me. The fact of the matter is, it was used to justify slavery, it was used to justify the oppression of women and it is being used yet again to persecute homosexuals.

I have not insulted the religious in general as ignorant and hateful. I´m not stupid enough to make that sort of generalization. But that doesn´t mean that you aren´t hateful and ignorant, or that there aren´t hateful and ignorant people participating in this debate. Some like you, feigning knowledge and intellectual ability that you evidently don´t have-
But again, this isn´t a personal debate- it shouldn´t be about anyone in particular. Not you, not me, not Joe or Mary or Sally.This is a debate about the very basis of citizenship and the rights afforded to those who are members of a state where all are supposed to be treated as equals.
Gays don´t pay less taxes than other people, gays don´t contribute less to society than other groups. A gay doctor works the same hours as a heterosexual doctor. A lesbian mother spends just as many hours awake as a heterosexual mother. Gay votes aren´t worth less than those from other groups and therefore Gays must be allowed to enter into the same contracts offered by the state as any other citizen.

Personal religious beliefs are no excuse to deny equality to anyone, unless Mormon, Catholic or any other religious group is prepared to for example accept the religious beliefs of other religions which they do not practice. It would be like a muslim majority imposing the use of the hijab on all women. Something that would never be tolerated in a democratic state where all people MUST be treated equally. Imposing a personal religious view on the lives of any group goes against everything the constitution and the bill of rights stands for. Slavery was one of those absurd paradoxes of the American legal system- so too were the lack of women´s rights, and again we see it now with the lack of rights of gays and lesbians.

As for Jesus in a diaper, well, we must agree to disagree. That character doesn´t belong to you or any other particular group. Christianity alongside other religions have caused havoc and destruction throughout the world. They were singlehandedly responsible for the deaths of millions of people. Many christian groups take it upon themselves to insult and persecute a number of minorities. They´re the first to insult and threaten with hellfire and damnation. Religious groups of many denominations have persecuted and murdered those who didn´t agree with them. They´ve sent gays to be burned alive in public squares. What they´re fighting for now isn´t to conserve or defend anything. Some Christian groups now fight for the right to continue persecuting, for the right to impose their prejudices on all of society. These Christian groups are fighting to keep hate and discrimination alive and well- and for that they should be ashamed of themselves, as should you.