Yesica1993 commented on the above video:
Also, these are logical arguments, but the SSM proponents don’t care about logic. They don’t care what their demands will do to society. They don’t care what all this will do to children,
All they care about is their emotions. All they care about is FORCING society to accept their lifestyle.
And they will destroy anyone who gets in their way!
No, those are not logical arguments–they are fallacious arguments based on emotion. It is Greg Koukl who only cares about emotions and forcing society to accept his lifestyle.
Specifically, here are Koukl’s fallacies:
0:39 “You don’t understand what’s at stake!” Appeal to fear fallacy. That’s not logic–that’s emotion.
0:47 “I believe in marriage equality!” Outright lie. See the next section.
0:55 “I believe that people for whom the word marriage properly applies should be treated equally with regard to marriage licensing.” Affirming the consequent fallacy. This is like saying, “I believe that people for whom the word suffrage properly applies should be treated equally with regard to suffrage.”
1:07 “Nobody believes in utter and complete marriage equality.” Outright lie.
1:11 “They make distinctions. Children shouldn’t be able to marry adults, for example.” False analogy fallacy. Children do not have consent. This is not analogous to adult relationships. That is the difference. And quite frankly, comparing law-abiding homosexuals to child rapists is despicable on every conceivable level.
2:06 “Would it be an example of unfair treatment if a man was denied a hysterectomy by his doctor?” False analogy fallacy. It is possible for homosexual couples to receive the same rights as heterosexual couples. It is not possible for a man to receive a hysterectomy by definition. This video gets more ridiculous by the minute.
2:34 “Why does the state give licenses for marriage to begin with?” Red herring fallacy. There’s an argument to be made that the government should not be involved in the marriage business, but that’s completely beside the point. There is no good reason not to treat people equally under the law.
2:44 “Long term, monogomous, heterosexual relationships as a rule, as a group, and by nature, produce the next generation.” Red herring fallacy/appeal to consequence fallacy/outright lie. Seriously, we’re doing this again? As has been explained many times before: By that logic, infertile couples should not be allowed to marry. And no, same-sex marriage will not cause the breakdown of society. (See: Belgium, Canada, Brazil, Iceland, Denmark, Argentina, South Africa, New Zealand, Spain, the Netherlands, Uruguay, and Sweden.)
I could go on, but you should already be able to see by now that Greg Koukl does not know what he is talking about–or he does, and he’s betting on his audience being too ignorant to catch on. It’s always hard to tell.