[Sean]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

I figured someone would bring this up. I think if you compared society's bias vs. blacks a couple of generations ago vs. today's bias vs. gays you would be able to make a much stronger argument that the ban on inter-racial marriage WAS just a product of bigotry. I don't think there ever was a decent or logical argument for banning inter-racial marriage was there? I still know of many people who think of marriage as primarily a vehicle for couples who plan to have children. I think it's pretty obvious that gender is a much more significant distinction than race.

Well, I don't personally feel there was ever a decent or logical argument for banning inter-racial marriage, and frankly, I have yet to hear the decent or logical argument for banning same-sex marriage.

So far, your two arguments cited against same-sex marriage as I've seen them have been the potential "slippery slope", and that "marriage as primarily a vehicle for couples who plan to have children".

The slippery slope argument is flawed in multiple ways. One, what slope are we supposed to be afraid of exactly? I assume it's the "if gays can marry, then what's to keep people from making it legal to marry their siblings/animals/the Eiffel Tower/etc?" The first response to that would be that we'd still need to have public opinion swing in favor of each of these individual scenarios enough for them to be legalized - simply allowing same sex marriage wouldn't nullify the individual issues of health, consent, common species, etc. that would have to be overcome for that to happen. That's not to say that I discount all slippery slope arguments - for example, I happen to think that the current war on tobacco and cigarettes will lead down the slippery slope of erosion of personal choice in favor of legislated health - but in the case of same-sex marriage, I see no comparable, logical progression of events that would follow affording basic civil rights to gay couples.

And the second response to the "slippery slope" argument is that it inherently equates homosexuality with inbreeding, beastiality, and a whole host of other extreme issues that it doesn't really have anything in common with at all, aside from the fact that none of them are included in the current definition of marriage. To clarify, take my fears about the war on cigarettes again. It logically follows that once cigarettes are banned for health reasons, other similarly unhealthy products will follow. Cheese, candy, prime rib, pizza - all of these things share very comparable unhealthy qualities to cigarettes that make it reasonable to understand the risks of going down that road. But gay couples have far more in common with straight couples than they do with inbreeding couples, or people who want to have sex with animals, or children, or most any of the other potential results of a "slippery slope" that opponents point to. It's simply not a logical fear as far as I can see.

The next argument you cited, that "marriage as primarily a vehicle for couples who plan to have children", is far less legitimate. Where does it say marriage is about having children? I've been married for 11 years, and my wife and I have no kids. Should we annul our marriage? What about married couples who are infertile? Should they have their marriages dissolved as well? What about couples who choose to adopt rather than procreate? Why should they be allowed to marry if marriage is "primarily a vehicle for couples who plan to have children"? I could go on, but do I really need to?