--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchy...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> wrote: > > > > I'm for gay marriage, polygamous marriage, gay polygamous marriage, > > bestiality marriage, and incest marriage in equal measure. > > > > Aren't you? > > This is the "box turtle argument." > > "Interpreting the statement literally: it is clear that legally recognizing > gay marriage does not entail doing so for polygamy, incestuous marriage, or > marrying animals; these are all separate propositions. The legal > determination of what a marriage is can be specified so as to allow gay > marriage but not extend to marrying a box turtle. In the same way that > certain states have provisions in their constitutions defining marriage as > "between a man and a woman," it could also be specified that marriage rights > extend to same-sex couples but if one is really so worried about people > marrying box turtles and the rest not to (1) more than two people; those > who are (2) blood related; and (3) animals. > > The "box turtle" statement above is really making the case against gay > marriage by not making the case: It is not telling you what is wrong with gay > marriage, but rather saying that if you allow gay marriage then you will have > to allow something else you might not like." > > Read more... > http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/01/29/8452 > http://tinyurl.com/brsdvm >
That's one way of looking at it; another way is to say that those that support gay marriage and not other kinds of marriage are hypocrites.
