--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > <snip> > > > 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. > > Not if same-sex marriage is much more similar to > opposite-sex marriage than it is to these "other > kinds of marriage," which it obviously is. > > If there were a movement in favor of incestuous > marriage or polygamy or box-turtle marriage as > substantial as there is in favor of same-sex > marriage, you might have a point (although there > would still be good arguments against it), but > there isn't. >
I don't know what you mean by "substantial" but I suspect you mean "significant numbers". Certainly, there are WAY more gays than any of the other members of groups mentioned. But civil rights shouldn't be dependent upon "numbers"; that is, simply because of the power of voting or influence given by substantial numbers should not dictate who does and does not get civil rights. About a month or two ago I posted an article from a Canadian newspaper specifically about the slippery slope argument (sorry, I can't remember when nor do I have the reference or link) regarding gay marriage in Canada where it's been legal for several years and, yes, there are several movements afloat to legalize both polygamy and incest.
