--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchy...@...> wrote:
[snip] > > Again, the point remains that these are separate battles. I disagree. I think they are the same battle. > The slippery slope argument does not have merit, it's just another version of > the box turtle argument. I disagree...and the Canadian example I believe demonstrates that the slippery slope argument does have merit. > > "Polygamy: My strategy here would be to shift the burden of proof and make a > devil's advocate argument. > > For those who cite procreation as the basis of marriage, polygamy should be > fine given that it is an efficient way to increase the population. Also, > polygamy might even be more "natural" than two-personal marriages given the > assumption that men are sexually voracious; this version of marriage > accommodates what people think is a biological predisposition to promiscuity > among men. It is really the philosophical basis of straight marriage that > supports polygamy; those arguing against gay marriage on the basis of > procreation have the burden of showing why polygamy is wrong. > > Incest: Here, you can't use the biology argument against anti-gay-marriage > people given that children of incest are more likely to have genetic > deformities. But you can say that children of gay couples are not prone to > this same problem either because they are adopted or naturally conceived by > non-genetically-related couples (barring blood-related gay couples). The > argument against incest preventing genetic abnormalities is sufficient > enough in itself to distinguish this case from gay marriage. > > For those who are religious, the Bible is packed with divinely sanctioned > instances of incest. But I try to steer clear of Biblical arguments, which > are tedious and rarely fruitful. > > Inter-species: This is the most ridiculous. Marriages are partnerships and > animals are not capable of rational decision making to enter into one. Also, > marriage involves questions of inheritance, taxation, making medical > decisions, etc. that animals cannot make. Anti-gay activists make this > argument in response to the statement that one should be allowed to marry > whom one loves. But of course it is implicit that we mean humans." > > http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/01/29/8452 > http://tinyurl.com/brsdvm >
