It is fine by you that the definition of marriage is changed by someone as long as no one is hurt. No one is hurt if a woman has sex with her German Shepherd that inititated the sex. No animal abuse. If they get married, it hasn't hurt you.
Yes, I want to stop changing it now. I am amazed that you criticize the slippery slope argument in this case. It is as clear as in any case I've ever seen. The slippery slope has even been sprayed with WD40. Because you are an atheist, you have no cultural or religious appreciation of why people are fighting to keep marriage as it is. Bringing in the argument of slavery is preposterous. Bringing in gun control is also preposterous.
Oh, so you will fight the father who wants to marry his daughter. Why? Your argument collapses if can be demonstrated that it won't hurt anyone. If even one case can be shown that it won't hurt anyone, in your world it should be allowed.
If gays can change what has been the definition of marriage, who do you think you are to stand in someone else's way? You won't draw the line now, but you are going to draw the line where you want to draw the line. Who are you to draw that line? Someone else is going to perceive that you are stomping on their rights just as you accuse others of doing now with gays. Once the definition is changed, the institution has been destroyed. You know that.
Why would you stand in the way of gay adoption? You recognize their loving marital relationship. It they are in love, married, and are economically stable, they will make the case that they would be very good adoptive parents.
Thank God you are not a federal judge.
Animals and children can easily be tricked into doing things that are not good for them. Hence animals and children are considered to not be able to consent to such actions.
Yes, I want to stop changing it now. I am amazed that you criticize the slippery slope argument in this case.
There is a clearly defined wall at the end of the slippery slope. Polygamy the may be the next step, but incest and bestiality always brings in a question of competance to make decisions.
Bringing in the argument of slavery is preposterous. Bringing in gun control is also preposterous.
Care to explain why? I believe they were reasonable in their context.
Oh, so you will fight the father who wants to marry his daughter. Why? Your argument collapses if can be demonstrated that it won't hurt anyone.
It does hurt someone. Firstly, the problem with relatives getting married is the risk to potential children. In addition, a relationship between siblings or parents/children that progresses to a romantic one is a clear indication of psychological issues. In a manner, I suppose it is similar to the suicide catch-22: if you are suicidal, you must therefore be mentally unwell, and are unable to competantly make the decision to kill yourself.
If gays can change what has been the definition of marriage, who do you think you are to stand in someone else's way? You won't draw the line now, but you are going to draw the line where you want to draw the line. Who are you to draw that line?
I don't want to be hurt, and as such, it is my duty to make sure that others are not hurt as well. That is my line. Other than that, I believe that people should be free and treated equally. I don't believe that one group of people should receive inferior or "separate but equal" treatment than another group.
Someone else is going to perceive that you are stomping on their rights just as you accuse others of doing now with gays.
And I will only intervene if I believe that that person's actions are stomping on the rights of someone else. I believe that a woman who has sex with her dog is infringing upon the animals limited rights. I believe that someone who wants to marry a relative is ill, and is to be protected from themselves.
Once the definition is changed, the institution has been destroyed. You know that.
I don't think that. I believe that people getting divorced is doing a lot more harm than gays getting married.
Why would you stand in the way of gay adoption? You recognize their loving marital relationship. It they are in love, married, and are economically stable, they will make the case that they would be very good adoptive parents.
And I can easily make the case that the effects of children in such situations has not been studied. Eventually there will be data on this; lesbians are having kids, and homosexual men are finding ways to have children as well. If it turns out that these people are having kids that are coming out normal, then I would not get in the way of gay adoption. In either case, I certainly would not advocate taking away biological children of homosexuals.
Tell me, why are you against gay marriage?