- http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm Argument: "Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all kinds of other horrible consequences." A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to create fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn't they have 'slid' towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for over many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It's a classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers. If concern over the "slippery slope" were the real motive behind this argument, the advocate of this line of reasoning would be equally vocal about the fact that today, even as you read this, convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market arms dealers, etc., are quite free to marry, and are doing so. Where's the outrage? Of course there isn't any, and that lack of outrage betrays their real motives. This is an anti-gay issue and not a pro marriage issue. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lootekukur - Thanks for starting this thread. It is a very vast topic that a psychology or sociology student can probably select for a dissertation. I am neither such a student nor do I intend to write a dissertation. So what I have to say about this issue will not be as in-depth as you might like but everything I have to say, I think, is captured in the excerpt above and my comments below. (1) Agree 100% with you. I don't doubt your position on the issue and your intent here seems to be an academic excercise to dive deep into the issue of moral legislation which, as a topic by itself, is a fair one. (2) If you look back at the history of civil and human rights, the legal framework was built long before social acceptance. Slavery was abolished long before black were assimilated into the mainstream. Masses can commit atrocities too. Democracy is a tricky system: there are times when the leadership has to step up and take a stand based on all the aspects of an issue and do the right thing. We can disagree on what the right thing is but history has shown that those struggling for equality and dignity *always* win in the long run. Those opposing gay rights are on the loosing side of the argument. (3) Not sure I understand this point. (4) In my opinion, gay marriage stands at a different moral level from incest and sex with animals. The raison d'etre of gay marriage is not sex: gays can have sex without getting married. It is about dignity and equality. In the case of incest and zoophilia, the act of sex, seems to be the thrust of the issue. Also, zoophilia is a serious psychological condition and perhaps needs to be be addresed by trained professionals and not legislators and politicains. Therefore I don't see gay marriage and incest/zoophilia in the same moral light and I am of the opinion that gay equality needs to be given a higher standing and you can have a society where gay marriage is legal without having to legalize the other things you talk about. This is about relative moralism and gay relationships are on a much higher moral plane than animal sex. In summary, I support gay marriage, although I myself am heterosexual, and oppose incest and zoophilia, and I feel that is a fair position to take for the reasons explained above. That's all, Lootekukur.