quote:
Some, not including myself, would argue that homosexuals are being treated just the same as heterosexuals and that no violation of the Equal Protection Clause has been made by the prohibition of same-sex marriage. Anyone is free to marry someone of the opposite sex, including homosexuals.
And some would say before Loving that all people were treated equally. Blacks had just as much right to marry within their "race" as whites.
quote:
Like it or not, marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman, as Nature/God has doled out.
If by always you mean for roughly the past 80 years in the United States, then you would be correct. But if by always you mean the forms of marriage that have been held throughout history, you are sorely mistaken on your facts.
For starters, homosexual marriages have existed in areas such as China(through the 16th century) and portions of Africa(through the 19th century). Let us also note that marriage situations we would now consider pedophilia were common. My own grandparents married when my grandmother was 12 and my grandfather 27. But at that point in time in our location, that was acceptable and not uncommon.
Also, does your view of "traditional" marriage incorporate viewing women as property which is still held in parts of the world? What about the Hindu sects that as recently as 6 months ago allow people to marry non-human animals? What about polygamy which is still practiced in parts of the globe?
Traditional marriage? Please, don't make me laugh.
quote:
Does the same apply to incest, polygamy, prostitution, pedophilia, zoophilia, regulating drugs, regulating cigarettes and alcohol, etc, etc?
Consenting adults, mate.
incest: depends on how close the relation is. In the UK first cousins may marry, not so in the U.S.
polygamy: yes, my wife and I are polyamorous and our girlfriend of 3 years lives with us and helps us raise our son. We'd love nothing more than to be married to her.
prostitution:yes, if a woman or man wish to use their body to make money, that is their choice. Nevada has allowed it outside city limits for some time now.
pedophilia: your slippery slope fallacy falls through here. Consenting *adults*
zoophilia: again, your slippery slope is flawed.
regulating drugs: should be de-regulating drugs. Open legal access to drugs with government enforced restrictions increases the rate of people willing to seek help, allows for the purity of the substances to be regulated for safety, and removes power from drug kingpins. For examples look at the effect of harm-reduction centers in Canada as well as the effects of drug policy in the Netherlands. You may also want to check out information on Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (L.E.A.P.)
Really, when we look at your argument the very best you can do is provide an alarmist slippery slope which is at its very best only undesirable on the most reactionary of first impressions. Upon critique, however, your argument falls through as being at best fallacious.
™ Version 4.2
