Lazy title: Blog about gay marriage.

Some slippery slope arguments are only sound so far as there exist few mechanisms to retard or stop the slippages referred to in their conclusions. To argue that myriad, broadly believed to be immoral, relationships will form as consequence and must therefore be accepted because they rest on like premises, is simplistic on its face, and highly insulting to boot. Adult homosexuals may have their arguments logically extended for use in pro polygamy, bestial, what have you, marriage, but the inability to argue from the different predicates for homosexual relationships against the predicates of other relationship, would be the fault of the courts or legislature, not homosexuals.

From the standpoint of equal protection, and how that might be used to assist in the legalizaion of unwanted consequential relationships supposed to be caused by gay marriage, the more relevant questions to a society which disdains them are what constitutional arguments, and what legal distinctions, exist to support prohibiting them.

To the matter of religious freedom, ala the Constitution, it should also be considered that marriage as an institution is ancient, and inherently natural in formation in any society where the mutual benefits of marriage are understood, and where loyalty is favored and may have associations which extend past the limitations that exist in most major religions. Inversing the more common argument that government should not interfere with religion, it can then be argued that giving into the demands of specific religions is favoritism because it prevents other religions from having legal recognition of what they recognize, the moral acceptability of, in this case, gay marriage.

The legalistic arguments against gay marriage boil down to telling homosexuals not that their aspirations are wrong, but that the possible assistance to other groups request for the same level of recognition, means they should be indefinitely prevented from achieving their goal. The moral arguments boil down to, the Bible says so, that’s it.

Health arguments might have validity, I don’t know, but that is for science, allowing for new understandings thereby, to determine, not philosophical and theological argumentation.
Thus have I spoken.