Not always for the best, though.
A lot of things aren't for the best, it's just that they happen. Do I like some of the new mindsets of this era? No. Do I accept it? Yes. =/
Oh... In that case, consider legalizing gay marriage as a declaration that any persons can be married. If you apply it to homosexuals, it would be discriminatory to not apply it to everyone else. This includes two or more members of any species of any gender at any age. Tell me how this will be a good thing.
No, no, that's concluding that marriage's sole purpose is to bind two people in "holy matrimony." But that's not the point. We're legalizing gay marriage so they can get their rights. Also, because two people married have a better chance of a stable economic foundation and thus a better chance of raising a kid well. Does the dog lose its rights if it's not married? No, of course not. Does a man lose his rights if he's not married to another that he loves? Yes, quite a bit. They even lose their rights if they get a civil union considering that's only for that state, not for the federal government, iirc. Now, on to the building/supporting a better family thing. A marriage allows a couple to combine their earnings and stuff, allowing for more economic stability and a better chance at raising a family. Sure, you may say "Gays are worse at parenting than normal parents." or "children deserve a man and a woman, not two men or two women," but I argue, are two homosexual parents better or no parents at all? Also, does a dog earn money or a living? No, so marrying a human and a dog doesn't do anything(under usual circumstances) to provide a better economic foundation. The same rule applies to kids before they're of age.
Finally, there's the issue of which types of discrimination should be allowed and which types shouldn't. Obviously, we should be allowed to discriminate an apple against an orange and stuff. This allows us to make our own decisions. Is discriminating a dog or a cow from a human allowed? Yes, that's why we have hamburgers. These types of discrimination are allowed, so we won't go nuts of discriminating that some dog can't marry their owner. Is age discrimination allowed? Under certain cases, yes. Children do not have some of their rights until they reach the age of majority. We're young, foolish, and if we allowed children these rights, it puts them into more danger than the benefits would be. Same with marriage, children marrying one another could be dangerous such as having sex too early. Does it have benefits? Well... no, not really. So, can we discriminate on the basis of age and species? Yes. Should we discriminate based upon their preferences? No, unless you want to say, you shouldn't be able to shop at Target because you like apples over oranges.
Err... well when you think about it, straight people are vastly the majority. Most people will assume that someone else is straight if their appearance is normal. That's just the way it's assumed.
And straight people will still be the majority simply because it allows the human race to survive, lol. That doesn't mean we should discriminate against gays though. They should be married because they are still grown adults and human beings. They deserve their rights.
What RDK said. And why does it matter that we have an age of adulthood? People below this age are still sentient, aren't they?
The damage caused by giving young people the rights to things such as driving, alcohol, and tobacco far outweighs the benefits, if any.
Except blacks aren't inherently criminals.... Btw, the word always is usually a fallacy. Why do you think some parents won't let a child off from punishment? Because they are worried that the child will say to himself "They didn't punish me so it's okay to keep doing what I'm doing", right? Slippery Slope alert!
Slippery Slopes do happen. The fallacy comes in when you assume they will go to the worst-case scenario. The logic used to justify gay marriage is just as applicable to justifying polygamy or incest or underage marriage. You prove my point:
No, it's not, at all. Polygamy has no rights involved. Do you lose rights when you can't be married to more than one person? No. Do you take away people's rights when you say they can't marry a dog? No. Why would this slippery slope work? That guy was talking about love, not about rights. We're talking about the RIGHTS of PEOPLE. Are you seriously saying we should take away their rights because they would rather marry a man than a woman? Would you really take away a person's rights because they'd rather start a family with one gender than another?
Now, who are you to tell a man and a consenting gopher that they can or cannot marry? According to you, we have no right to do this whatsoever. This is not a buffet. You can't take what you want and ignore the rest.
Yes, you can. It's called the prejudice or discrimination or opinion. Call it what you want, lol, we can discriminate against one group and not against another. Yeah, that's right. Why? Because in one group, if we discriminate against then, we take away their RIGHTS, the rights that they deserve as the citizens of the United States of America. We can discriminate against an animal because it does not have the right to marriage, it does not help support a family's economic stability, and the gopher does not lose ANY rights should it NOT marry. Does this apply to two men? No.
Why would you say something like that? Is is spite? Are you telling me that you will pervade my belief system until we are forced to accept your views? This isn't an argument.
Your belief system doesn't matter in this debate. I don't care if your christian and you say, well God says gay marriage is wrong. America isn't a theocracy and religion and government do not influence one another. If you want to keep your opinion that gay marriage is wrong, I'm here to try and change it and others due to a logical debate. This is an argument, lol.
Slippery slopes are not always fallacies. For example, Marbury vs. Madison, back in the Jeffersonian presidency inadvertently allowed the Supreme Court to undermine the Congress and the The Executive by declaring a law unconstitutional. This wasn't so much of a "bad" slippery slope in my opinion, but it did open a floodgate. Jefferson agonized over this as soon as he realized what it implied. Bringing something into question, such as the definition of marriage, clears the way for even further, and sometimes unpleasant, changes.
