Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
I don't see how.
No, it's not discriminatory because no one, gay, straight or otherwise, has the ability to enter into a same-sex marriage. It's not inherently discriminatory against gays.
The ability to marry a person of the opposite gender, which was available to some, was withheld from others. It'd be the same as if some of the population were allowed to enter into a same-sex marriage while another segment of the population was not for no justifiable reason.
|
But interracial marriage laws never prevented anyone from marrying someone from the opposite gender. Everyone had the right to marry someone of the opposite gender, as long as they were of the same race. How is that any more or less discriminatory than bans on gay marriage? No one, black, white or Native American, had the right to marry someone of a different race, so it must not be discriminatory, following your logic.
Quote:
|
Because if the courts deem that the gender of the person being married is arbitrary in deciding if two persons can be wed, then there is no basis under which they could logically claim that limiting marriage to two persons is any less arbitrary than limiting marriage to three, four or even five persons.
|
Im sorry, but this is basically an admission that you have no solid arguments that a marriage should be restricted to one man and one woman, and so to prevent it you must link it to other, more unpopular types of unions, with the only link again being that you have no solid arguments to oppose those either, so they must be related, and thus must be stopped.
But if you haven't understood why a slippery slope fallacy is a slippery slope
fallacy, here's a question:
if your concern with gay marriage is not gay marriage itself, but that it might lead to polygamy, why not simply pass an amendment against polygamy? Why involve gay marriage at all?