See, you have to make up your mind. Either the government can set standards, or it can't. If it can't, NAMBLA is ok, sibling relationships are ok, mixed-species is ok, multiple-relationships are ok, how about slavery? Basically whatever anyone consents to, right? Oh, and who decides what the "age of consent" is? Why not...12, or 8. Does the ability to be able to function sexually indicate ability to consent? (Why not?)Oh I'm being silly, one of those "slippery slope" people, and that's just silly. But so is every argument for SSM. If the gender of the people don't matter, why does the number, or age, or familial relationship (or species)?This might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The reason why SSMs don't lead inevitably to NAMBLA is because legalizing SSMs doesn't also legalize child abuse. Just because we've said that the sate can't deny homosexuals the respect, dignity and financial benefits of "marriage", doesn't mean it also can't protect the safety of children! And how exactly does permitting marriage also permit slavery? The two things are categorically different. When someone is made into a slave, he is harmed in material ways. Unless you've got quite a dim view of matrimony, you can't say that making someone your wife is in any way the same.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Slippery Slope Stupidity