[Trailerpark Badass]

If our society is that far down in the gutter, no one should have a problem with polygamy. Or incest or with bestiality. The possible number of combinations to create sexual unions is left up only to the imagination.

I think the only thing they couldn't justify is pedophilia, using the libertarian notion that childen cannot consent. I suppose they can say, well, no we won't push for bestiality because animals cannot give consent, but would animals have consciousness of being violated? I guess they could say it's animal cruelty, but what if the animal is not harmed? I suppose they could say, well, but the animal wouldn't enjoy it, but how would they know that?

But you're right, how can they so blithely mock conservatives' concerns about ultimately normalizing incest and polygamy.

And why do they mock religious polygamy? Would they have a problem with polygamy if it were a bunch of dudes? Or how about a whole gang of gays and bi's of both sexes? How do they logically say that will never be the next step? When they cast aside the traditional definition of marriage, where do they get the basis for the one man-one man/one woman-one woman gay marriage paradigm?

[goldstategop]

Its the old "slippery slope" argument. Where do you draw the line? Other people have claims that strike people today as bizarre but no less justiciable. You can't limit marriage rights to gays and lesbians only. That's to use their own argument - writing discrimination into the law. Restricting marriage to a man and a woman avoids this problem and its a positive form of discrimination because it benefits the entire society.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus