you know what you seem not to be the brightest bulb going so I will do this.
read the past posts to you by me and others. There you will find your answer.
Now I have asked you a couple of times now about the same arguments being used for other kinds of marriage.
you still cannot answer so I will make it easier for you.
do you not see that by allowing the same sex to marry each other that you are now opening the gates to all sorts of marriages.
EVERY argument which has been used by you and homos can be used for other kinds of marriages
now it is a yes or no answer.
could you write yes or no to answer please.
If not then I am wasting my time with you as you seem unable to grasp what anyone is saying to you
Sure, the slippery slope argument. I've seen used it countless times to greater and lesser effect. Mostly I find it to be intellectually lazy. Here, you are using it to suggest that we can't let two men get married now because a woman might be able to marry her dog later. Rather than spend any pixels analyzing your choice of that specific juxtaposition, let me just say that it's an argument from consequences, and not a particularly compelling one at that.
Moreover, you still forgot to specify how the marriage of half a dozen people to each other makes a run-of-the-mill hetero marriage somehow worth less.