"So once we let gay marriage be legal, can we we legalize child and adult marriage? or how about Brother Sister marriages? Isn't that covered as well? Why this is an exageration, does the arguement not fit? Where do we stop? Perhaps we can legalize Animal/Human marriage as well. I had a teacher who talked to her plants, perhaps thats enough. "
This argument has been refuted so many times on this very thread it's beginning to seem like a very bad record playing over and over. NONE of those arguments are legally valid or merit legitimate concern. The most congruent argument was miscegenation laws dealing with interracial marriage...which have been overturned for the same reasons anti-homosexual laws should be: it's immoral to be so bigoted/intolerant, and it's illegal (unconstitutional). No law will be subsequently passed for child-adult marriage or animal-adult marriage because there are justified harms being prevented or the "rights" of animals are not specifically protected by Constitutional law. It's ridiculous to have to keep pointing out how idiotic this line of defense is.
What these arguments do is reduce the behavior of homosexuality to the moral equivalent of child sexual abuse or bestiality..when it clearly is not. Those behaviors imply harms or create measurable damage (or in the case of human-animal relations imply the rights of animals as necessarily equally protected to that of people, which isn't quite an accurate notion either). Homosexuality seems to only create harm by making Christians uncomfortable. Which isn't enough of a harm to make it illegal or to pass laws which impose penalties because of other related behaviors (such as marriage). Discomfort or displeasure with the behavior of others (or just other people in general) is indeed unpleasant...but it isn't any reason to create a law without genuine harms.
The New York Times' Green Baloney
13 minutes ago