The sad part is that almost everyone here who is pro-SSM has said that some discriminations about who can marry are necessary, but this one is an unjust discrimination.
Not even going to attempt to figure out where Alma's going with this, but I feel the need to ask why you believe that this one is an unjust discrimination, but not other restrictions? Put more directly: Do you think that those who fought for the right of mixed race couples to marry also felt at the time that the thing they were fighting against was an "unjust discrimination", but that other discriminations (like same *** couples) were just?
To me, it's not enough to just say "this thing I want today is important, but those other things are not", because invariably, once "this thing" is obtained, someone will turn to fighting for one of those "other things". Which leads us to a valid slippery slope situation. I believe that if you are going to construct an argument of this nature, you need to be able to clearly state what delineates an unjust discrimination from a just one. But what I've found (on this and many other issues) is that most people don't do this.
And whether you agree with the argument or not, the case for procreative potential of a couple as the delineation at least provides some objective means to make that determination. Absent some alternative, you really are just arbitrarily deciding what is just and what is not.
So here we are again. My argument is that as long as its between two consenting adults, there's nothing wrong with it, so it can't be "wrong" to be ***. What's your explanation for why you think being *** is "wrong"?
Doesn't two consenting adults include two adult siblings? Or an parent and their adult child? So.... What's your explanation for why you think either of those cases is "wrong"? Or, if you don't think they are, then why not fight for their rights to marry as well? And if not that, then isn't it perfectly correct for someone to point to one of those other cases as a valid slippery slope result of the fight for *** marriage?
And ****. You didn't mention it, but why constrain ourselves to two adults? Why not three? Or more? Why are those cases "wrong", but not *** marriage?
The point I'm trying to get at is that if your argument for including a group in some category doesn't also include a consistent rationale for continuing to exclude other groups, then your argument is effectively for including those other groups as well. And it's absolutely not fallacious to point this out. Edited, Aug 27th 2012 6:01pm by gbaji