@Dave
“Oh, btw, I want to marry two women. No, TWENTY. Why can’t I? Why should I limit my understanding of ‘marriage’ to the stodgy antiquated definition “one man and one woman”? That’s so YESTERDAY.”
Are they all consenting adults? Then go right ahead. Oops, you didn’t count on me having a principled reason for allowing polygamous marriages. You just wanted to appeal to people’s “yuck” factor to keep them from thinking.
“I want to marry my dog.. AND my cat. They both love me and we already sleep together. What difference does it make that they are not of my species? That’s just prejudice talking. Open your mind.”
Animals cannot consent and so cannot enter a legal contract. Period. The slippery slope does not reach there.
“I want to marry my BMW. I think that sweet wonderful car deserves to inherit my wealth and use my health care policy to get her oil changed. And I know she’d want to visit me in the hospital.”
Inanimate objects cannot consent and so cannot enter a legal contract. Period. The slippery slope does not lead there, either.
“This is no more nutty than ‘marrying’ somebody the same sex you are. It is like saying I want to eat a Budweiser. It is incoherent. The word ‘eat’ is not used to describe comsumption of a liquid. There’s a different word for that. The word “marriage” is not used to describe a relationship between two people of the same sex. If it is, the word has lost its meaning.”
You are emotionally struck by the idea of same-sex marriage as being nutty. Therefore, you declare it must simply be insane. What a convincing argument.
“Whatever a formal relationship between two men might be, it is not marriage. Not unless the sky is green, the grass is blue, and words have simply no meaning at all.”
Does that confuse your tiny little brain that much?
