Does the slippery slope go both ways? (Not mine)

[HawkerHurricane]

So, if allowing homosexual marriages is a stepping stone to bestiality and incest and polygamy and other perversions (the "once we jettison one moral criteria the rest will follow"), is the opposite equally (un)true?

If we decide there are certain people that cannot be allowed to marry, if we take constitutional action to establish that people of a given sexuality cannot join in state-recognized matrimony, is that not opening the door for other people to be similarly discriminated against?

What's next? No marriage license if you cannot prove you're fertile? If the 'purpose' of marriage is to produce children, will doctors have to register vasectomies they perform with the marriage licensing bureau? Will the purchase of birth control within the first three years of marriage be a cause for divorce?

Then what next? If marriage is defined by God, will non-Abrahamic religions be whittled away? Will non-christian wedding services be outlawed?

Then will the faiths that are 'not real christians' be sanctioned against solemnizing the ceremony? Mormons, Catholics, Episcopalians?

Will working women have to quit before they can marry?
Will divorce be outlawed?
Where will this slippery slope end?

[antigone382]

1. Kick

An excellent point, and very well put.

The bestiality thing is the worst of all, because it's so frickin pointless. There is no comparison between what two consenting adults decide to do with their own lives and what one person does with an animal that has no choice in the matter. I can't believe they even bring it up (but then, we are talking about repukes here).

Fundamentalists: proud leaders in the war against man-turtle unions.