Same with incest.
Question: Why shouldn't adult brothers be allowed to marry?
Answer: NO FAIR! OFF TOPIC! NO NO NO NO!
Rather, you've evidenced a habit in this thread of calculated retreat to new positions instead of owning problems with the line of reasoning that gave birth to the tactic.
So you began with the slippery slope business while suggesting some have said gay marriage won't lead to polygamy. I noted that what I'd said on the topic was that it won't lead to legalizing pedophilia. I also noted that the slipper slope approach was actually nonsense though, and that gay marriage wouldn't lead to polygamy either, that polygamy would have to find its own feet, legally speaking.
What gay marriage consideration tells you is that our society is willing to reconsider laws relating to social institutions if those laws can be demonstrated to be contrary to Constitutional protection. Sometimes we are and sometimes we aren't. For a very long time society put up with slavery even though the men who wrote the Constitution understood its hypocrisy in light of that practice.
Anyway, your counter was that redefining marriage paved the way. Of course marriage wasn't so defined to begin with, legally. I set out the problematic history of it. And once gays weren't being criminalized and began attempting to use the contract THEN states resorted to an attempt to define by statute and the whole thing ended up in court after court.
Next thing I know it's about procreation. So I noted marriage wasn't about procreation, that the state made no demands or inquiry on the point and never had, though it would give you a tax break and would certainly value the contribution. You further suggested that the state allowing gay marriage opened the door to "any and all perversions." A concern that has no real basis in legal fact. I've regularly unhorsed the attempt by some around here to use that slope approach in relation to pedophilia, by way of example.
You then asserted that gay marriage allowance would change the regard for the institution over time and compared gay marriage to an attack upon the institution. Later you evidenced a willingness to criminalize adultery as though it might be impactful, but were scornful of the notion that people would forgo entering into marriages over concerns relating to the law, which set up a problem of operating principle for you.
And now it's beastiality. . .
lain: