NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I was thinking just awhile ago about the slippery slope that is give when gay marriage is brought up to many conservatives and christians. They say that if we are to allow gay marriage in the United States, then the next logical step is that the nation will allow people to marry many other people, their animals, young children, or probably even automobiles. This is very obviously a slippery slope argument, which should more or less be ignored because it is full of crap. However, in the spirit of being an ass, I wish to present my own slippery slope argument.

I propose that we ban all marriages, even heterosexual ones! It is very obvious that if we give these "straights" the ability to choose who to marry, then soon we will have to allow their choice to get divorced, commit acts of spousal abuse, or even open the door for gays to one day marry. I mean it makes sense, right? If we allow gays to marry, then pervs will want to marry their dog. So, we should stop straights from marrying, so that way gays won't want to get married, and then the pervs won't either..

Thoughts? :p

Also, present your most hated or the most laughable slippery slope argument you can think of, for fun, of course. :)

You see, I've no problem with gay marriage, it doesn't bother me at all, and allowing it makes sense in taxation, census, probate and other elements of governmental "stuff".

Gay-marriage is not okay because as it is now, no one can marry someone of the same gender. No one. So it's fair right? Alright, problem solved.

*falls off slope entirely*

If we regulate the sex industry in Sub-Saharan Africa, we'll lead to a slippery slope where we condone child prostitution.

Not that I'm in any way shape or form Anti-Gay, but why aren't civil unions enough? Why do we have to call it gay "marriage"? Marriage is defined as a ceremony and the subsequent union between a man and a woman.

I'm all for gays getting hitched, but I don't see why you have to change the definition of marriage to accomodate them, which has deep religious ties. I think you'd get more people to cross the aisle if we didn't call it gay "marriage".

Grant them all the federal rights allowed for married couple's, but just don't call it marriage.

I know it seems petty, but gay "marriage" just bugs the Christian inside me.

As for stupidest slippery slope argument?

ZOMG! If we don't win over there, The Terrorists will follow us home!

Yeah, like the Iraqi's are going to just forget thier own internal conflict, uproot and swim the Atlantic. :rolleyes:

...the Iraqi's are going to just forget thier own internal conflict, uproot and swim the Atlantic.

A terrifying prospect indeed. :eek:

Not that I'm in any way shape or form Anti-Gay, but why aren't civil unions enough? Why do we have to call it gay "marriage"?

When, in the history of the human condition, has "seperate but equal" ever been "enough"?

Marriage is defined as a ceremony and the subsequent union between a man and a woman.

Says...who?

I'm all for gays getting hitched, but I don't see why you have to change the definition of marriage to accomodate them, which has deep religious ties.

I don't see why a nation that has as its fundamental principles:

1) equal protection under the law

and

2) a wall of seperation between church and state

Should sacrifice both of those principles because of "deep religious ties" to an institution they would, in no way, be prevented from engaging in however they wish.

Srlsy just get the gov't out of marriage in the first place (separation of church and state) then everybody wins.

If you'd read my post again, Neo Art, I said they should get all federal rights granted to married couples. I just don't think it'd be right to say they're "married".

The concept of marriage, and even the word, were around long before Christianity, and will be around long after. Our species, for some reason, tend to form small intimate groups, why the hell should any dumbass religion feel the need to interfer with nature?

If you'd read my post again, Neo Art, I said they should get all federal rights granted to married couples.

I saw exactly what you said. And, as I asked, when in our history has "seperate but equal" ever been enough?

Many Churches and denominations bless homosexual marriages.

Just because YOUR brand of christianity doesn't agree with the word marriage doesn't mean the Anglicans, Protestants, and others SHOULD NOT be allowed to define marriage however THEY see fit.

Canada has the best answer to this debate. Gay marriage is legal, government officials have no right to refuse to deliver the (civil marriage) licenses (because the government does not discriminate as per the chart of civil liberties), and every Church decides for itself whether it wants to bless and perform gay marriages.

The United Church of Canada marries gays. The Roman Catholic Church doesn't. Everybody's religious freedoms are protected. And everybody's right to equal treatment under the law is respected as well.

Some Christians need to stop behaving as if "marriage" was a concept that belonged to them exclusively, because it doesn't.

You know what. I'm being a total douchebag about this.

I say go for calling it gay marriage.

You know what. I'm being a total douchebag about this.

I say go for calling it gay marriage.

Does that mean I win the thread?

You know what. I'm being a total douchebag.

I say go for calling it gay marriage.

Not a total one... you were in favor of allowing it. :)


I say call it marriage and leave out any qualifiers at all.

Best slippery slope?

Atheists don't have morals or ethics because they don't believe in God!

Best slippery slope?

Atheists don't have morals or ethics because they don't believe in God!

Usually we consider slippery slope arguments as reasoning that is actually a slippery slope and patently false.
But I guess we can accept that one.

How about stopping the government from granting Marriage Licenses. They only grant Civil Unions. Christians keep their marriage, gays get all the rights of heterosexual couples. Problem solved.

Srlsy just get the gov't out of marriage in the first place (separation of church and state) then everybody wins.

I agree, Gov. Co. should just get out of marriage all together.

Many Churches and denominations bless homosexual marriages.

Just because YOUR brand of christianity doesn't agree with the word marriage doesn't mean the Anglicans, Protestants, and others SHOULD NOT be allowed to define marriage however THEY see fit.

Canada has the best answer to this debate. Gay marriage is legal, government officials have no right to refuse to deliver the (civil marriage) licenses (because the government does not discriminate as per the chart of civil liberties), and every Church decides for itself whether it wants to bless and perform gay marriages.

The United Church of Canada marries gays. The Roman Catholic Church doesn't. Everybody's religious freedoms are protected. And everybody's right to equal treatment under the law is respected as well.

Some Christians need to stop behaving as if "marriage" was a concept that belonged to them exclusively, because it doesn't.

Canada pwns on the Gay Marriage Front.

How about stopping the government from granting Marriage Licenses. They only grant Civil Unions. Christians keep their marriage, gays get all the rights of heterosexual couples. Problem solved.

Agreed.

How about stopping the government from granting Marriage Licenses. They only grant Civil Unions. Christians keep their marriage, gays get all the rights of heterosexual couples. Problem solved.

If life was that easy we would make lemonade.

If you ban marriages, you'd better be ready to legalize prostitution ^^ .

... slippery slide.

ALSO : If conception through rape is God's work, then you should reward the rapist for doing God's work.

How about stopping the government from granting Marriage Licenses. They only grant Civil Unions. Christians keep their marriage, gays get all the rights of heterosexual couples. Problem solved.

It's still gonna be a gay marriage when the local open-minded Church denomination marries Paul and Robert.

You're all missing a point here. This whole thing has never been about religion. At all. Religious freedoms is just an excuse. What this really is about is homophobia. The only ones vocally against gay marriage are the bigoted, judgemental bible-thumpers, not the average run-of-the-mill "turn the other cheek and judge not lest ye shall be judged" good ol' believer. The former are frothing at the mouth just thinking about those evil perverts actually being treated like the human beings they actually are. The latter might be a bit "huh, this feels a bit weird... I'm not so sure I totally agree, but I don't feel like the world as we know it will end if we go ahead, so meh".

It's about homophobia. Always have been. Just listening to groups like "Focus on the Family" makes that much very clear.

ALSO : If conception through rape is God's work, then you should reward the rapist for doing God's work.

One asketh no reward of God, for he who deserveth shall have his reward casteth in Heaven. Or Hell.

I agree, Gov. Co. should just get out of marriage all together.

Canada pwns on the Gay Marriage Front.


Indeed. Get the hell out of our sex lives, period, is what I say. What happens in your bedroom isn't anyone else's business except your own. And I agree, Canada's policy does seem very sensible.

Does that mean I win the thread?

Well, if you like, I could formally surrender to the Pro-Gay NSG community. :D

Get the hell out of our sex lives, period, is what I say.

Whoa man, calm down.
A guy walks in once....ONCE.. and he is shunned for life.
Relax a little!

Well, if you like, I could formally surrender to the Pro-Gay NSG community. :D
At last, our evil plan of forcing all straights into unwanted gay unions has come to fruitions! :D

*scratches that, and looks up in The Agenda*

Looks like world domination is next! Followed by the extinction of our species for lack of procreation! :p

At last, our evil plan of forcing all straights into unwanted gay unions has come to fruitions! :D

*scratches that, and looks up in The Agenda*

Looks like world domination is next! Followed by the extinction of our species for lack of procreation! :p

"You maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you! Damn you all to hell!"

It's still gonna be a gay marriage when the local open-minded Church denomination marries Paul and Robert.

You're all missing a point here. This whole thing has never been about religion. At all. Religious freedoms is just an excuse. What this really is about is homophobia. The only ones vocally against gay marriage are the bigoted, judgemental bible-thumpers, not the average run-of-the-mill "turn the other cheek and judge not lest ye shall be judged" good ol' believer. The former are frothing at the mouth just thinking about those evil perverts actually being treated like the human beings they actually are. The latter might be a bit "huh, this feels a bit weird... I'm not so sure I totally agree, but I don't feel like the world as we know it will end if we go ahead, so meh".

It's about homophobia. Always have been. Just listening to groups like "Focus on the Family" makes that much very clear.

I lol'd at this here. This is a myth. The majority of Christians (in the US) are these bible thumpers. It's rare these days to pick a random church and find it not to contain hyper-conservative, anti-gay wackos.

Homophobia right now is similiar to what racism was in the 60s and 70s. It's slowly becoming unwelcome in the public eye. Now, you remove the supposed reasoning behind restricting gay marrage, you expose this homophobia that most US Christians have to the open.

Which is all the more reason to tell those people(the whacko bible-thumpers) straight to their face that we know their arguments are bullshit and what's really at the core of the matter is their homophobia.

I find too many equal rights advocates are squeamish about calling it for what it is. I know every time I hear the same old platitudes being recited by heart, I like to take off the velvet gloves and shove their faces right into their own prejudices. Shows them I won't let them hide behind their religion to get away with homophobia, any more than I'd let someone hide behind his/her religion to justify racism, sexism, xenophobia, anti-semitism or any other kind of discrimination.

Those bigoted fools are under the impression religion is the be-all end-all shield behind which they can hide to avoid taking responsibility for their irrationnal hatred of what's different from them. I say it's high time we show them how wrong that assumption is.

Gay marriage is only one step along the way, really. There's really still a lot of sexism, islamophobia, and xenophobia out there. Those are issues we'll have to tackle as well sooner or later.

if some guy wants to marry another guy more power to them...leaves less competition for the hottie down the street....I think I can I think I can

How about stopping the government from granting Marriage Licenses. They only grant Civil Unions. Christians keep their marriage, gays get all the rights of heterosexual couples. Problem solved.

Whenever i see this proposal i always like to turn it around: the gov grants civil marriages, and churches can do religious unions. After all, if its ok one way round, it should be ok the other way round too. :p

As slippery slopes go I've always liked the whole "allowing people to smoke spliffs will lead to them becoming addiction-crazed crack-heads" line of 'reasoning'.

Also, present your most hated or the most laughable slippery slope argument you can think of, for fun, of course. :)

We can't allow people to smoke bits of plant, because before you know it they'll be mixing plants with water and letting it rot, then destroying their brain-cells by drinking it!

After that, they won't be responsible for their actions, and anything could happen. Public nudity, even!

Not that I'm in any way shape or form Anti-Gay, but why aren't civil unions enough? Why do we have to call it gay "marriage"? Marriage is defined as a ceremony and the subsequent union between a man and a woman.

I'm all for gays getting hitched, but I don't see why you have to change the definition of marriage to accomodate them, which has deep religious ties. I think you'd get more people to cross the aisle if we didn't call it gay "marriage".

Grant them all the federal rights allowed for married couple's, but just don't call it marriage.

I know it seems petty, but gay "marriage" just bugs the Christian inside me.

Is the Christian in you also bugged by how "marriage" has been changed to allow interracial couples to wed?

How are you fundamentally any different than the people who made precisely your same arguments regarding interracial marriages?

Indeed. Get the hell out of our sex lives, period, is what I say. What happens in your bedroom isn't anyone else's business except your own. And I agree, Canada's policy does seem very sensible.



Well, if you like, I could formally surrender to the Pro-Gay NSG community. :D

Also, it appears "Civil Union" doesn't work for some circles either... Read the text of this "Amendment" that Virginia perverted her Constitution with this past year...


That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.

Effects:
1. Virginia will ONLY recognize marriage as a union between one man and one woman....
2. No other form of legal union will be recognized or created which will approximate the benefits of marriage.

I'm waiting for the day which crap like that gets nullified by the judiciary.

As slippery slopes go I've always liked the whole "allowing people to smoke spliffs will lead to them becoming addiction-crazed crack-heads" line of 'reasoning'.

Seriously, I think it's circular reasoning. They're both illegal, so they're both the same sort of thing, so they should both be illegal.

It could even be inherent in the idea of punishment. We don't want to be bound only by fear of punishment, so we internalize laws. We pretend that we're Law-Abiding because we're just good people, whereas Criminals will stop at nothing because ... er, they broke a law.

Give it a rest Bottle, I've revoked my position already. Let Gays get married in a completely official capacity, and give them all the rights afforded by Federal Law granted to opposite sex married couples. I wasn't thinking clearly in the slightest when I posted what I did.

When, in the history of the human condition, has "seperate but equal" ever been "enough"?


Separate bathrooms for men and women.

Separate bathrooms for men and women.

Thats not the same.

Shut up, idiot.


You shut up.

You shut up.

Well, OK, I will. But first: that was a joke you replied to.

Editing the word "idiot" out of your reply doesn't make your reply witty.

If Neo Brettonia chooses to reply to you, you should consider yourself honoured.

I'm deleting my rude post, which shows your unedited reply to NB.

Don't even think about reporting me, your original post will still be on record.

Have a pleasant evening. :)

Separate bathrooms for men and women.Men and women are equal when it comes to using the bathroom?

Dictionary.com shows NINE current definitions and one obsolete definition. Notice the word "social" in the first definition modifying the word "institution". "Religion" doesn't show up until a list of potential avenues toward a marriage is shown at the end of definition #1.

The word's origin is not religious, so if anyone should "drop the word", it should be those who have a false claim on it definition and origin. Nobody can ever describe how a gay couple getting married in ANY way detracts from any straight couple's marriage without resorting to wordier version of the playground staple "because"! So if a childhood refutation is all the anti side has, I can't take them seriously. Neither can I take them seriously when some high-profile marriages have lengths that can be measured in hours, or have taken place with an Elvis impersonator as an officiant, or have taken place via a drive-thru window.

Marriage is not cheapened by which two people get married, it is cheapened by individuals/couples CHOOSING to cheapen it by their choices for a ceremony and their actions as a wedded couple afterward, regardless of their sexual orientation. Therefore, marriage = person + person, gender/orientation be damned.

mar·riage /ˈmærɪdʒ/

–noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
8. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage.
9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.
10. Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.

---------------------

[Origin: 1250–1300; ME mariage < OF, equiv. to mari(er) to marry1 + -age]


—Synonyms 3. matrimony. Marriage, wedding, nuptials are terms for the ceremony uniting couples in wedlock. Marriage is the simple and usual term, without implications as to circumstances and without emotional connotations: to announce the marriage of a daughter. Wedding has rather strong emotional, even sentimental, connotations, and suggests the accompanying festivities, whether elaborate or simple: a beautiful wedding; a reception after the wedding. Nuptials is a formal and lofty word applied to the ceremony and attendant social events; it does not have emotional connotations but strongly implies surroundings characteristic of wealth, rank, pomp, and grandeur: royal nuptials. It appears frequently on newspaper society pages chiefly as a result of the attempt to avoid continual repetition of marriage and wedding. 5. alliance, confederation; weld, junction.

—Antonyms 1. divorce.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

As for ridiculous slippery slope arguments, I'd go with the vast majority of Cold War-era McCarthyism.

Look where gayness took the Greek gods!

Swans, bulls, pedophilia and more!:eek:

Originally, marriage wasn't a religious institution at all, it was an economic behavior - two families joining resources. It really didn't become "religious" until the overtly patriarchal religions decided that they needed to control sexual behavior. Really, there's no reason for "gay" marriage to be denied, because marriage was, is and should be only a contract for economic and social reasons.

I lol'd at this here. This is a myth. The majority of Christians (in the US) are these bible thumpers. It's rare these days to pick a random church and find it not to contain hyper-conservative, anti-gay wackos.

Oy oy! First of all, lots of people who choose to follow Christianity individually (rather than in a church). Second, just because a church contains a hyper-conservative anti-gay wacko does NOT mean that all the people in that church are hyper-conservative anti-gay wackos, so it's still not the majority. Thirdly, I seriously doubt that you've gone around the country and surveyed every person who identifies as Christian about whether or not they're hyper-conservative anti-gay wackos, so you can't make this claim. It only feels that way because they're the vocal ones (because, well, they're wackos, no?).
</indignant rant of extremely liberal Christian who doesn't like being placed in the same boat as these people>

In other news, we had best ban all medicine, because if people think that it's okay to have relief from their ailments, then they'll be demanding medical marijuana to relieve the suffering of terminal illnesses where that's the only viable and effective relief, which will lead to people demanding medical marijuana to relieve the suffering of all ailments, which will lead to people smoking marijuana all the time! And no one will ever get any work done! :P

Gotta love the small print:


mar·riage /ˈmærɪdʒ/
*snip*
9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.
*snip*

As for ridiculous slippery slope arguments, I'd go with the vast majority of Cold War-era McCarthyism.

Falling dominoes. On a slippery slope. *nod*

====================

Oy oy! First of all, lots of people who choose to follow Christianity individually (rather than in a church). Second, just because a church contains a hyper-conservative anti-gay wacko does NOT mean that all the people in that church are hyper-conservative anti-gay wackos, so it's still not the majority.

If it's the person behind the pulpit though ...

That post did bug me too, for sweeping generalization. And (*consults toes*) I don't have a Christian bone in my body.

Separate bathrooms for men and women.

Hah! Equal? Women's bathrooms are waaaaaay better than men's. And you all wonder why women like to go to the bathroom together? We've got spa treatments and refrigerators with buckets of ice cream... well we should. Or maybe not... I don't want to be eating a triple chocolate delight when somebody... oh nevermind!

On a different note: The whole problem with allowing gay marriages now is that we'd have to admit there was a plain denial of civil rights to homosexuals based on blatant homophobia and religious fears of a revival of Sodom and Gomorrah. That would just look bad. Besides the slave-people never let us get over the first "oops"... right? [/sarcasm hint]

So, I was thinking just awhile ago about the slippery slope that is give when gay marriage is brought up to many conservatives and christians. They say that if we are to allow gay marriage in the United States, then the next logical step is that the nation will allow people to marry many other people, their animals, young children, or probably even automobiles. This is very obviously a slippery slope argument, which should more or less be ignored because it is full of crap.
That's a lousy rebuttal.

I think it's a strong slippery slope argument. If you allow these, why not allow these that are relevantly similar? Where this one fails is that our response should be, "Sure, let's do that." I see no reason why we should prohibit polygamous marriages or marriage to inanimate objects. I see no reason why we should regulate marriage at all.

haha!

marraige totally outlawed, and all that would be left is SWAP.avi

P.S.: The less you know about that, the better

On a different note: The whole problem with allowing gay marriages now is that we'd have to admit there was a plain denial of civil rights to homosexuals based on blatant homophobia and religious fears of a revival of Sodom and Gomorrah. That would just look bad. Besides the slave-people never let us get over the first "oops"... right? [/sarcasm hint]

On that subject, why do people bring up Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of why homosexuality is wrong? When I read it, I got the impression that the cities were destroyed because the collective male populations had raped some angels.

I agree with the OP
let's just abolish marriage...

That's a lousy rebuttal.

I think it's a strong slippery slope argument. If you allow these, why not allow these that are relevantly similar? Where this one fails is that our response should be, "Sure, let's do that." I see no reason why we should prohibit polygamous marriages or marriage to inanimate objects. I see no reason why we should regulate marriage at all.

Reason against polygamy is that abuse tends to occur. Esp. emotional abuse. Also, issues with marriage-with-animals is that they are alive and have feelings but couldn't consent or refuse... As for inanimate objects, I also see no reason why we should prohibit them. Sure, it's a little weird, at least to me, but if that makes the person happy, it's not like it harms anyone...

On that subject, why do people bring up Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of why homosexuality is wrong? When I read it, I got the impression that the cities were destroyed because the collective male populations had raped some angels.

Er, but what about 19:11 "And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door."

That reads to me like the angels could look out for themselves.

Weren't the angels just in Sodom to get Lot out of town? The place was already condemned, but Lot got another chance.

And came through with flying colours. Protecting the two angels and offering his two virgin daughters to the mob instead! Good call, Lot!

Reason against polygamy is that abuse tends to occur. Esp. emotional abuse. Also, issues with marriage-with-animals is that they are alive and have feelings but couldn't consent or refuse... As for inanimate objects, I also see no reason why we should prohibit them. Sure, it's a little weird, at least to me, but if that makes the person happy, it's not like it harms anyone...

But think of the burial space. We will run out of room in our graveyards if we have to bury every married X-Box.

Who wants 'marriage' anyways, who wants such an archaic sexist religious concept? Marriages should be allowed for those persistent fringe groups (what do you call them?..... oh yes Christians), but should not be regulated by any state laws, instead civil unions should be the norm, I mean seriously France had civil unions like hundreds of years ago, it seems like America has regressed.

Reason against polygamy is that abuse tends to occur. Esp. emotional abuse.
But that abuse is already illegal.
Also, issues with marriage-with-animals is that they are alive and have feelings but couldn't consent or refuse...
Marriage doesn't necessarily include sex. And, we already have prohoiitions against sex with animals.

Who wants 'marriage' anyways, who wants such an archaic sexist religious concept?

:headbang: It's NOT A RELIGIOUS CONCEPT!

Religion has to get involved in regulating sex and what people can eat and how they dress, because people would forget about God otherwise. It's hard to fixate on something which has no manifestation, whereas sex and food and status symbols tend to get people's attention.

I mean, vows of poverty and chastity and so on. You can't sell that to the average punter, so it's "well, you're going to be bad, but just play along with these arbitrary rules and we'll give you a pass for effort."

Marriages should be allowed ... but should not be regulated by any state laws, instead civil unions should be the norm

PC enough for me. :)

Marriage doesn't necessarily include sex.

Well, why the hell not? It should be required.

I mean, isn't that an unfair contract in the same sense that the dead are not allowed to own assets? Think about it: one person enters into a contract to have sex with only one other person, then doesn't do even that? That's totally anti-fun, and should be banned!

They can enter into a contract allowing them not to have sex ever at all, but how dare they call it "marriage" ?

And, we already have prohoiitions against sex with animals.

That law isn't binding on animals, though. So if you were up a ladder doing something tricky with duct tape ... and you fell off ... oh, never mind.

Falling dominoes. On a slippery slope. *nod*


Little, black, pip-covered toboggans! Wheeeee! What's that at the bottom? COMMIES?!? Oh noes!

Reason against polygamy is that abuse tends to occur. Esp. emotional abuse. Also, issues with marriage-with-animals is that they are alive and have feelings but couldn't consent or refuse... As for inanimate objects, I also see no reason why we should prohibit them. Sure, it's a little weird, at least to me, but if that makes the person happy, it's not like it harms anyone...

*Runs out to knothole in backyard fence with tube of K-Y and a twinkle in his eye, and whispers:*

Read this, luv, they're starting to come around!

But that abuse is already illegal.

Marriage doesn't necessarily include sex. And, we already have prohoiitions against sex with animals.

All marriages are same-sex marriages. Once you're married, same sex.

Okay, lame quote, but still marginally relevant. You creative and communicative couples are of course excluded from the stereotype.