I am with those of you who doubt that the legalization of “gay marriage” will lead to the legalization of something as profane as pedophilia.
However, assuming this becomes a national reality, you are kidding yourself if you don’t think this is going to open a legal Pandora’s Box.
Go back through all the debates, discussions, and arguments dealing with this issue, and you will find a common theme forwarded by those who support this: gay people are being denied civil rights or equal protection. How? They are being denied the same legal protection as heterosexual, married couples, while attempting to wed the person they “love”.
So, what if a Mormon guy really “loves” multiple partners? What if the multiple partners really do “love” him? What about their rights?
There is already an organization out there who, in anticipation of the outcome of the “gay marriage” argument, is forwarding the idea of legalized “triad marriages”.
Hopefully, you guys won’t have a problem with that either.

Gay marriage is the "gateway marriage"? I doubt it.

First off, legalizing gay marriages will NOT lead to other things being legalized. For example, firearm rights have not led to the legalization of Murder and they have been around for over 200 years, and secondly two of these so called "slope items"(pedophillia and bestiality) are nowhere related to the main concept in this argument, as for the third, incest, that varies by state, yes it is wrong, but if people want to choose to be with another family member, that is their privilage as an American to do so, as is the same with gay relations, yes those are also wrong, but who are we to dictate who idividuals have in their life and how they live it? If such bindings aren't consensual then one or both will speak up and report this.

As for the other two areas, I'll start with pedophillia, yes this is wrong and it is not consensual in most cases, of course i'm against it, but once again if harm is dome the truth will come out and the guilty will be punished. Strict laws have already been set on this issue and I see no time in the future of this type of sexual act becoming legal.

As for the last area Bestiality, its also wrong, but it is a choice of the idividual, whether or not to engage in this act. As before, where do we, as the civillian public to dictate who or what idividuals can or can't be with or what they can or can't do? Say for example, A person would rather want the company and relations with a dog than another person, If the dog is not being injured, Who are we to judge this person? What gives us the right to judge them? As said before, If the animal does not like the treatment, it will let the person know, by either fighting to get away or showing aggression. (eg. biting, sratching, growling, kicking, ect.) There are laws in some states for this and people either caught or found guilty will be punished.

Now to explain why I gave this 3 star. The basis for this has us looking at history. The prohibition of alcohol, Did it completely stop poeple from drinking?, no it did not. The same thing applies here. Politicians and judges can throw all the laws they want at these, but that isn't going to stop some people from enaging in such acts, its just going to make them harder to find, which makes these situations more dangerous. Even though they are wrong, if they do become legalized, then most people will be less interested in them. For example, Teenagers who smoke under age, they do it because its going against the law, feeding the rebel side of humans, as soon as they turn 18, its no longer that exciting to do, because they are no longer fighting the law. This analysis falls right along side most of the above acts, excluding gays. In few cases, it is due to mental illness, but most is just to fight back and rebel. Do we know why this is?, no, but it is proven once something is legal. some people become uniterested in whatever the item is or what the act is, and such acts are decreased because of this. I know some dont agree with this analysis, but some do, and thats what makes America, America. We can sit and debate these, instead of just having somebody tell us whats what. So I will accept both sides of this issue and weigh them evenly, dont be afraid to speak up.  

So this argument is essentially comparing bestiality, incest, and pedophilia with an adult human's desire to marry another adult human (excuse the silliness of the language, but I'm just trying to highlight the silliness of the analogy). How can anyone not immediately see the absurdity in this logic?

Gay people are merely asking to do the same thing that straight people have been able to do for thousands of years: consensually marry another adult of either sex. If wanting to marry an adult man or an adult women is analogous to wanting to marry an animal or a 10-year-old girl, then this slippery slope argument applies to mixed-sex marriages as well. And just because gays are less prevalent than straights does not somehow make their attraction to men and women any more perverted. Following this logic, two people in an interracial relationship would also be perverts because mixed-race couples are, at least in this country, much less common than same-race couples.

And just to be clear, I emphasize here that this is ultimately about people wanting to marry other people, without specifying their sex. I do this because it is precisely the crux of this issue. This is not simply about a woman wanting to marry a woman or a man wanting to marry a man; it's about a person wanting to marry another person. We are all people under the law; we do not earn our rights based on our genitalia. Furthermore, our sex organs are just as relevant to our marriage as our hair color or eye color is. (And, nope, marriage isn't limited only to couples that can reproduce, so don't even try to approach that argument here.)

This childish, idiotic argument gets a big one start from me. It's too bad I can't give it a lower rating.

This argument is absurd. This is like saying that allowing people to drink cocktails immediately and unavoidably leads to alcoholism. This is like saying anyone who smokes a joint is going to end up being a junkie. This is like saying that making abortion available on demand will result in people not having children anymore, etc. The Constitution, cornerstone legal document of our way of life, guarantees to our citizens equal rights and protections under the law, irrespective of gender, age, race, creed, national origin, income, physical infirmity or any other defining characteristic. Sexual preference, as it is essential to the human condition, cannot be excluded from this. So, any committed gay couple is entitled to the benefits of marriage, and any denial of this is downright unamerican.

LanceRoxas: Thx for the strawman argument. I'd setup a faux dialogue to characterize your position, but I did learn in Logic 101 that strawman arguments are dishonest and without merit. This is a slippery slope, and an exercise in moral relativism. Your position is identical-- not similar -- to that of conservatives who fought against interracial marriage. The same PID argument was implemented, and the position was biblically sourced. Yawn.

Putting two gay people in the same category as someone who would harm a child or animal is unfair. if two consenting adults wish to be together so be it.  it is not the same thing.

Certain things impose upon the rights of other people, or are harmful to animals who cannot speak up for themselves. Those acts should by all rights remain illegal. As for this being an arguement against gay couples having legal rights under the law, again, it does not hold water.

Yep, the Colorada Sheep Shaggers Caucus have already lined up lobbyists.

So have the New Mexico Melon Bangers.

  Next they'll be demanding their Satanic right to wear cotton/polyester shirts!

http://tinyurl.com/48u6gw

After those  things, I guess the next logical step might be someone eating a bunch of green grapes, drinking 44 oz. of chocolate milk and then dressing up like Mayor McCheese and banging a tree..

There will be no end to the demands of other perverse and disgusting groups to have their special rights.

Well generally in a homosexual relationship there is consent on both sides. With pedophilia and bestiality, I would imagine ther is not. Also, with incest, there is the chance of having a handicapped or otherwise malformed baby, so that is a very good reason to stay away. For these reasons, these things are not really comparable to homosexual marriage. 
The problem for most people is that homosexuality goes against decorum, and unlike the things mentioned here, when the 'evil' of this homosexuality was challenged in an increasingly liberal society, the anti-homosexual train was hard pressed to find anything actually wrong with homosexuality.
And I don't give a fig about St Paul. Jesus himself taught me not to judge unless I want to be judged. Who am I to listen to? The Son of God or a self-gratifying follower?

Sure, and while we're at it, legalize driving too slow on busy streets with your right turn signal on all of the time too.  It's just as stupid a suggestion.  Gay marriage is just like any other marriage, just gayer.  I didn't make that up, it was a brillaint British TV ad campaign.

regardless of your stance on gay unions, to suggest it would lead to legalization of beastiality, pedophilia and incest is absurd.  The slippery slope argument is most commonly a fallacy, and especially in this case due to there being absolutely no correlation between the items mentioned. (Besides being sins). Thankfully, however, all sins do share one common factor: Forgiveness by our Father. but that's about it for this case.

Come off it all you one star posters! The legal positition to allow this activity rests on at least two theories.

The first is privacy, and the second is equal protection with due process thrown in. What do we care about what happens in the privacy of your bedroom is the question. If society cannot regulate whether a fourteen year old girl can have an abortion, how can it regulate whether a fourteen year old boy wants to have sex with his neighbor, for instance? What do we care what a 35 year old uncle and an 18 year old niece do in the privacy of their bedrooms? Is it our business if a 18 year old brother and a 20 year old sister have sex in the privacy of their bedroom?

I can go on and on, but if you think rationally, you should see the point. It actually is a slippery slope and the slope has no bottom or the bottom is a long way down to total depravity.

The legal bases for these types of activity are mainly sophistry that cannot stand analysis by reason and experience.

well its simple there is a penis and a vagina. The vagina opens when sexually stimulated while the anus has 3 different muscular layers to help keep it close doesnt take too much logic as to what nature intended. Well what of gays and gay feelings true i think they should be allowed to marry. adultery in gay marriage should be a legal offence as it is in straight marriages and no publicity to be allowed for gays at all. After all do i get TV coverage if i announce im heterosexual!!!!

These acts can be easily divided into what should and shouldn't be legal by considering our basic human rights. If something infringes on these rights, it should be illegal. Everything else is innocent until proven guilty.

Bestiality and pediophelia do not involve consent on both parties involved, and therefore should remain illegal.

Gay marriage and incest do not infringe on anyone's rights because those involved have given their consent and have made their own personal choice.

It's simple, really.

Notwithstanding the many long-winded arguments to the contrary that I've just read this argument is patently without merit. The only "slippery slope" I can see here is the descent of these arguments from the legalistically tortured into the logically ridiculous.

Comparing incest and and bestiality and etc. to gay marriage? yea real logical......so, what gentic/physical abnormalities does gay marriage cause?

If gay marriage is legalized, then men will be encouraged to go gay. Then we will have a glut of hairdressers and fashion designers.

  You say gay,  I say who cares. Statistically speaking, if every gay couple got married on the same day and one of the spouses dropped dead the next, the tax payers still wouldn't come anywhere close to the amount of money towards pensions as we have spent in Iraq. Is it ever truly a matter of religion? It always boils down to the ALMIGHTY (buck, that is).

It's only when you want to leave your pension to a goat do I see a problem.

One has nothing to do with another. Gay people are very friendly and peaceful people.

'Maven' and others make a reasonable case that needs further exploration in its own terms, of course, particularly considering that the institutionalization of a social contract among partners who commit to each other in a permanent relationship has only an incidental bearing with the sexual orientation involved. It would be uncientific and/or unreasonable for the item to imply that legalizing Gay marriage will necessarily lead to officializing sexual excess, as in the 'slippery slope' of cigarettes leading to smoking marihuana. 

And yet, there might be room for pragmatic debate, separately and apart from the issue of legalizing homosexual marriages, whether society would ever legalize incest, bestiality, pedophilia, cannibalism, euthanasia, etc. on their respective merits 

It does not matter what Christians or anyone agree with or not, when it comes to a Law of a country. We are in this world, not of this world. Sin will happen regardless of how faithful you are to oppose it!!! You may not believe it is right for Gay's in general to get married, but you are certainly not in this day and age going to stop it from happening!! Christians call this relationship sin and we all know that sin can lead to more sin. But we need to trust God to continue to have his hand on it! Will Legalizing Gay marriage increase more sin, what like sin doesnt happen now? I do not believe it will increase anymore than it already does. As for these other ways it is illegal now and people still do it!!!! No I do not think it will increase more awful sin!!!! As sin is already a big part of our life !

Classic slippery slope argument (see my "logical fallacies encountered on RIA" list).  Legalize guns, pretty soon people will want flamethrowers, bazookas, thermonuclear bombs!  Legalize pot, and pretty soon heroin and crack cocaine will be available in high-school vending machines!  ... and so forth.

Think of this if a baby's body's really do get deformed because of there genes threw incest for whatever reason then shouldn't we stop them from being deformed the answer is genetic manipulation so we can change the faulty genes or switch them out for different ones thereby stopping the baby's from being deformed. But for that to happen(and i'm not sure if this is true or not) religion has to stop bitching about how mucking around with our own genes is "aggenst god's teachings".also as long as the participants are both consenting then there should be no problem.

Who's to say that heterosexuals are not just as guilty of these perversions? (I'm sure plenty of them are)

Lance probably came the closest to explaining the merits and pitfalls (as I see them) of this argument (i.e. equating homosexual marriage with incest, etc); however, I'll clarify. In short, it's actually the gay rights advocates that make this direct comparison (or at least subject themselves to this argument) by using the "being gay is genetic so society must accept it" line of reasoning. This of course begs the question of what happens if pedophilia is genetic or bestiality is genetic. As abundantly evidenced by most of the prior comments, this counter argument is met with a "but..." (e.g. consenting adults, no harm to society, etc). The problem with this is that it's the "buts" that are the crux of the issue. Gay marriage opponents do not concede that consent is determinative, and they certainly don't agree that there is no harm to society. Moreover, adults can certainly consent to incest and polygamy. This simply leaves the opposing sides back at square one. The slippery slope aspect of the argument is one of those that may be fun at parties but is best left to constitutional rights (which doesn't really apply here notwithstanding claims to the contrary). Bright line laws are used to keep from such slopes (think First Amendment), but for the vast majority of matters (like marriages) we rely on legislatures to make fine line distinctions within areas of gray. The bottom line is that this argument is extremely effective against one who makes the genetic equals okay defense of gay marriages but loses most of its value once that argument is rightfully abandoned, resulting in three stars for this list.

Sex between two consenting adults should be legal. If they are strait, gay, related in someway or whatever. If they are adults its upto them. If you value human rights than you can not argue with freedom to have sex with who ever consents to you. A child can not consent and so this will remain ilegal as with beasts. However you must also remmber that throughout history and event to day ages of consent change. In the UK the age of consent for gay sex was droped to 16 in line with 'normal' sex consent age's. But 16 is to young in other parts of the world and would be considerd abuse ! And other places its 12. So if your out banging your drum about sex and ages, consider this...who are you to judge ? In your own part of the world what you practice could put you in prison in another.

no way,no time, no place.we as human should not be even considering such things.this topic amount our selfs.it just not right
the only way i can put it.no,no,no.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19315412-38200,00.html

Party wants legalization of beastiality, pedophilia in Netherlands (hell).

Incest, rape, murder, pedophilia, beastiality - all will become legal soon.

Categorizing gays with those sadistic behaviors is a ridiculous argument. If ones's logic is so jaded as to believe such garbage then they are not understanding the differences of the groups mentioned. It would make as much sense putting coffee, tea, alcohol, sodas with caffeine, No Doz, over the counter cold medications, over the counter pain relievers, on and on in the same class as illegal drugs, IMO.

What about them? Those things are completely unrelated and would never be legalized because they are harmful to others, wheres gay marriage is not.

God don't legalize gay marriage dont give THEM rights... the second you start giving equal protection to gays and lesbians and letting THEM marry then all the nig-ers spics jews wops they will want rights to! Then what about Muslims I suppose the towel heads will want us to recognize that they are people to! OMG nig-ers and whites intermarrying! let the gays have equal rights and everyone might want them as well. PS if their getting married somehow manages to threaten your own marriage... then it probably wasn't much of a marriage to begin with.

As if the association between all of those actions could actually be supported with evidence? There's a HUGE difference between 2 consenting adults, and an adult forcing him/herself on a child or animal. What two consenting ADULTS do in the privacy of their own home is their business and no one else's

I really don't have anything against homosexuals marrying each other but come on now. Pedophilia, incest, and bestiality? Homosexuality happens between two consenting adults. It does not happen between adults and children, adults and family members, or adults and animals. If you cannot see the differences then you are truly blinded by your prejudicial beliefs.

There are some very good points below me and one of the good points is that homosexuality and bestiality and incest aren't related and it is like saying that if we increase the speed limit to 70 mph, what is to stop us from increasing it to 100 or more mph? Well, I must admit one of my weaker arguments against gay marriage is the fact it could lead to more moral degradation ie then they may start to one day legalise incest based on the argument we should get with the times. But there are two problems here: 1 - Maybe it may not be like a slippery slide thing where once we make one law, then we will allow others. One of my concerns is the fact that people are accepting homosexuality which was once considered abhorrent. Now I find it quite hypocritical when homosexuals get angry with us for detesting what they do, yet they would detest someone who commits incest. Both sins are just as unnatural and are just as dirty. Basically society accepts one sin as being normal but detests the others. What if it could be proved that during incest, that there was a way of making it so that the baby wasn't deformed? People who supported the legalisation of incest would use that argument that the baby won't be deformed, yet the homosexuals would detest that. We will slowly degrade to the point where we have no morals and if we want to remove a moral law, we just simply argue it away as homosexuals have tried to do with he marriage laws. 2 - My second concern is, OK then, say if they legalised murder. It is now OK to kill others. Surely murder is a lot different from petty theft which means that they aren't all of a sudden going to make theft OK. My problem is the principle of making an abomination OK. That is what it is like with homosexuality. My problem is that although they may never legalise incest, especially from gay marriage, it is the principle of an abominable practice being legalised.

Umm yes, I honestly can't say I really think this will have an effect on incest, nor bestiality. Yes, they could use the same arguments as Gays, yet, these are downright putrid. I've read some articles dealing with pedophilla, but I really don't feal this is going to happen.

I suggest reading John Corvino's objections to what he calls the "PIB Argument" (PIB standing for pedophilia, incest, and bestiality). He offers thoughtful insight and disregards the argument completely, in my opinion.

This sort of argument demonstrates a lack of basic understand in regards to the legal principles involved. Marriage, same-sex or otherwise, is an activity engaged in by legally competent, consenting adults. Animals (i.e. bestiality) and children (i.e. pedophilia) cannot give their competent, adult consent to enter into a gay relationship. These are purile contentions. In regards to incest, I would suggest to all to take a look at your state's already existing incest laws. These laws vary WIDELY from state to state, and each state will have to address the issue in the light of it's own laws. But, there are two main issues which are addressed in the marjoity of state incest laws, which are a restiriction on consanguineous relationships (which elevate the risk for birth defects) and abusive relationships which are a specialized category of child abuse. Neither of these purposes are endangered by same-sex relationships, and other couples which do not threated these purposes are already allowed to marry in many states. A good example is Utah, which permits first cousins to marry only provided both spouses are over age 65, or at least 55 with evidence of sterility. percivale

If we let blacks out of slavery, what next, they lamented? If we let them vote? If we let women have jobs? Oh no! Of course there are other bad things, but lets draw the line where we should, not hurt the innocent out of fear of the guilty, not cut off our hand to spite... etc.

The latter two are non-consentual and the first (incest) causes biological problems. All of those "marry a millionaire" shows have really helped maintain the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, haven't they? Anything can be used as an argument against something if you can debate well, anyway. As edt4 said, I would prefer people were straightforward as opponents of this, instead of finding unreasonable premises to argue.

UPDATE:I do have to admit, though, that there would be no logical reason to deny an incestual marriage or marriage to more than one person. But legalizing homosexual people to get married would not be the stepping stone. In our history, things like incestual marriage and marriage to more than one person already exists. Legal bigamy existed in Utah for a long time. No one could legally marry an animal because an animal cannot enter into a legally binding contract. Same goes for children.**This whole slippery slope thing is a crock! Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusettes for a year, now, and there has been norequests to legalize incest, bestiality or pedophilia. As for polygamy, there have not been any requests to legalize that either. However, polygamy doesn't need gay marriage as a precedent. If anything, it would be religious belief that opens that door. ***Homosexuality is NOT a deviant behavior. Sex between two consenting adults is not illegal. Sex with a horse is not two consenting adults. Sex with a little boy or girl is not two consenting adults. If this country legalizes gay marriage, it will NOT set a precedence for beastiality or pedophilia. I have yet to find one legitemate argument. **I agree, Wid71. Ignorant people love to mix homosexuality with deviance.** Again, PBeavr, you are mistaken! Gay people can NOT CHOOSE WHO THEY ARE ATTRACTED TO! Can you control what you like? I don't know anyone who can. Anyway, again, the hypocracy about incest. In the Bible, Abraham married his half-sister! HIS HALF-SISTER! If anything is going to lead to incest, the Bible will. As for Beastiality and Pedophilia, kids can't consent to marriage and they can't legally sign a contract. Animals can't consent to marriage and can't sign a contract. So this argument is lame.

What a moronic argument.

If we legalize marijuana, does it follow that we should legalize crack cocaine? No. If we increase the speed limit to 70 from 65, does it follow that we should increase the speed limit to 100? No. If we allow nail clippers on airplanes, does it follow that we should allow box cutters too? No. Slippery slope arguments are weak. When the benefit no longer outweighs the costs, that is where you draw the line. As far as I can tell gay marriage has benefits that outweigh costs (ask the residents of the Netherlands) (more stable two parent households, fewer incidents of STDs, lower suicide rate, etc.). Bestiality does not.

Where's the connection? (edt4 has said it all)

More tiresome anti-gay prejudice. The anti-gay bigots like to dress it up as philosophical and/or political debate, which is laughable. When you divest the said debate of its philosophical trappings, its just more of the same numbing prejudice that people in America have historically always had to deal with, whether they were black, Jewish, Irish, Italian, etc. Pseudo-scientists in the 50's resorted to the same kind of tactic, arguing that science and empirical evidence demonstrated conclusively that blacks were intellectually inferior to whites. Now we're comparing the love that a same-sex couple feel for each other with bestiality between a man and horse, or a man and sheep, or the sick perversion of an adult having sex with a minor. In truth, it really is despicable to make these fatuous comparisons or arguments. I'd have more respect for the people who disseminate this crap if they just came out, admitted their bigotry, and proclaimed, I don't like gay people, I don't want them getting married, and that's it, that's me. No more disingenuousness, no more tortured rationalizations...just plain, unadorned anti-gay bigotry, without the sugar coating.

I pity the people who feel like they have to reach for every single far-fetched, irrelevant idea to make their side of the arguement look better. I know how the anti-gay marraige drones love to do that--stick the label Freak on the foreheads of homosexual people and then put them in bags with pedophiles and other diluded perverts. And for what? Because they don't happen to live by YOUR morals and standards? Because they don't behave (now that's a laugh) the way your bible says they should? Give me a break. They are people just like you, maybe a little different, but they deserve to have the choice to get married.

I agree with PBeavr (I think) And I think I agree with Lanceroxas but I have to admit he may just be too smart for me sometimes... Simply put, why is it so far-fetched for some to believe that if we condone two males copulating now that 200 years from now we as a race could find the reasons to condone a man copulating with a boy or even an animal. It may sound like the conservatives overshooting thier point but I dont think so. I happen to be repulsed with the idea of laying down with a man as much as I do a boy. And I believe if we can start accepting one level of DEVIANT behaviour (that is what it is!) then we could eventually find reason to go to further levels. When does it stop? That is what we have not figured out yet. I hope we do pretty damn quick.