OK, let me refute each, one a time.
False analogy. Those under 18 cannot consent to marriage. There is no evidence that those who marry under 18 provide any of the benefits that I stated above. In fact, there is evidence that the opposite is true.1) You could say that both groups are human beings.
....but so are individuals over 18 and individuals under 18. Yet they are not granted equal access to marriage. So that alone doesn't grant equal rights to marriage. Pedophiles fall into this category.
False analogy. There is no evidence that this kind of marriage would provide the benefits that I stated above. Further, we also know that this kind of union has two problems: if procreation occurs, birth defects are more likely; and it then becomes a dual relationship which is problematic as to which relationship applies.2) you could claim that both groups are equally consenting adults.
...but that wouldn't alone grant equal rights to marriage because first degree relatives are in this category and can't get married either.
False analogy. Innate objects and pets can neither consent nor do they provide the same benefits as described above. Family members have already been addressed.3) you could claim that two homosexuals are in love like two heterosexuals would be.
..... Yet love alone can't grant equal rights to marriage. You and your (insert family member/pet/innate object here) may feel you are in love but cannot get married.
False analogy. Relatives have already been addressed. Evidence shows that polygamy does not provide the same kinds of benefits that I mentioned above. In fact, polygamy has been shown to do the opposite in many cases.4) you can claim that two heterosexuals can create a loving family unit and raise children who need a home.
...yet again, polygamists and 1st degree relatives among others could fall into this category.
No, homosexuality is an orientation, it is most certainly NOT a behavior.5) you could claim that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality in that each is simply a sexual orientation one has the option to choose from.
...yet orientation is simply an affinity of one thing for another. Homosexuality is a behavior.
Incorrect. There is no conclusive evidence that either pedophilia or bestiality is an orientation. There is conclusive evidence that homosexuality, as an orientation, is on a par with heterosexuality. Beyond that, neither minors nor animals can consent, nor do these unions reap the same benefits. This is yet another false analogy.If you were to infer that homosexuality is an orientation then you would also have to concede that other orientations are on equal ground with homosexuality based on the simple category of alternative orientation. This would include incest, beastiality, and pedophilia. All of which are sexual orientations that without accompanied behavior are legal.
Everything you mentioned was a false analogy because they were not equal.
Actually, because they examples you gave are false analogies, that is exactly why the slippery slope apples. No causation and not analogous.So, it appears that one cannot claim a right to marriage by simply being two (or more) consenting human beings (even of adult age) of a certain orientation who are in love and feel they can raise a healthy family. ...unless you are willing to grant marriage rights to a host of other groups such as polygamists, first degree relatives, pedophiles, animal lovers (you know the kind I'm talking about ) etc.
This is why it's not a slippery slope.
No they aren't. They are either male or female.Here's another premise. Heterosexuals are different than homosexuals on a basic concept. All people (aside from genetic malformations like hermaphroditism) are physically heterosexuals.
You do not understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Further, procreation is irrelevant to marriage. Firstly, because it is not a requirement and secondly because homosexuals want to procreate and many do. Therefore, everything you said above does not apply to your argument.That is they are either physiologically male or female with corresponding parts. These parts are physiologically intended to attract to and complement the parts of the opposite sex. This is the intended design of our biology in order to propagate our species. Heterosexual behavior is the term given to this congruence. Homosexual behavior is a deviation from this and is an opposite behavior than our physiological biology intended. Heterosexual behavior is a congruence with our biology and homosexual behavior is an incongruence with our biology.
If our biology afforded a pathway for homosexuality to create genetic offspring then society could consider these two things simple sexual alternatives. But they are not.
You are again confusing sexual orientation and sexual behavior. These are two different things.Heterosexuality is a different entity completely than homosexual behavior.
Pretty much everything you said was wrong. The information I gave shows the equality.So I don't see how separate but equal is even an argument here as homosexuality is not equal with heterosexuality.
Therefore, since homosexuality and heterosexuality are similar in nearly every aspect that defines a relationship and is equally beneficial in each criterion that is a reason for marraige, there is no reason that both should not be called marriage because of these similarities; and because none of the other unions mentioned fits either of these, associating any of them as an offshoot of SSM becoming legal is a slippery slope logical fallacy.Therefore if heterosexuals create a social construct called marriage it is within their prerogative to define it as being between a man and a woman. (On the way that any group rationally discriminates it's commonalities for participation) Outside groups have no legitimate argument to force their way into it without also conceding the door to Pandora's box.
I think I gave you one.I'm looking for a real discussion on this subject.