Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[robvalue]

KMaybe I'm oversimplifying it, but here are my thoughts. Please correct me if I'm being dumb.

If allowing the two parties to be of the same gender by law is impossible without also permitting unrelated stuff like marrying children, then there is a problem with the law that needs addressing first. It's blatantly absurd to me. I would hope that discussions are about this problem with the law, rather than if this problem justifies holding onto pointless discrimination.

I sincerely hope that the law makes more sense than this. I imagine groups of people who think that if you allow gay marriage, then the courts must accept the next proposal about marriage, regardless of what it is, without even reading it. That is the nonsense of the slippery slope argument.

---

PS: the current rules are discrimination because they place a restriction on one of the parties that doesn't apply to the other party, without reason. If you call the two people A and B, then whoever you happen to label A can be of either gender, but then the gender of person B is restricted. Reverse who is A and who is B and you are now discriminating against person A.

So arguments against this need to show why there is a good reason for this arbitrary exclusion of certain combinations, not to try and shovel in a load of other changes which would apply to both parties as "the same principle".