While discussing marriage equality, one person argued that you couldn’t allow same-sex marriage because “where would it end?” If same-sex marriage was allowed, it wouldn’t end there with two consenting adults; People would want to marry their dog or some other strange nonsense.

Nevermind that it is demeaning to equate a human to an animal. Nevermind that you are restricting a segment of the population from exercising their right to marriage. Nevermind doing what is right and just, which is simply equality for all. Isn’t this what we should be doing: correcting this injustice, instead of worrying about laughable hypotheticals that will never materialize.

This is very backward thinking and I think that the person was only using it as an excuse, repeating something he had heard, because he could not come up with any good reasons for not correcting inequality no matter where it was found. Not that “where will this end?” is a good reason that holds any water.

Let’s look at this logic closer. Basically, the reasoning here is that it is better to keep inequality in place because if you gave them the ability to exercise this same right, it wouldn’t stop there, but go into some bizarre extension.

Using the same logic, we should have never have allowed women to exercise their right to vote. After all, people would then want to have their pets vote. Right? Or, we should never have ended slavery, people would start rallying for the freedom of farm animals. Neither of these things happened and neither will marriage laws go off into bizarro world, if same-sex marriages are allowed.