More Slippery Slope Arguments From The Right

Fox News contributor, Erick Erickson, decided to play up the slippery slope argument against same-sex marriage in a blog post on RedState.  Apparently, supporters of same-sex marriage would quickly shift their support to incestuous and polygamous marriages.  This claim is, of course, ridiculous but will not stop fools like Erickson from making it.  Here is what he said:

Via MediaMatters.

Seriously. Why not incest.

[...] 

If love and commitment are the justification for marriage, why exempt this? 

[...] 

So why not fathers marrying sons and moms marrying daughters? Is it because of the "ick" factor? Why should that preclude it?

If life comes down to who you love and who loves you back, if a father and son love each other so much they want to get married, there is little moral difference between two people of the same sex getting married who are not related and want to be and two people of the same sex who already are related becoming closer. 

[...]

The truth is, many, many, many of the same people who are now in support of gay marriage, but would oppose this or polygamy will, once the next step is advanced, support these things too. They just have to lie about it for now until they can shift public opinion further.

This is such an idiotic argument, it's hardly worth the time to discuss.  Here I am though, wasting my time on him.

Why not incest?  Because more often than not, incestuous relationships are exploitative.  Especially in situations where it is an adult and a child, like he has suggested.  Also, any relationship like that with a child involved is harmful too the child both mentally and potentially physically.  

If his argument were true, you would see many European countries, which already largely have equal rights for LGBT couples, rushing to approve incest and polygamy but you don't see that.  

I'm not sure which I find more offensive, his assertion that people like me are lying about some secret support for incest and polygamy with the intention of shifting the fight or his claim that same-sex marriage is morally the same as incest and polygamy.

Morality is on the side of the LGBT rights supporters.  The Right's assumed monopoly on morality is reprehensible.  Allowing two consenting adults to have the same legal rights as other adults in this country is not immoral, opposing that is.  That is what this fight is actually about, the law.  No one is arguing that churches will be forced to hold a religious ceremony for same-sex couples.  There are end-of-life decisions that they are excluded from, tax incentives, right to spousal benefits for insurance and many other reasons.  Can someone please give me a reason to oppose these rights that does not center around religion?  I didn't think so.

Erickson is just another troll.