No Watermelons Allowed

See if you can figure out why I linked to this.

Eugene Volokh posts about same-sex marriage and slippery slopes.

Yeah, yeah, a slippery slope is a metaphor and not an argument. But the previous statement is not an argument either - invocation of the slippery slope metaphor does not invalidate an argument.

In this case IMO everything boils down to one question:

What legal, logical or moral argument(s) would a supporter of gay marriage use to oppose extending marriage beyond permitting same-sex couples? If these are unsound or nonexistent, then in fact we have a slippery slope - if we can't limit marriage to a pair consisting of a man and a woman, can we limit it at all?

Don't expect me to trust people not to push beyond a certain point. They will, if only out of orneriness.

Or for tax benefits.

I want to sue the jury. And whoever these idiots are who would justify a lack of caps on jury awards.

Let's suppose that the company was just the absolute incarnation of guilt (as opposed to the reality, in which there was no direct tie between Vioxx and the meal-ticket's victim's head). Suppose that the event warrants liquidation of the corporation down to the very last dime. Does it not make sense to hold a little something back until you know how many people were harmed, so there can be some equity in the recovery?

Or if the first plaintiff is permitted to suck a corporation dry, then let subsequent defendants sue the first to get their fair shares. Whatever its' drawbacks, this at least has the benefit of siccing the jackals on one another, permitting the productive sector of the economy to go back to producing the wealth that pays for these asininities.