Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States (2)

Thank You AmericanNationalist you actually brought up some very intelligent points that I'm sure are the logical foundations for people who oppose homosexuality and gay marriage. To be honest I haven't really looked very hard for any studies to determine whether homosexuality is biologically determined, determined by their enviroments, or even if it is or is not a choice. I'm sure their are examples which support each position. For the sake of argument let's say that your right, the enviroment someone is raised in determines their sexuality. However just because something is unnatural does not make it wrong. Consider this hypothetical case:A 3 year old girl has a heart condition that will slowly and painfully kill her. She is in utter agony every second of every day, and she will be for 6 months until she dies. A heart surgeon has the skills and expertise needed to save her life and end her suffering. In order to do so, he will need to use some very powerful pain medications, sophisticated medical equipment, and she will need a blood transfusion. If the surgeon saves her life, he will have used measures that seem to be quite unnatural. It was not natural for the child to utilize pain killers, a natural part of life is to feel pain. It was not natural for the doctor to use sophisticated medical equipment, he should only have used his hands and knowledge. It was also unnatural for the child to use someone else's blood, but she would have died an agonizing death otherwise. Therefore I believe we can intuitively see how just because something is unnatural does not mean it is bad. Similiarly, even if homosexuality is unnatural and it is determined by the enviroment in which they are raised, it does not mean this is a bad thing. If someone is happier being heterosexual, then they should be heterosexual. If someone is happier being homosexual, then they should be homosexual. All that should matter is what makes that person the happiest. Next, what your referring to is known as the slippery slope argument. It basically says that if we allow one thing, more bad things will occur. Philosophers actually consider this argument to be a very tricky argument to use, and can easily be fallacious. For example, assume a light rain starts outside your house. A slippery slope argument could be made that since its started to rain a little, a downpour is inevitable. The problem with this is that it could just as easily stop raining and become sunny again. Before we can make a valid slippery slope argument, we must know more about the weather conditions, or in this case more about the gay marriage debate. Unless I'm mistaken most proponents of gay marriage are do not support polygamy or incest. Sodomy maybe, but whether or not that's illegal or not would not prevent people, straight or gay, from doing it, and the foundations for why its immoral seem shaky to me. What I think is ACTUALLY going on is that there has and always will be small groups of people that fervently believe that polygamy, incest, and probably even child molestation should be allowed. When they see sexual reform movements they try to push harder to try and meet their agendas, but this does not mean we need to listen to them. However anti-gay marriage and anti-homosexual proponents will point to these groups as if the arised for the first time, and claim we are losing our moral foundations.