I don't think the issues are that closely related.
You don't have to be married to have sex, and practicing pedophilia is already illegal.
Pedophilia is categorically different from homosexuality. Children don't generally seek out sexual relationships with adults, making it intrinsically one-sided, and it involves other inherent asymmetries of experience and personal liberty. It's illegal for much the same reason that children can't sign legally binding contracts with adults. (Which also, by the way, makes pedo-marriages illegal as marriage is a contract.)
The zoophilia thing is kind of a red herring for its sheer bizarreness. I mean it does exist, but so do people want to have sex with cheese. Do we deny rights to a huge number of voluntary loving relationships because of bizarre edge cases that occur in minute fractions of the population?
Slippery slope arguments are not always invalid, but they only apply when the slope is actually slippery.
This isn't "moral anarchy." It's a debate between two theories of morality: religious-traditionalist vs. utilitarian-humanist. Both are theories in that they take coherent positions. Neither position is anarchy. If you want to debate, why not debate the real metaphysical and epistemological issues instead of these surface proxy ones?
You don't have to be married to have sex, and practicing pedophilia is already illegal.
Pedophilia is categorically different from homosexuality. Children don't generally seek out sexual relationships with adults, making it intrinsically one-sided, and it involves other inherent asymmetries of experience and personal liberty. It's illegal for much the same reason that children can't sign legally binding contracts with adults. (Which also, by the way, makes pedo-marriages illegal as marriage is a contract.)
The zoophilia thing is kind of a red herring for its sheer bizarreness. I mean it does exist, but so do people want to have sex with cheese. Do we deny rights to a huge number of voluntary loving relationships because of bizarre edge cases that occur in minute fractions of the population?
Slippery slope arguments are not always invalid, but they only apply when the slope is actually slippery.
This isn't "moral anarchy." It's a debate between two theories of morality: religious-traditionalist vs. utilitarian-humanist. Both are theories in that they take coherent positions. Neither position is anarchy. If you want to debate, why not debate the real metaphysical and epistemological issues instead of these surface proxy ones?