Logic and morality vs 'don't be absurd'

 *** forewarning, this is pretty gross***
 'Don't be absurd, that would never happen'

There is an arguement by the American religious right, that if you allow gay marriage, the next step will be polygamy, beastiality and goodness knows what else. This is based on the idea that if you're not allowed to choose what marriage is set against a predefined standard, then the only standard you have is whatever people want it to be. If there is no reason why marriage should be between and man and a woman, then why should is be between a couple and not two men and a woman, or three women and a man? Does it even need to be a lifetime commitment? If there is no reason why it should be between a man and a woman why does it have to be between two humans? After all, if you're a bigot for saying it cannot be between two men, because you think that is wrong, does that mean that you're a bigot if you think that it cannot be between three women and a man, because you think that is wrong. Essentially if popular opinion changes, you have no arguement against changing marriage with it. Regardless of what you think of gay marriage it is an interesting arguement.

I can see the logic in the argument but if I'm honest I would have thought any such societal changes would take a very long time. Far longer than my lifetime for example. I never thought I'd see someone arguing for marriage between animals and humans in my life. Then I read this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20523950

Amazingly there is someone in Germany who is happy to represent an organisation that thinks of animals as... well let me just quote him:

"We see animals as partners and not as a means of gratification. We don't force them to do anything. Animals are much easier to understand than women,"

Yep, there is an organisation that is arguing the animals make better partners than women. Take a minute to finish throwing up. But the sad thing is, that this is how a process starts. I have codified the way social values change as follows:

-practice A is seen as disgusting
-practice A has someone who is willing to go on record to say it is good, almost everyone is repulsed
-practice A has someone who is willing to go on record the next time it is discussed, but this time there is less -shock and horror, more just disgust
-practice A becomes old news, society recognises that there are people who think it is good, even though -they strongly disagree, it is quite disgusting
-people begin being open about supporting practice A, and the people who talk to them find that 'they are just normal people', because of course, if you can hold a conversation with someone and they can be polite, whatever they do in their spare time can't be that bad can it? (because of course all people who carry out bad practices walk around with horns on their head and a spiked tail)
-people decide that since they are 'just normal people' it is just prejudice and misunderstanding that causes people to think the person is disgusting (mixing up whether a person or their practice is bad)
-those who are against practice A are bad, because they are narrow minded and prejudice

In just 9 easy steps a practice has gone from being seen as disgusting, to those who oppose it being seen as awful. I thought the process would take around 80 years, but it appears that it can probably be done in 30. What does this say about the future? I don't know, but I can't help but feel sorry the Labradors of 2042....