Santorum and the Slippery Slope

[fumster]

Ignoring putting together "Santorum" and "slippery" for the moment, I was listening to Santorum use the slippery slope argument against gay marriage. If we allow gays to marry, then do we have to allow polygamous marriage as well?

It occurred to me that if we accept one slippery slope argument we'll have to accept all of them, so it's safer to not accept it. Case closed?

[kenobi 65]

I'm not sure I agree.

Heterosexual marriage is a union between two consenting adults, neither of whom were in a (current) marriage before becoming married to each other. Gay marriage is a union between two consenting adults, neither of whom were in a (current) marriage before becoming married to each other. Yes, it's a difference in the relative genders of the parties, but you're still not changing the basic math of the union.

Polygamy changes the basic math of the union.

[El_Kabong]

Sorry, not getting the argument. If we only accept one type of marriage, we don't have to accept any others, but if we accept any number of types greater than one, we have to accept all of them? I don't see why that would be.

There seem to be sound arguments in favor of allowing gay persons the rights and ceremonies of marriage. There don't appear to be any sound arguments against it. The situation may be quite different for polygamous relationships. I don't see where one follows naturally from the other.

[kenetic]

You're missing the joke, guys:

It occurred to me that if we accept one slippery slope argument we'll have to accept all of them, so it's safer to not accept it. Case closed?

If we accept Santorum's slippery slope argument, then we must accept all slipper slope arguments. Or something like that.

[Mr Downtown]

It depends on the argument used. If the argument is "consenting adults can agree to any sort of marriage they wish," then it's hard to see how the line is drawn to include same-sex marriage but not to include plural marriage.

When sodomy statutes were overturned by Lawrence v. Texas, (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html) it was because conduct in the bedroom falls within the right to privacy that earlier cases had established. If any state has a statute forbidding three-ways, surely it must be struck down on the same reasoning.

[opossum]

Ignoring putting together "Santorum" and "slippery" for the moment, I was listening to Santorum use the slippery slope argument against gay marriage. If we allow gays to marry, then do we have to allow polygamous marriage as well?

It occurred to me that if we accept one slippery slope argument we'll have to accept all of them, so it's safer to not accept it. Case closed?

I completely agree. Once we accept one slippery slope argument, it's only a matter of time before we've accepted them all. We'll be living in a world where everybody is married to everyone else, all the books are reduced to ashes, we all live in huts without plumbing or electricity, and nobody can ever again enjoy the simple pleasure of eating a cheeseburger. Sound like fun? Do you really want to be married to that one guy at work and living in a hut with nothing to read or eat??? Is gay marriage really worth all that????

[SciFiSam]

I've developed a reflex against the 'slippery slope' idea over the years. If you've ever been hurtling headlong on a slippery slope, then you know that the conclusion is not foregone - any bump in the path can send you off another way very quickly.

And allowing same-sex partnerships as well as opposite-sex partnerships requires no new laws, really, or just one small change in the law. When it comes to children, spousal inheritance, taxes, benefits, etc, everything is set up for a union of two people who may or may not have children. Allowing those two people to be of the same gender is a minor tweak.

Changing it all so that three or more people are included in laws relating to all of the above would be far more difficult. It's not a slippery slope - it's a whole different slalom course.

[fumster]

I guess I was being too meta. My observation was that the slippery slope argument in and of itself contains an inherent contradiction in an ironic (and perhaps not as amusing as I thought) way.

If we accept the slippery slope argument about gay marriage then we need to accept the slippery slope argument that the right to bear arms allows everyone to have nuclear bombs, or that allowing the government to censor pornography will mean that they can censor right wing talk radio.

[dorsk188]

I guess I was being too meta. My observation was that the slippery slope argument in and of itself contains an inherent contradiction in an ironic (and perhaps not as amusing as I thought) way.
I saw what you did there and smiled. Pretty funny argument, actually.

As for unconventional marriage, I am a pragmatist. If you can show me significant harm done by a form of marriage, then I am against it. In societies where polygamy is practiced, there is almost always a gender-power divide that widens. Richer men have all the power (and use wives as a status symbol, further accruing power), and poor men and boys are deprived mates and expelled from society. Girls are raised to be obedient sex slaves for their eventual husbands and the scarcity of eligible bachelorettes leads increasingly to adult men marrying very young girls. In some cases, desperate polygamous societies will even abduct woman from outside the society or buy girls or women as slaves. Chinese infant girls are still very commonly trafficked. If Mormons had never been forced to abandon the practice, I suspect there would be daily shipments from Shanghai to Salt Lake City.

Polygamy is not inherently bad, and there are some polyamorous groups that genuinely do work out. But I think we can say from the experiments done by humanity so far that it's a dangerous practice to make the rule, rather than the exception.

Gay marriage actually has zero evidence it's more damaging than straight marriage, as far as I'm aware.

There, Rick. That's the answer to your stupid slippery slope argument about polygamy. Fuh~

[Argent Towers]

I'm all in favor of polygamy being legal. I don't understand the reasoning behind the idea that it's okay for someone to fuck a whole bunch of different people, but not okay to be married to them while doing so. It's lunacy.

[dorsk188]

I'm all in favor of polygamy being legal. I don't understand the reasoning behind the idea that it's okay for someone to fuck a whole bunch of different people, but not okay to be married to them while doing so. It's lunacy.
I largely agree, but as I alluded to in my earlier post, I think the history should give us pause.

In our modern, post-sexual revolution world, I suspect legalized polygamy would be rarely practiced at first. Eventually, though I'd be pissed my tax dollars are going to build bigger stadiums to accommodate the NFL and NBA players' harems.

[UFC Is Sux]

"If we allow gay marriage, then we HAVE to allow people to get married to their neighbor's dog."

Fundamentalist conservative thought is so quaint. And hey, if you're attracted to the twinkle in the eye of that Great Dane next door, I say go for it.

[Gagundathar]

This guy came in SECOND in Iowa?
Sheeesh

[Bryan Ekers]

I'm all in favor of polygamy being legal. I don't understand the reasoning behind the idea that it's okay for someone to fuck a whole bunch of different people, but not okay to be married to them while doing so. It's lunacy.

Oh, not really. The polygamists can call themselves married and perform whatever ceremony they like, but marriage as a legal construct carries hundreds of rights of responsibilities that become unworkable when applied to a group. I've suggested before, and will do so now, that legal polygamy should not branch off of existing marriage law, but existing partnership law, i.e. a group marriage should be a modified version of a legal partnership, like a law firm, where clearly defined mechanisms exist to allow partners to come and go. Compare this to a "divorce" in a group marriage - what share of assets should wife #4 get when she wants to leave? What happens if husband #2 and wife #3 want to split off and form their own marriage? Legal partnerships have the tools to address situations like this, divorce courts currently do not.

Heh, there are conventional marriages that take years to dissolve, if the spouses are acrimonious enough and the assets are valuable enough. I can only imagine what happens in a group marriage with collective assets of, say, $20 million, and enough hurt feelings all around to keep waging the battle indefinitely. The lawyers will end up with it all, decades later.

And besides, let's not overlook how group marriage will inevitably be applied. Sure, there may be some truly communal group marriages with multiple members of both sexes but in practice, the majority of cases will be one husband with multiple wives. If the husband dies, are the surviving wives still "married" in some sense? What, if any, obligations do they have to each other (and each other's children) before and after the husband's death? If one of the wives wants to take a new husband (or a new spouse, to be general), does she have to clear it with all the others?

Come up with a good generalized legal framework for how to deal with issues like this in group marriage before you start calling things "lunacy". I have no moral issue with group marriage, I just recognize that legal divorce alone is a minefield, and it represents just a fraction of the potential difficulties that could have family courts spinning their wheels for years on end.

[Strassia]

We have gone over this before (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=612735).

It basically comes down to that if morally polygamy may be just as defensible as SSM, in practice it is a huge can of worms.

My position remains that any law criminalizing poly arrangements are unjust and should be removed, but if poly folks want their unions legally recognized they need to work out all the details of how it should work. That is a big bump (probably more of a gravel patch) in the slippery slope.

[Fear Itself]

If we limit marriage to one man and one woman, it will lead to limiting marriage to one white man and one white woman, or one black man and one black woman.

[elucidator]

"Slippery"? Santorum? (snicker)

[aruvqan]

Oh, not really. The polygamists can call themselves married and perform whatever ceremony they like, but marriage as a legal construct carries hundreds of rights of responsibilities that become unworkable when applied to a group. I've suggested before, and will do so now, that legal polygamy should not branch off of existing marriage law, but existing partnership law, i.e. a group marriage should be a modified version of a legal partnership, like a law firm, where clearly defined mechanisms exist to allow partners to come and go. Compare this to a "divorce" in a group marriage - what share of assets should wife #4 get when she wants to leave? What happens if husband #2 and wife #3 want to split off and form their own marriage? Legal partnerships have the tools to address situations like this, divorce courts currently do not.

Heh, there are conventional marriages that take years to dissolve, if the spouses are acrimonious enough and the assets are valuable enough. I can only imagine what happens in a group marriage with collective assets of, say, $20 million, and enough hurt feelings all around to keep waging the battle indefinitely. The lawyers will end up with it all, decades later.

And besides, let's not overlook how group marriage will inevitably be applied. Sure, there may be some truly communal group marriages with multiple members of both sexes but in practice, the majority of cases will be one husband with multiple wives. If the husband dies, are the surviving wives still "married" in some sense? What, if any, obligations do they have to each other (and each other's children) before and after the husband's death? If one of the wives wants to take a new husband (or a new spouse, to be general), does she have to clear it with all the others?

Come up with a good generalized legal framework for how to deal with issues like this in group marriage before you start calling things "lunacy". I have no moral issue with group marriage, I just recognize that legal divorce alone is a minefield, and it represents just a fraction of the potential difficulties that could have family courts spinning their wheels for years on end.
Corporate law. You just add in details of determining paternity, responsibility of the parent of said kid/s in case of dissolution of *that* female and her get from the family corporation, any child support to be paid and other needs [medical and special needs as required] dower property and assigns.

Honestly, modern ultrarich have detailed legal contracts drawn up, they are called prenups. They detail all of this information. Not a big jump to just turn it all into a form of contract law. After all, we do refer to it as a marriage contract.

And as long as the law states 'consenting adults' with adult defined as over the age of 18, marital puppies is not going to happen as I have actually never seen a Great Dane over about 15, large dogs tend to shorter lifespans. Of course the little yappie lap rats can get to the age of 18 ... and as they can't actually talk, they can't give consent ... :dubious:

[dorsk188]

Corporate law. You just add in details of determining paternity, responsibility of the parent of said kid/s in case of dissolution of *that* female and her get from the family corporation, any child support to be paid and other needs [medical and special needs as required] dower property and assigns.
We've got enough problems with Republicans trying to make corporations into people, and you're trying to make them into families, now? Be honest, are you Frank Luntz?

[John Mace]

Slippery Slope is only a fallacy when there is no slope.

In the case of the OP, there is slope if we are logically consistent, but we aren't and so we ignore the slope. Polygamists don't have a big enough lobby. Yet.

[Mosier]

Santorum's argument can be refuted by a third grader. Even the other anti-homosexuals must be groaning in shame for this guy.

[Marley23]

Santorum's argument can be refuted by a third grader.
Lucky for him they can't vote.

[Czarcasm]

Lucky for him they can't vote.Lucky for him they can't run.

[Bryan Ekers]

Corporate law.

Possibly, but partnership law is a better fit, I figure. I cheerfully admit my lack of training in this field and invite correction, but a quick read of this definition of legal partnership (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/partnership) suggests to me that a group marriage can be modeled on the Uniform Partnership Act (which defines partnership as "an aggregate of individual partners"), as opposed to the later Revised Uniform Partnership Act, which viewed the partnership as a corporation-like legal entity unto itself.

When it comes times to add or remove a new partner/spouse, the existing partnership/marriage is dissolved and reformed, as opposed to a corporate model where a shareholder "buys in" or gets "bought out". Further, I assume that in a partnership, the partners are not only owners but also active participants in the day-to-day operations, i.e. the partners in a law firm take on clients and work on cases for the benefit of the partnership, as opposed to common-stock shareholders whose total participation might be casting a shareholder vote once a year, who indeed might never even meet other shareholders, corporate directors or managers.

There are numerous kinks to work out, of course, and I'm definitely not the guy to attempt such, but I suspect that modifying partnership law will be easier than modifying marriage law, with corporate law being a distant-third choice.


Anyway, Santorum's a dope, but his kind of dopiness is unfortunately attractive to a great many Americans.

[John Mace]

I completely agree. Once we accept one slippery slope argument, it's only a matter of time before we've accepted them all.

I can't tell if you're being facetious, but the funny thing is, you are using the slippery slope argument right there.

Once again, there are times when the "Slippery Slope" argument is not a fallacy. Your argument is not one of those times.

[fumster]

Slippery Slope is only a fallacy when there is no slope.

In the case of the OP, there is slope if we are logically consistent, but we aren't and so we ignore the slope. Polygamists don't have a big enough lobby. Yet.There's always a slope. We used to require people to be married in a church, then we allowed them to have civil marriages, then we allowed interracial marriages. It only looks like there isn't a slope in hindsight. All those states' rights conservatives now say that of course we should have allowed interracial marriage, but this time...

But somehow we power along. We don't say corporations can't have legal "personhood" because that means they will be subject to the death penalty, or that if we allow TSA pat downs we need to allow tentacled anal probes. Democracy assumes that we apply some common sense now and again.

[dorsk188]

We don't say corporations can't have legal "personhood" because that means they will be subject to the death penalty...
Ooh, yes please.

...or that if we allow TSA pat downs we need to allow tentacled anal probes.
Ooh, yes please.

[John Mace]

There's always a slope. We used to require people to be married in a church, then we allowed them to have civil marriages, then we allowed interracial marriages. It only looks like there isn't a slope in hindsight. All those states' rights conservatives now say that of course we should have allowed interracial marriage, but this time...

But somehow we power along. We don't say corporations can't have legal "personhood" because that means they will be subject to the death penalty, or that if we allow TSA pat downs we need to allow tentacled anal probes. Democracy assumes that we apply some common sense now and again.

No, there isn't always a slope. Santorum is famous for his man/dog marriage argument. There is no slope that takes us from SSM to beastiality marriages or marriages with minors, for that matter. The critical barrier to such slopes is the "consenting adults" issue.

If we suddenly started treating minors as adults, across the board, then the slope would be there. Or, if we suddenly started treating animals as adult humans. So, no, we don't have to worry about the slope starting with SSM. It needs to start somewhere else.

Frankly, I think there is a stronger case that can be made for legal polygamy than for SSM, since human history is replete with such marriages. The exact same arguments about "people who love each other" can be made for SSM and for polygamy, but the latter is nothing new.

For the record, I'm in favor of both being legal.

[Paralogic]

It occurred to me that if we accept one slippery slope argument we'll have to accept all of them, so it's safer to not accept it. Case closed?

Yes. Case Closed.

But, why is same sex marriage a "slip" ? A slip from what?

If society wants to allow legal acknowledgement of the union of a person and a furniture item from IKEA, then we should be able to do so.

Santorum's refusal to acknowledge same sex marriage as an accepted social norm is discrimination, like the defining edict of his ideology.

That's why he's a conservative.

[John Mace]

Santorum's refusal to acknowledge same sex marriage as an accepted social norm is discrimination...


And refusal to accept polygamy as a social norm is...?

[Fear Itself]

And refusal to accept polygamy as a social norm is...?...not the same as refusal to accept same sex marriage. If Santorum wants to argue against polygamy, he may do so, and those who want polygamy can defend it. But marriage between two adults cannot logically be limited by gender, without committing a bigotry. Introducing polygamy is apples and oranges. Any argument against SSM opens the door to any sort of limits on marital pairs, including bans on misogyny.

[John Mace]

...not the same as refusal to accept same sex marriage. If Santorum wants to argue against polygamy, he may do so, and those who want polygamy can defend it. But marriage between two adults cannot logically be limited by gender, without committing a bigotry. Introducing polygamy is apples and oranges.

I see lots of assertions, but nothing to back them up.



Any argument against SSM opens the door to any sort of limits on marital pairs, including bans on misogyny.

I'm not making an argument against SSM.

[Trinopus]

Slippery Slope is only a fallacy when there is no slope. . . .


It's also a fallacy when it isn't slippery.

[John Mace]

Santorum's argument can be refuted by a third grader.

If it's so easy, why didn't you do it?

[j666]

I guess I was being too meta. My observation was that the slippery slope argument in and of itself contains an inherent contradiction in an ironic (and perhaps not as amusing as I thought) way.

If we accept the slippery slope argument about gay marriage then we need to accept the slippery slope argument that the right to bear arms allows everyone to have nuclear bombs, or that allowing the government to censor pornography will mean that they can censor right wing talk radio.
Hmm, I don't exactly see the contradiction inherent in the argument. Is your point just that the slippery slope can be used by both progressives and conservatives?

[Mosier]

If it's so easy, why didn't you do it?

Gay marriage and polygamy are in no way related concepts, and no causal link has been shown between them.

In third grader terms, "nuh-uh!" is a perfectly valid response to Santorum's attempt to equate gay marriage to bestiality (an argument he made prior to this one) or polygamy.

[Bryan Ekers]

If it's so easy, why didn't you do it?

Well, can I give it a shot?


Santorum's claim, as best I understand it, is that gay marriage leads to a broader acceptance of group marriage, bestiality marriages, "man on dog", etc. My refutation is to point to several countries, including my own, where gay marriage is legal and yet the slope has not slid - polygamous marriage and bestiality remain illegal, and gay marriage did nothing to change this.

Santorum would have to modify his statement to something like "gay marriage in the United States would lead to polygamy and bestiality, etc." but that would lead to the uncomfortable follow-up questions of "why? Are Americans so barely restrained that gay marriage would open floodgates that other countries have casually kept closed?"

[Fear Itself]

I see lots of assertions, but nothing to back them up.SSM is guaranteed by the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. We already have laws that confer legal marriage on two adults. If a man and a woman can get legally married, the 14th guarantees that any pair of legal adults can enter into a marriage, because denying them that right constitutes unequal protection under the law. You can't have man/woman marriages without man/man and woman/woman marriages without running afoul of the 14th. Polygamy is afforded no such consideration, because the law does not provide for multiple marriage, no matter what the genders are. There is no slippery slope, because polygamy cannot claim unequal protection.

[SmartAlecCat]

Heterosexual marriage is clearly the first step toward one man marrying two women. We should ban it now.

[Sitnam]

Marriage is a contract, so:

-horses, trees, whatever else can't enter into a contract so that isn't going to be a problem.
-Children can't enter into a contract

But as for Polygamous marriages, if adults want to form a contract entering it without coersion and the children are legally secure if the marriage breaks up I have no problem with it and I think Santorums slippery-slope argument applies to that one specific case.

Homosexual marriage will make it easier for a legislative argument to mount allowing multiple people to marry all at once. Possibly. We should then ask, 'so what?'.

SmartAlecCat, I thought conservatives we all about getting government out of peoples lives?

[John Mace]

Well, can I give it a shot?


Santorum's claim, as best I understand it, is that gay marriage leads to a broader acceptance of group marriage, bestiality marriages, "man on dog", etc. My refutation is to point to several countries, including my own, where gay marriage is legal and yet the slope has not slid - polygamous marriage and bestiality remain illegal, and gay marriage did nothing to change this.

Santorum would have to modify his statement to something like "gay marriage in the United States would lead to polygamy and bestiality, etc." but that would lead to the uncomfortable follow-up questions of "why? Are Americans so barely restrained that gay marriage would open floodgates that other countries have casually kept closed?"

That's a good start. Firstly, though, I've already stated that Satnorum is wrong concerning "man on dog" marriages. There is no "slope" there, as animals don't have the same rights as humans, nor can they consent to anything. And while SSM has not lead to legalized polygamy yet in other countries, we're still quite early in the process-- a little over 10 years for the first legalization.

Fact is, there isn't an argument for SSM that cannot also be used for polygamy. Limiting marriage to 2 people is just as arbitrary as limiting it to people of different sexes, especially since polygamy has a long history of being accepted in human societies. It's certainly a more complicate process, but nothing that our legal system is incapable of handling, and when it comes to rights, we don't limit them just because the legalities are "complicated".

Where I differ from Santorum is that I'm not using it as an argument against SSM, so in that sense, he is wrong. It's not a reason to prohibit SSM, it's just a consequence to be considered when doing so. A consequence that a free society should be willing to accept.

[jtgain]

Marriage is a contract, so:

-horses, trees, whatever else can't enter into a contract so that isn't going to be a problem.
-Children can't enter into a contract


Before 2004, two men couldn't enter into a marriage either. Your statement is conclusory. What if in 2003, I said:

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman so:

--horses, trees, two men, two women, whatever else can't enter into a marriage so that isn't going to be a problem.
--children can't enter into a marriage
So why do we need to change the law?

In other words, Santorum's man/dog analogy is met with scorn and guffaws from liberals who smugly declare that animals can't enter into contracts. Correct, and right now two men (in most states) can't enter into a marriage contract.

What's to say in 50 years there won't be a group out there challenging the fact of animals not being allowed to enter into a contract as "bigoted" against other species? Ridiculous, you say, because a poodle can't meaningfully consent to a marriage? How 2012 of you to think that. You know they used to say black people couldn't enter into contracts as well. Tsk, Tsk. My grandfather used to be an animal bigot like you.

I'm not saying that it will happen, but the hand waiving of the argument is not warranted. It's not more silly than 50 years AGO saying that two men should be able to get married to each other.

[jtgain]

That's a good start. Firstly, though, I've already stated that Satnorum is wrong concerning "man on dog" marriages. There is no "slope" there, as animals don't have the same rights as humans, nor can they consent to anything.

Sorry for the double post, but this is conclusory as well. In 1857, the Supreme Court said the same thing about blacks. The argument simply cannot be dismissed by saying that XYZ "can't" do something. The argument is that they can or should be allowed to.

[John Mace]

Sorry for the double post, but this is conclusory as well. In 1857, the Supreme Court said the same thing about blacks. The argument simply cannot be dismissed by saying that XYZ "can't" do something. The argument is that they can or should be allowed to.
No. Free blacks could and did marry whites in some parts of the country. It was never illegal in the entire nation. The SCOTUS upheld anti-miscegenation laws in the 19th century, but that did not cause those states which did allow interracial marriage (like PA and MA) to outlaw it.

[Bryan Ekers]

That's a good start. Firstly, though, I've already stated that Satnorum is wrong concerning "man on dog" marriages. There is no "slope" there, as animals don't have the same rights as humans, nor can they consent to anything. And while SSM has not lead to legalized polygamy yet in other countries, we're still quite early in the process-- a little over 10 years for the first legalization.

Well, my response would be to ask how long a timeframe Santorum would need after which he'd admit that he was wrong.

Heck, we've had people on this board who claimed 40 years wouldn't be enough to be sure.

Fact is, there isn't an argument for SSM that cannot also be used for polygamy. Limiting marriage to 2 people is just as arbitrary as limiting it to people of different sexes, especially since polygamy has a long history of being accepted in human societies. It's certainly a more complicate process, but nothing that our legal system is incapable of handling, and when it comes to rights, we don't limit them just because the legalities are "complicated".

Fine, but I daresay the onus is someone who wants it legalized to put some thought into how these complex issues will be resolved. Two-person marriage is firmly established, but didn't come into existence overnight. Similarly, the historical form of polygamous marriage (the vast majority of the time consisting of one male, two or more females), and even the current form as practiced in countries where it is legal, is coupled with a much lower standard (by modern western views, an unacceptable standard) of legal freedom for women.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I see lots of assertions, but nothing to back them up.

There is ample case law to determine what happens to their property when John divorces Jane.

1a) Do you believe that it would require a new body of case law to determine what happens to their property when John divorces Joe?
1b) Do you believe that it would require a new body of case law to determine what happens when John divorces Joe but remains married to Jane and Mary, and Joe decides at that time to remain married to Jane but divorce Mary?

There is ample case law to determine what happens re: employee spousal benefits when John marries Jane.

2a) Do you believe that it would require significant adjustments to the law to allow those same spousal benefits when John marries Joe?
2b) Do you believe that it would require significant adjustments to the law to allow those same spousal benefits when John marries Joe, Mary, and Jane?

As I understand it, there are over 1,000 rights granted by marriage. So these question pairs could go on all night.

I'm totally in favor of legalizing multiple marriages, but it's an extremely thorny logistical problem, AFAICT. Legalizing same-sex marriages could be done with a print-out of the relevant laws and a crayon.

[magellan01]

Any argument against SSM opens the door to any sort of limits on marital pairs, including bans on misogyny.

No it doesn't. Until this recent desire to embrace SSM, marriage has always consisted of people from both genders—either a traditional man/woman pairing or something polygamous. Defining it in the U.S for what is has been traditionally—one man, one woman—has nothing to do with the races of of the couple. So, we can easily uphold the idea that marriage is between one man and open woman and not be worried about breaking up the marriage between Seal and that super model.

[Polycarp]

It depends on the argument used. If the argument is "consenting adults can agree to any sort of marriage they wish," then it's hard to see how the line is drawn to include same-sex marriage but not to include plural marriage.

When sodomy statutes were overturned by Lawrence v. Texas, (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html) it was because conduct in the bedroom falls within the right to privacy that earlier cases had established. If any state has a statute forbidding three-ways, surely it must be struck down on the same reasoning.

Not quite. A traditional marriage is. among other things, a contract for sexual exclusivity. If I contract with you, for consideration, to make you the sole Chicago franchisee for Polycarp's Piping-hot Pork-and-Portobello Pockets, then start letting Ed Zotti sell them in Chicago too, you have grounds for a lawsuit against me. A three-way would be a breach of that contractual exclusivity freely exchanged between the marrying partners in a traditional marriage. If on the other hand the participants in the three-way are unmarried or in open marriages, then your point holds.

[aruvqan]

No, there isn't always a slope. Santorum is famous for his man/dog marriage argument. There is no slope that takes us from SSM to beastiality marriages or marriages with minors, for that matter. The critical barrier to such slopes is the "consenting adults" issue.


I wouldn't mind if someone pointed out to Santorum that his lovely christianity allowed adult men to marry minor females for centuries. In fact, frequently encouraged it with the emphasis on virginity.

Personally, I would love a second husband. Then maybe the garbage would get taken out a bit more frequently, and mrAru would have someone to help him put the new roof on next summer :D

[Bryan Ekers]

No it doesn't. Until this recent desire to embrace SSM, marriage has always consisted of people from both genders—either a traditional man/woman pairing or something polygamous. Defining it in the U.S for what is has been traditionally—one man, one woman—has nothing to do with the races of of the couple. So, we can easily uphold the idea that marriage is between one man and open woman and not be worried about breaking up the marriage between Seal and that super model.

Well, I guess we'll have to see what happens under a Santorum presidency (or one of someone with similar views) who wants to roll back the progress already made. By then, there might be tens of thousands of same-sex marriages in the U.S. (I expect there will quite a few between November 2012 and January 2013 if Obama loses) and I'm curious what'll happen if those marriages get annulled and what kind of precedent that sets.

[John Mace]

I wouldn't mind if someone pointed out to Santorum that his lovely christianity allowed adult men to marry minor females for centuries. In fact, frequently encouraged it with the emphasis on virginity.

Christianity allowed slavery, which is much worse than that. I don't think that's much of an argument. There were many, many horrible things condoned by Christianity in the past. Should we tell Obama that, too?

Better to ask Romney what his position is on the death penalty, which is currently condemned by the RCC.

[Bryan Ekers]

Yeah, man on dog... putting Santorum on the Spot....

[Sitnam]

I'm not saying that it will happen, but the hand waiving of the argument is not warranted. It's not more silly than 50 years AGO saying that two men should be able to get married to each other.
The OP is about the slippery slope argument, in addressing that issue it's necessary to compare and contrast Santorum's claim with reality.

When he compares homosexual marriage to; children, dogs and trees to illustrate the absurdity of it, he must then confront the reality of the differences between those things and another adult human being, even if, he too has a penis.

Of course people 50 years ago would've guffawed at the notion that two men could marry. Thankfully social progress is relentless. In 20 years my infant daughter will not understand why homosexuals fighting in the military was such a big deal, just like my generation doesn't really understand why there was always two different drinking fountains.

Santorum and his ilk are pissing into the wind when they quote scripture beliefs to solidify public opinion on increasingly antiquated values, just as I am sure opponents of Emancipation quoted the likes of: Lev. 25:44 and Exodus 21:7.

[Bryan Ekers]

In 20 years my infant daughter will not understand why homosexuals fighting in the military was such a big deal

Heck, she could be in the military and give her wife a kiss goodbye before boarding OV-607 to make orbital rendezvous with the hypercruiser/troop carrier Betty Ford to invade Klendathu, because if we don't fight the bugs there, we'll be fighting them here.

[John Mace]

Heck, she could be in the military and give her wife a kiss goodbye before boarding OV-607 to make orbital rendezvous with the hypercruiser/troop carrier Betty Ford to invade Klendathu, because if we don't fight the bugs there, we'll be fighting them here.

Maybe she will give her wife and two husbands a kiss before doing so.

[Bryan Ekers]

Now, let's not be silly.

[John Mace]

Now, let's not be silly.

OK. She'll kiss her wife and @!$%&@# with her two lesbian concubines.

[fumster]

OK. She'll kiss her wife and @!$%&@# with her two lesbian concubines.This is someone's daughter we are talking about :mad:

[Bryan Ekers]

Hey, lesbians are daughters, too. They don't just appear in nature spontaneously.

[Sitnam]

My daughter might be a lesbian and she might someday have concubines. You're wit and charm has impressed us all.

Now how 'bout you take your middle school dialectic someplace else.

[Bryan Ekers]

So you're not gonna support her dreams of being a space marine, huh?

[SmartAlecCat]

So you're not gonna support her dreams of being a space marine, huh?


Young people all over the globe are joining up to save the future.

Join the Mobile Infantry and save the Galaxy.


--

[shiftless]

It occurred to me that if we accept one slippery slope argument we'll have to accept all of them, so it's safer to not accept it. Case closed?

Your meta argument is interesting but once we accept one meta argument in the Dope it is only a matter of time. I don't want to live in a meta-meta-meta world.

[Scholar Beardpig]

I wrote a long post that compared defense-of-marriage to trade protectionism, but by the time I got to the end I realized it was terrible. So I'm gonna ask about this:

It's obvious to me that gay marriage is neither a slippery slope, nor even a slope at all, but it gets me wondering - are there any genuinely slippery slopes in the world? Or are they so vanishingly few that they're not worth mentioning?

In before all mention of hills, sleds, and sidewalks and junk!

[BrainGlutton]

Santorum really should know better than to characterize anything as "slippery," he's just asking for it.

[Gagundathar]

Personally speaking, I would accept line marriages or other forms of polyamory if the proper legislation was in place. In some projections of this, women would be in charge. In others, it would be a power-sharing situation. This isn't inconsistent with how we are wired. Humans are not basically monogamous. Males certainly are not. Females may or may not be. But, why should should the norm be monogamy? Is it only to have a nuclear family to provide for the welfare of children? Is this way things have to be?

[BrainGlutton]

But, why should should the norm be monogamy?

Go back far enough, it's probably because women insisted on it.

[Evil Captor]

Hmmm. Interesting thread. Damn if Santorum doesn't have a point: even if allowing gay marriage does not lead immediately to polyamory, it definitely bolsters the argument for it: if you can allow fiddling with the participants of marriage in one way, why not another? Clearly, we HAVE done so in the past, in the matter of black/white marriages.

The point on which the slippery slope argument fails is social utility. In the case of polyamory, we can point to many societies in which it has existed and does exist, and ask if we want to be more like them. (Answer: "NO!") We can show definite potential harm in polygamous societies.

So what is the harm that could be caused by allowing same sex marriage? I have not seen any arguments about the practical harm of allowing same sex marriage advanced anywhere: has anyone? All I have seen is reference to some cult's holy book, which if followed to the letter would also permit us to keep slaves and to beat them with sticks until they were not able to rise to their feet for three days. (More than three days is right out!)

It IS a very powerful cult though.

[Strassia]

Fact is, there isn't an argument for SSM that cannot also be used for polygamy. Limiting marriage to 2 people is just as arbitrary as limiting it to people of different sexes, especially since polygamy has a long history of being accepted in human societies. It's certainly a more complicate process, but nothing that our legal system is incapable of handling, and when it comes to rights, we don't limit them just because the legalities are "complicated".

.
The complexity and effort is not a good reason to make something illegal, it is a sufficient reason not to codify something. We currently have a one size fits all marriage that can be applied to either SSM or OSM with only some pronoun changes. Fact is that the argument that it requires no change in the legal nature of marriage is an argument for SSM that can not be applied to polygamy. At this point there is no consensus that I have ever heard of how poly marriages should be structured and limited.

There is a "slope" between any two slightly related things. How slippery and how steep is the issue. The slope from decriminalizing sodomy and legalizing SSM is actually pretty steep and slipperly because it is really only attitudes that need to change. To get from SSM to poly requires not just attitude change, but also a lot of actual work. That makes the slope a lot less slippery. There is also the fact that poly people have no organization. Who is advocating for poly marriage? Who is lobbying? Most involved in a poly relationship are still in the closet, so to speak. There is no public discussion on this which makes the slope a lot more gradual.

[Strassia]

I wrote a long post that compared defense-of-marriage to trade protectionism, but by the time I got to the end I realized it was terrible. So I'm gonna ask about this:

It's obvious to me that gay marriage is neither a slippery slope, nor even a slope at all, but it gets me wondering - are there any genuinely slippery slopes in the world? Or are they so vanishingly few that they're not worth mentioning?

In before all mention of hills, sleds, and sidewalks and junk!

There are many slippery slopes. Most just aren't bad. Those that argued that by stopping the prosecution of gays we were starting down a slippery slope to SSM were in fact right. Once you accept that there is nothing inherently wrong with being homosexual, it is almost inevitable that they deserve the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals.

[John Mace]

The complexity and effort is not a good reason to make something illegal, it is a sufficient reason not to codify something.

Not if that "something" is a fundamental right. Which is the argument made for SSM.

Sitnam: Sorry, I thought we were talking about hypothetical person, not an actual daughter you already had.

[Strassia]

Not if that "something" is a fundamental right. Which is the argument made for SSM.

Sitnam: Sorry, I thought we were talking about hypothetical person, not an actual daughter you already had.

Equality before the law is a fundamental right. Being able to file a joint tax return is not.

[John Mace]

Equality before the law is a fundamental right. Being able to file a joint tax return is not.

The SCOTUS, in Loving, said marriage was a fundamental right, but there is nothing inherent in marriage, as a right, that requires the married couple to be able to file a joint tax return. The idea being that the state needs to have a significant interest when preventing people from marrying. I can't think of any significant interest the state has in limiting marriage to 2 people, other than that it takes a certain amount of work to align the laws to make that possible.

[panache45]

Santorum to Rosa Parks: "Well, next you'll want us to let dogs sit in the front of the bus."

[The Second Stone]

Most cultures in the world and throughout history have practiced polygamy. That is one man, multiple wives. Very few have had one woman, multiple husbands.

I can see that various employment and death benefits would change dramatically for polygamy, but I don't see why the bare fact of polygamy is so weird to us. Me included. It seems really weird. But logically it doesn't make any sense.

Joke: The punishment for polygamy is having multiple spouses.

[elucidator]

Yeah, man on dog... putting Santorum on the Spot....

See Spot run. Run, Spot! RUN!!!

[John Mace]

Joke: The punishment for polygamy is having multiple spouses.

And of course gays should be allowed to marry. They have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us!

[elucidator]

Don't know as that's true. At least they are marrying the gender they have a plausible basis for presuming to understand. Men are simple, nookie, a sammich, the game, can of beer, we're good. There are no emotional undercurrents for a sammich, no nuances for a can of beer, if there were, we would be perplexed and confused.

We try, of course, because we love. Testosterone impairment doesn't prevent love, it simply prevents any understanding of the subtleties, the complex fractals of affection. Look at a collections of women's shoes, for the life of you, you couldn't know which set of shoes is appropriate for lunch with her sister, and which for a midnight screening of Twilight with the girls. Guys have two sets of shoes, shoes that are comfortable, and shoes for pretending to be a grownup.

I have typed too long, I have more important things to do. Don't know what they are yet, but just about to find out. Yes, dear?

[John Mace]

You have two sets of shoes!?!?!? Why, that's practically metrosexual!

[Bryan Ekers]

Sitnam: Sorry, I thought we were talking about hypothetical person, not an actual daughter you already had.

I'm not sorry at all. If Sitnam won't let his daughter join the space marines, the next thing you'll know, no parent will let their child join the military and the U.S. will be army-less and navy-less and space-marine-less and get overrun by a coalition of Chinese, Indian and Cuban imperialists.

And then it'll be man-on-dog... by law!

[John Mace]

And Poland. Don't forget Poland!

[foolsguinea]

No it doesn't. Until this recent desire to embrace SSM, marriage has always consisted of people from both genders—either a traditional man/woman pairing or something polygamous. Defining it in the U.S for what is has been traditionally—one man, one woman—has nothing to do with the races of of the couple. So, we can easily uphold the idea that marriage is between one man and open woman and not be worried about breaking up the marriage between Seal and that super model.Is that the only interracial marriage you know about? They're both foreigners anyway, you know.

[Condescending Robot]

"Slippery slope" as a logical fallacy is really just a form of straw man. E.g.: No one is arguing that "any two or more entities who wish to get married should be able to," they are arguing that homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals, so there is no principle behind the argument that implies the acceptability of polygamy or man-on-dog. On the other hand, if the principle behind, for example, a restriction on smoking is that "the government may regulate personal behavior if it causes health care costs to rise" then it's NOT a slippery slope to ask "can they now ban unhealthy foods," because the hypothetical position is entirely derivable from the principle (and thus, when used to attack said principle, is not a straw man). Slippery slope when not a straw man ought not be considered a fallacy.

[Trinopus]

"Slippery slope" as a logical fallacy is really just a form of straw man. . . .

Very true. A close cousin of this is "Okay, but take that to its logical extreme..." The problem is that this distorts what someone actually may have proposed to what they never proposed and might well be opposed to!

[Illuminatiprimus]

Very true. A close cousin of this is "Okay, but take that to its logical extreme..." The problem is that this distorts what someone actually may have proposed to what they never proposed and might well be opposed to!Indeed, because the extremes presented are rarely logical. To continue the SSM>marrying dogs argument that Santorum continues to pedal, that's not logical because it suggests a world where either a) animals are now considered people, with the massive impact that would have on the concept of owning pets and eating meat; b) we've totally changed our concept of consent to include those previously not included because they're incapable of doing so, such as animals (and sure, why not throw children and toasters in there whilst you're at it); or c) people are no longer acting in the way we would expect them to in this world - does anyone WANT to marry a dog? What practical benefit would it have for society even if people did? Then see a) and b).

By the time you've reached the logical extreme you've passed so many points where in reality people would be saying "hang on a second" that you're in a full blown fantasy land, which isn't the same as a hypothetical scenario. Of course that's useful for most of the GOP because that's where they seem to spend most of their time anyway.

[dorsk188]

If a human being eats about 20 pounds of chocolate, the mildly toxic (to humans) chemicals will be enough to kill them.

"Logical extreme" is an oxymoron if the extreme is harmful to the people engaged in it. The logical thing to do is not be that extreme. (And if anyone tries to argue with me that this is referring to the philosophical definition of logic, rather than a practical definition, then let's debate it. Keep in mind, I take debates to the logical extreme with bowie knife.)

[LouisB]

I wish Santorum was on a slippery slope himself and would just slip down the damn thing until he fell off the end of it and be seen or heard from never again.

[mnemosyne]

And Poland. Don't forget Poland!

It's OUR turn to do the invading!

[elucidator]

They'd only get lost.

[Trinopus]

. . . Keep in mind, I take debates to the logical extreme with bowie knife.)

Yeah, well I use a saber... And he uses a light-saber... And that guy over there uses a planetslaying "Death Star." And the logical extreme of this progression is -- about as illogical as may be conceivable!

A: "Intergalactic spasm warfare..."
B: "Well, if you insist on thinking small..."