# Santorum and the Slippery Slope **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 7, 2012, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703 "2012-01-07T04:27:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2012, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/21 "2012-01-07T17:28:30Z")
Santorum’s argument can be refuted by a third grader. Even the other anti-homosexuals must be groaning in shame for this guy. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2012, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/22 "2012-01-07T17:30:43Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > Santorum’s argument can be refuted by a third grader. Lucky for him they can’t vote. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2012, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/23 "2012-01-07T17:32:13Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Lucky for him they can’t vote. Lucky for him they can’t run. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2012, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/24 "2012-01-07T17:34:15Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2012, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/25 "2012-01-07T18:00:50Z")
> [@opossum](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2012, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/26 "2012-01-07T18:11:16Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![dorsk188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f05b48/32.png) [@dorsk188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dorsk188)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2012, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/27 "2012-01-07T18:15:26Z")
> [@sh1bu1](#): > > We don’t say corporations can’t have legal “personhood” because that means they will be subject to the death penalty… Ooh, yes please. > [@sh1bu1](#): > > …or that if we allow TSA pat downs we need to allow tentacled anal probes. _ **Ooh, yes please.** _ ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2012, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/28 "2012-01-07T18:18:12Z")
> [@sh1bu1](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Paralogic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/eb9ed0/32.png) [@Paralogic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paralogic)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2012, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/29 "2012-01-07T18:31:48Z")
> [@sh1bu1](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2012, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/30 "2012-01-07T18:35:00Z")
> [@Paralogic](#): > > 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…? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2012, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/31 "2012-01-07T21:19:33Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2012, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/32 "2012-01-07T21:46:03Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > …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. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2012, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/33 "2012-01-07T21:46:30Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Slippery Slope is only a fallacy when there is no slope. . . . It’s also a fallacy when it isn’t slippery. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2012, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/34 "2012-01-07T21:56:34Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > Santorum’s argument can be refuted by a third grader. If it’s so easy, why didn’t you do it? ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2012, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/35 "2012-01-07T22:02:51Z")
> [@sh1bu1](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2012, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/36 "2012-01-07T22:04:58Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2012, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/37 "2012-01-07T22:08:42Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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?” ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2012, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/38 "2012-01-07T22:51:10Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2012, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/39 "2012-01-07T23:28:00Z")
Heterosexual marriage is clearly the first step toward one man marrying two women. We should ban it now. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2012, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/40 "2012-01-07T23:38:10Z")
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? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703.md?page=3)