# 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:** 3
**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 8, 2012, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/41 "2012-01-08T00:19:26Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2012, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/42 "2012-01-08T00:28:53Z")
> [@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 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. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2012, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/43 "2012-01-08T00:32:00Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. ---
**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 8, 2012, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/44 "2012-01-08T00:45:34Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > 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. ---
**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 8, 2012, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/45 "2012-01-08T01:05:22Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2012, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/46 "2012-01-08T01:18:02Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2012, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/47 "2012-01-08T01:19:36Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2012, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/48 "2012-01-08T01:25:49Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2012, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/49 "2012-01-08T01:51:35Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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 😃 ---
**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 8, 2012, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/50 "2012-01-08T02:04:22Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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. ---
**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 8, 2012, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/51 "2012-01-08T02:11:36Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > 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. ---
**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 8, 2012, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/52 "2012-01-08T02:13:37Z")
Yeah, man on dog… putting Santorum on the Spot… ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2012, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/53 "2012-01-08T02:27:59Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > 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. ---
**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 8, 2012, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/54 "2012-01-08T02:47:15Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > 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. ---
**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 8, 2012, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/55 "2012-01-08T03:33:39Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > 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. ---
**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 8, 2012, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/56 "2012-01-08T03:44:58Z")
Now, let’s not be silly. ---
**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 8, 2012, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/57 "2012-01-08T03:50:30Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Now, let’s not be silly. OK. She’ll kiss her wife and @!$%&@# with her two lesbian concubines. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2012, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/58 "2012-01-08T04:16:04Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK. She’ll kiss her wife and @!$%&@# with her two lesbian concubines. This is someone’s daughter we are talking about :mad: ---
**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 8, 2012, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/59 "2012-01-08T04:31:52Z")
Hey, lesbians are daughters, too. They don’t just appear in nature spontaneously. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2012, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703/60 "2012-01-08T05:23:58Z")
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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-and-the-slippery-slope/608703.md?page=4)