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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
