California lifted the ban on gay marriage. At another board that is much more conservative than this one, posters have inevitably said that this opens the floodgates that will lead to polygamy and people marrying animals. (And yes, I heard about the woman who married, or tried to marry, a horse in some country.)
The question is this: How does allowing one human being to marry another human being of the same gender lead logically to unions between humans and animals and/or polygamous marriages? There’s a leap I’m not seeing. Of course it makes sense to some people. I want to understand the logic.
They are relying on the old “slippery slope” argument – that allowing one type of non-traditional marriage will eventually result in society being tolerant of an underage boy entering a matrimonial union with his favorite blankie.
Not all slippery slope arguments are necessarily fallacious, but this one seems to conveniently forget the fact that there are very few people who actually want to marry their horse, whereas a large population has been agitating for same-sex marriage for a long time.
Marriage is based on consent between adults who are aware of and approve of the expectations of a permanent union. Horses and other animals can’t consent; they can’t enter into legal contracts; and they will never pay taxes or go on welfare.
But there really is no argument against polygamy. With gay marriage you can at least argue that the implied intention of creating a family is impossible since the pair are sterile with each other. But polygamy holds no such issue (unless it’s a homosexual polygamous grouping.)
You could say that marriage is a union of “two” people, but that’s little different from saying that marriage is a union of “a man and a woman”, which has been poofed away as being irrelevant. The “two” issue is of far less practical concern, and if anything polygamy has a lot more history behind it.
So anyone saying that this isn’t a slippery slope towards legalised polygamy is really just saying what is most likely going to help them win their fight (in my opinion.)
As a gun owner, I understand the slippery slope argument. (That’s the most obvious example I can think of.) But in the case of gay marriage, it seems you have to start on one slope and slide down another. I don’t see that it logically follows that allowing humans to marry humans leads to allowing humans to marry animals. I mean, there’s ‘non-traditional’, and then there’s ‘non-sequitur’.
Your mistake is in assuming it’s a logical argument. There is no reason for you to assume that someone else is arguing on the basis of logic just because they are arguing.
So what would be the problem with Polygamy or even Group Marriages?
Other than the problem with the Mormon sects violating other laws by marrying off children (illegal) and having sex with them (illegal), what are the arguments against such things and why is this any different than same-sex marriages?
With animals, it can be considered that, as non-sentient beings, they are not capable of granting consent in a legally recognizable fashion. Inanimate objects? Not going to fly either, at least not as recognized union.
Ultimately, it can be argued, as it has, that the state has no business in the bedroom or in interfering in any relationship between consenting adults that does not violate other laws, such as those for the protection of minors.
Although I cannot see myself in a polygamous or multi-party union, I personally have no problems with the people who might want such things. Hell, marriage between TWO people is a difficult enough prospect. Good Freaking Luck trying to maintain a healthy relationship with multiple parties.
Sometimes I think that there’s an underlying current of: everyone wants to do everything and the only thing stopping any of it is laws and social pressure. And the laws and social pressure are only there and/or only heeded because it has the weight of tradition and history. Release the pressure and everyone will start doing everything and you may never get the genii back into the bottle because the tradition has been broken.
There will be the “traditional” people’s arguments about one man + one woman = couple for life.
But the reality is that the problems all relate back to $$$.
The big issue with the same-sex marriage wasn’t so much about whether gay people could co-habitate and be a “couple” (that happens all the time), but whether the laws would treat them the same as married couples.
Things like insurance (coverage for spouse), taxes, etc. allow for married couples, and this is what the same-sex issue was a lot about.
The same gets just as tricky with polygamy. Do you create another set of tax tables based on the number of wives ? Do insurance companies have to allow multiple wives to be covered by a husband’s policy ? etc.
There is no logic, just as there is no logic in believing in gods, devils, angels, miracles, eternal souls, etc., etc., etc.
And I find it interesting that I never hear gay people talking about marrying animals … but there’s apparently a group of religious straight people who seem to have a preoccupation with the subject of marrying animals. Interesting.
Bingo.
I’d be interested to see statistics on the probabilities of a male homosexual union “costing the system more” in terms of health issues (like HIV) and social issues, like drug abuse/depression, etc.
But it’s always been about two things in terms of resistance to allowing for gay marriages: religious homophobia and opening the proverbial can of financial worms with regards to taxation benefits, medical costs, etc.
I for one have a sincere live and let live philosophy…if gay people want to marry, I cannot think of a single reason why they should not and be legally recognized as a union.
My only issue is with the potential for the confusion/ridicule of children they may be allowed to adopt, which is so murky that I can only stick my toe in those waters.
Also, if polygamy became common, with a good portion of men taking several brides, it could create something of a mate shortage for the remaining men, which could result in civil unrest if the shortage was severe enough. If 30% of women are married to 10% of men, that leaves 90% of men to compete over the remaining 70% of women.
I really don’t see polygamy catching on in America regardless of it’s legality.
Divorce rates of regular hetero marriages would argue against it.
Plus I’m of a belief that polygamy has and always will be a practice that affords the male fresh, somewhat unfamiliar (like jerking off with the left hand rather than the right as a changeup) pussy on a nightly basis without having to sneak around to get it.
Edit: not that there’s anything wrong with a guy slaying different women each night per se, but I think you get what I mean. I think it’s awful for the women and breeds jealousy, and terrivly confusing for children that end up being conceived.
Since I do not endorse the view, or the logic, that allowing gay marriage will led to marriage between people and animals or polygamy, I’m not sure I can present the argument in the best light.
But nonetheless, here’s my understanding of the argument.
Marriage is a fundamental institution. Society is based on the institution of the family, and the institution of the family is based on the institution of marriage.
changing or trying to “improve” fundamental institutions is a very risky business, because it will tend to have lots of unintended consequences. Therefore we should be extremely wary of radically changing fundamental institutions.
part of what marriage does is it “civilizes” people, especially men. It channels their sexual urges in a positive direction. Therefore marriage is beneficial in part precisely because it has aspects that people may not like in the short term, but that are good for them, and for society, in the long term.
once you let people modify the institution of marriage more to their liking, i.e. let them keep the parts that they like, but get rid of the parts that they don’t like, then you fling the door wide open. People will substitute their whimsical idea of what they want, thinking that what they design from scratch will be better than an institution that has worked for billions of people all over the world over the course of many thousands of years.
This will lead to silly people thinking that just because they have an attachment, however trivial or however fleeting, to anything or anyone, they can “marry” that other entity, and that then they can demand that this choice be respected by the wider community. So, people will want to marry their horse, or their car, or what have you.
Now, I feel compelled to say that I disagree with this argument for many many reasons. But I’m not sure it’s an illogical argument. I just disagree with many of the premises and assumptions.
Well, insurance companies seem to have no problem dealing with multiple children being covered by a parent’s policy.
And our current tax tables handle anywhere from zero up to a couple dozen dependents without much trouble. I’m sure the people at the IRS could deal with this.
Many said that the assumption is that there’s nothing holding back the tide water beside tradition. However, that’s just not true. Mostly, it’s instinct that guides us, and it’s instinct that makes some people conservative and oppose sexual deviancy, and it’s instict that makes other people all hippie and polygamous.
There’s triggers that make instincts go one way or the other. The main trigger is the one which separates “desert” societies (think arabs) from “forest” societies (think hippies), and it’s abundance or lack thereof. (In terms of America, it’s the economically soft heartland vs the better off coasts.) I had an idea that one reason the ‘desert’, needful societies are more sexually conservative and have very strong institutions of marriage is that it’s an instinct that makes men more productive and helpful to their society. It keeps men from spending all their time chasing around girls, and steers them to achieve things to impress women. Today it’s usually to get a good education and be rich, in prehistory it might be to go fight a war for resources. Either way, the society benefits.
If there’s any tide of polygammy and gayness today that needs supression, it could be real but is really just transient. The force to flip into a ‘forest’ society was much more powerful in the 60s (with all the elation of the post-WWII boom) and I think the 2000s, with the dotcom crash and the war and the rising inequality, have actually turned more conservative compared to the 90s (and that’s really the reason we’re hearing so much about these issues).
He means polygamy, not gay marriage. There was a male professor at my university who was on the inside a man-hating dyke. One thing he claimed as part of his men-are-the-root-of-all-evil worldview was that the polygamy that exists in some societies is another one of those help-men-at-the-expense-of-women type of things. In reality, multiple-women-marrying-one-man screws over males much more than anybody else.
Actually, no. Women when given a choice have historically preferred part of a rich man to all of a poor one. The more polygamous a society is, the more men there are who either have no access to women at all, or only older ones that the rich men have tired of. Monogamy is primarily about fair access to women for men, at the expense of women.
Not as important nowadays, since women don’t need a man as much as they did. Want, yes ( usually ); need, no.
