# The slippery slope in action: re-redefining marraige **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [July 3, 2015, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143 "2015-07-03T16:20:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/21 "2015-07-03T21:59:10Z")
> [@funky\_little\_lee](#): > > Well, if anyone should be able to marry anyone, do you have a problem with incestuous marriage? I don’t support incestuous marriage nor underage marriage and I’m sure someone can come up with other scenarios. I do think that the government has a right to limit who can get married under certain social conditions. I don’t think that homosexuality qualified. That said, if someone wants to raise the flag for incestuous marriage and fight for it – more power to 'em. That’s how the system works. > [@](#): > > Seems to me all you posters are men–so naturally you’re thinking, “Yeah! I could have a whole fucking _harem_ of bitches!” I’m guessing that no one here is thinking that and if someone just wanted a “harem of bitches” they would do so without marrying them. What earthly benefit is there to wanting legal polygamy if your goal is to just bang a lot of women? You can do that now (well, in theory anyway for certain values of “you”). ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/22 "2015-07-03T22:02:54Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > It’s a good argument for making marriage between two people have different legal implications than marriage between multiples. That would, in fact, be inevitable. It is logically impossible for the two to have equivalent legal meanings, because the arrangement as between three (or more) people lacks the symmetry and equality of a relationship between two. > > The contrast here is with gay marriage - it is easy to simply substitute “two adults” for “a man and a woman” in the definition of “spouse”, and have all the exact same legal rights and responsibilities apply. > > Note that this doesn’t mean a polygamous or polyandrous or other form of multiple-marriage is legally impossible - only that it can’t, legally, mean the same thing as a marriage between two people, in terms of rights, responsibilities and benefits. That it turn means that it isn’t obviously “unfair” that such a right isn’t created, in the same way that it is obviously unfair that two gays cannot marry, where their relationship is exactly equivalent to that of their straight married contemporaries. This argument only works because you overstate the symmetry between same-sex monogamous marriage and opposite-sex marriage. In actuality, same-sex marriage presents a whole host of legal complications not present in opposite-sex marriage, such as who gets the presumption of parenthood (which is itself many issues, actually, from immigration to education to custody) or name change rules that are still gendered in many states. It is true that expanding opposite-sex monogamous marriage to include same-sex marriage means fewer logistical obstacles than recognizing polygamy. But it is a difference of degree, not kind. And, again, to the extent this “slippery slope” is one necessitated by the legal recognition of same-sex marriage as a fundamental right (and I don’t think it is for the reason I explained in my first post), it doesn’t much matter what the logistical hurdles are. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/23 "2015-07-03T22:05:03Z")
A contract between two parties is not the same as a contract between multiple parties. Same sex marriage removes the restriction of the genders of the two parties but does not in any way open the door to having more parties in a marriage. What happens if Tom, Dick, and Harry get married and then Tom wants to divorce Dick but not Harry? Nothing about current marriage laws could deal with that situation. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/24 "2015-07-03T22:07:12Z")
nm, misunderstood Edit: I’m not sure it’s a huge obstacle. There would just have to be a new rule that if you want a divorce, you divorce from everyone who remains in the marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/25 "2015-07-03T22:07:31Z")
> [@funky\_little\_lee](#): > > Well, if anyone should be able to marry anyone, do you have a problem with incestuous marriage? Incest greatly increases the probability of having children with birth defects. I would be against any legalization of incestuous relationships that could produce children. Beyond that, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, who cares? It’s not my thing, but frankly I have enough problems of my own to worry about without getting my panties in a bunch about strangers sticking appendages into other strangers. Or not. ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/26 "2015-07-03T22:15:41Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Not my thing, but I don’t have a problem with group marriages either, so long as the legislatures come up with reasonable legal schemes for issues like divorce, child custody, inheritance, etc. > > Does why you are opposed to gay marriage have something to do with God and Scripture? Yes. On the other hand, there is no Bible verse that calls polygamy an “abomination.” ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/27 "2015-07-03T22:16:45Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > But I, for one, am surprised by the speed of events. I thought it would likely be several months before the inevitable happened. Why? Same-sex marriage has been available in parts of the US for as long as eleven years, so surely if it only takes several months there should be dozens or hundreds of examples already. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/28 "2015-07-03T22:18:23Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > nm, misunderstood > > Edit: I’m not sure it’s a huge obstacle. There would just have to be a new rule that if you want a divorce, you divorce from everyone who remains in the marriage. We’re not just talking about 3 people though. Imagine 10 people in a marriage and all the possible combinations of people who may or may not want to divorce more than one person. Then think of how child custody, alimony or support payments and inheritances will have to be dealt with. One reason corporations are people is to avoid these problems when many people own a company, each one has a contract with the business entity but not with each other owner. You can have multiple owners of a business that is not incorporated, but I can tell you that things can get very messy when there is a disagreement between partners, and the courts aren’t thrilled with dealing with those situations either. When there’s a business ‘divorce’ at least one person ends up losing bad unless the entire business is dissolved, and then they all lose. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/29 "2015-07-03T22:25:32Z")
I take the point. But I think it’s easy to overstate the complexity. Inheritance is a good example. Inheritance law already deals with the situation of multiple heirs in the context of offspring. No major change there to apply that model to spouses. Child custody is ultimately about the best interests of the child, which is already a very ad hoc equitable analysis. Not sure having more parents makes that harder. And on and on. It’s not that there wouldn’t be questions, but I’m not so sure they are that hard to answer. And I return to the fact that the proposed mechanism of the slippery slope here seems to be the legal recognition of a right to something other than opposite-sex monogamous marriage. I don’t buy that slope, but if you did, asserting that recognizing such rights leads to legal headaches isn’t much of an argument. We do not generally allow logistical difficulty to trump fundamental rights. ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/30 "2015-07-03T22:33:39Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > Why even bring the slippery slope into this. If there are good and valid reasons why a polygamous marriage should not be recognized by the government then make those arguments and the marriage will not be recognized. If there are no good and valid reasons why the marriage should not be recognized then why are we denying them? > > Hell, you don’t even have the excuse that its never been done before. Different kinds of polygamous marriage are common throughout history and through many different cultures. That’s precisely the point. It is absurd and illogical in the extreme to invent out of whole cloth a “right” that has never existed before, while at the same time prohibiting a practice that has a great deal of historical precedent. If pro same-sex marriage people were as interested in celebrating and defending marriage as many of them claim to be, they would have been fighting for polygamy instead. Same-sex marriage never would have entered the picture. > [@clairobscur](#): > > Personnally, I’ve no problem with this man marrying those two women. > > Apparently you do. Can you articulate why, exactly? I’m ambivalent on polygamy. However, if I were forced to choose, I would probably support it. As a conservative, I have to give great weight to the fact that it has thousands of years of tradition, albeit limited tradition, behind it. > [@funky\_little\_lee](#): > > Well, if anyone should be able to marry anyone, do you have a problem with incestuous marriage? > > Seems to me all you posters are men–so naturally you’re thinking, “Yeah! I could have a whole fucking _harem_ of bitches!” I’m sure that sounds great to you. But I’ll bet incestuous marriage makes you want to puke. Just not hot fantasy material, is it? This goes back to my OP. If you are going to allow ANY form of non-traditional marriage, then how do you distinguish between different types of non-traditional marriage? My position is this– That if you allow gay marriage, then you MUST allow polygamy in order to be consistent. I also suspect–I’m not certain, but I strongly suspect–that you must also allow incestuous marriages in order to be consistent. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/31 "2015-07-03T22:36:07Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > That if you allow gay marriage, then you MUST allow polygamy in order to be consistent. > > I also suspect–I’m not certain, but I strongly suspect–that you must also allow incestuous marriages in order to be consistent. No. It matters _why_ you believe the right to marry extends to same-sex unions. If the why–for example–is that you believe everyone has the right to be in a marriage with someone they romantically love, then it does not follow that there must be a right to polygamous marriage. Incestuous marriage rights would suffer from the same problem, as there is no one whose orientation is attraction only to family members. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/32 "2015-07-03T23:05:08Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > My position is this– > That if you allow gay marriage, then you MUST allow polygamy in order to be consistent. A common argument in support of same-sex marriage in the US was that banning same-sex marriage was morally and legally equivalent to banning interracial marriage, and that since we no longer have anti-miscegenation laws there’s no reason to have anti-same-sex marriage laws. Since you’re a believer in slippery slopes, I’m not sure how you think we could have gotten off this non-traditional marriage slope after Loving v. Virginia but before Obergefell v. Hodges. The whole point of a slippery slope argument is that one thing _inevitably_ leads to another. This also means that, regardless of where you think the slope began, if we’re on it now there’s nothing you or anyone else can do to stop it. So if you sincerely believe that we’re on a slippery slope then I don’t see the point in making a fuss about it. According to your own argument it’s already too late. ---
**Author:** ![kayT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayt/32/3633_2.png) [@kayT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayT)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/33 "2015-07-03T23:56:20Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > Yes. > > On the other hand, there is no Bible verse that calls polygamy an “abomination.” So apparently your objection to gay marriage is not the “slippery slope” but rather that homosexuality is in your opinion an “abomination.” Why don’t you be honest about your objections then, instead of pretending it’s some issue of "slipperiness:? ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2015, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/34 "2015-07-04T00:09:41Z")
America is supposed to be a cut throat capitalist society. Enforced monogamy is socialism for low status men. Why can’t Brad Pitt or George Clooney have 300 wives like the great kings of old? > [@funky\_little\_lee](#): > > Seems to me all you posters are men–so naturally you’re thinking, “Yeah! I could have a whole fucking _harem_ of bitches!” That never sounded appealing. Disappointing one woman at a time is a lot of work already. > [@](#): > > I’m sure that sounds great to you. But I’ll bet incestuous marriage makes you want to puke. Just not hot fantasy material, is it? Welcome to the internet. Be careful what you search for. Lesbian sister same sex marriage when? > [@Smeghead](#): > > Incest greatly increases the probability of having children with birth defects. I think a no children rule would be a good idea, but so does getting pregnant while older. And certain recessive genes if you’re unlucky enough to find a partner who shares them. I don’t think it’s illegal for them to try to have kids, although maybe I’m wrong. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2015, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/35 "2015-07-04T00:11:39Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Personnally, I’ve no problem with this man marrying those two women. > > Apparently you do. Can you articulate why, exactly? In societies where polygamy is tolerated, men with wealth and power tend to gather large numbers of wives/concubines. Because numbers of men and women are roughly equal, this means there must be other men who don’t have any chance to get a wife or female partner. These younger, partnerless men tend to become outcasts and to drift towards unemployment, addiction, and crime. The same pattern has played out in places as varied as primitive African tribes, Arabia, or the present-day fundamentalist Mormon groups. [According to research](http://news.ubc.ca/2012/01/23/monogamy-reduces-major-social-problems-of-polygamist-cultures/), “In cultures that permit men to take multiple wives, the intra-sexual competition that occurs causes greater levels of crime, violence, poverty and gender inequality than in societies that institutionalize and practice monogamous marriage.” Some may counter by insisting that if women are also allowed to take multiple husbands, the problem will be canceled out. But human nature doesn’t agree. Rich, powerful men on average show a much stronger tendency to take multiple partners than rich, powerful women. That’s why we’ve had Bill Clinton’s sex scandals, but Hillary Clinton’s scandals deal with emails and charitable donations. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2015, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/36 "2015-07-04T00:12:22Z")
> [@kayT](#): > > So apparently your objection to gay marriage is not the “slippery slope” but rather that homosexuality is in your opinion an “abomination.” Why don’t you be honest about your objections then, instead of pretending it’s some issue of "slipperiness:? For that matter, someone who’s in favor of traditional marriage should be all for polygamy, which has been around for thousands of years. Not only does it predate Christianity, but many cultures that formerly practiced polygamy gave it up because they were pressured or outright forced to do so by Christians. So if we’re going to talk about groups that go around destroying traditional marriage and forcing their values on others, Christianity has done a lot more in that department than the gay rights movement. Hmm, I guess this slippery slope started way, way before Loving v. Virginia. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2015, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/37 "2015-07-04T00:13:21Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > A contract between two parties is not the same as a contract between multiple parties. Same sex marriage removes the restriction of the genders of the two parties but does not in any way open the door to having more parties in a marriage. > > What happens if Tom, Dick, and Harry get married and then Tom wants to divorce Dick but not Harry? Nothing about current marriage laws could deal with that situation. Traditionally, polygamy has not meant that multiple people all entered into the same marriage, it meant that one person (typically a man) was allowed to enter into multiple marriages, each of which consisted of two people. In many places, laws explicitly protected the first wife from too much dilution of her interest in the man’s wealth, and granted her more rights than secondary wives had. Given the current legal climate, I would assume that if any form of polygamy is legalized in the US, existing spouses will have veto rights over their partner entering into an additional marriage. But I expect we’d still have multiple marriages per person, rather than actual group marriages. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2015, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/38 "2015-07-04T00:19:41Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > Traditionally, polygamy has not meant that multiple people all entered into the same marriage, it meant that one person (typically a man) was allowed to enter into multiple marriages, each of which consisted of two people. > > In many places, laws explicitly protected the first wife from too much dilution of her interest in the man’s wealth, and granted her more rights than secondary wives had. > > Given the current legal climate, I would assume that if any form of polygamy is legalized in the US, existing spouses will have veto rights over their partner entering into an additional marriage. But I expect we’d still have multiple marriages per person, rather than actual group marriages. Coincidentally this just occurred to me. The solution may be allowing bigamy with the permission of existing spouses. You can get a complete multiple marriage between 3 or more parties by having them each marry the others. When it comes to divorce it’s a one spouse at a time thing. If you want to divorce everyone it could cost you, but I always thought bigamy was a crime that carried it’s own punishment anyway. And if there are children they are still the children of just two parents. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2015, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/39 "2015-07-04T00:28:23Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I[According to research](http://news.ubc.ca/2012/01/23/monogamy-reduces-major-social-problems-of-polygamist-cultures/), “In cultures that permit men to take multiple wives, the intra-sexual competition that occurs causes greater levels of crime, violence, poverty and gender inequality than in societies that institutionalize and practice monogamous marriage.”. What evidence is there that _outlawing_ polygamy reduces those problems? And why do the social effects matter to the fundamental rights analysis? Giving Christians the right to educate their children at home in nonsense science has negative social consequences too. But we do it because it is their fundamental right. ---
**Author:** ![kopek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kopek/32/337_2.png) [@kopek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kopek)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2015, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/40 "2015-07-04T01:55:13Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > Many of us who are against gay marriage were quite certain that something like this would happen. But I, for one, am surprised by the speed of events. I thought it would likely be several months before the inevitable happened. A) I have been for SSM (probably a better term than “gay” for this discussion) for most of my rather long and checkered life although I have always been devoutly Christian, monogamistic \, and heterosexual myself and I was equally sure it would happen. B) I’m surprised it took this long; in some ways it didn’t. Lets face it, some of the more fundamentalist Mormons and those mimicking their beliefs have been fighting this one since the religion was started. Decade upon decade before “gay rights” were even discussed in public. I don’t think this is the first one to try to piggy-back off of SSM - that was IIRC done back when the determination or decision was still at the state level. In general terms, I have no issue with pluralistic marriage. I have met a few (not many but more than one or two) people from all sides of the “gender orientation spectrum” who would benefit from it and I have a certain hope to see it happen. Will I live to see the day? I highly doubt it. But I had my doubts I would ever see SSM either so who knows? Sometimes this country surprises me in some very good ways. Not often; but it does happen. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143.md?page=3)