# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2015, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/41 "2015-07-04T02:03:26Z")
> [@filmore](#): > > Benefits would also be an issue. Benefits aren’t free. The company pays for them. They know that all of their employees could be married to another person and have some kids. Their cost is based on that assumption. But if someone could start marrying 10 people, the benefit cost would go way up. People are already entirely capable of having children without being married, and as far as I know employer-provided benefits don’t distinguish between children born in or out of wedlock. ---
**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, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/42 "2015-07-04T02:17:56Z")
> [@Eva\_Luna](#): > > People are already entirely capable of having children without being married, and as far as I know employer-provided benefits don’t distinguish between children born in or out of wedlock. They do distinguish between your spouse and someone you happen to sleep with, however. And adults typically cost more to insure than children, at least for health and life insurance. ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2015, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/43 "2015-07-04T02:26:03Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > They do distinguish between your spouse and someone you happen to sleep with, however. And adults typically cost more to insure than children, at least for health and life insurance. Health insurance is by far the most expensive common employer-provided benefit, though. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2015, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/44 "2015-07-04T02:38:53Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > …[URL=“[Montana man seeks license for second wife - CBS News](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-for-wedding-license/)”] > > Many of us who are against gay marriage … Goody for you. Don’t have one. ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2015, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/45 "2015-07-04T02:59:43Z")
> [@funky\_little\_lee](#): > > Seems to me all you posters are men ??? [QUOTE=funky little lee] 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? [/QUOTE] My only real problem with incestuous marriage among consenting adults is that it makes it worth it for the parent or older sibling or whoever to groom (so to speak) the other from a young age. Other than that I don’t think there’s enough interest in incest for it to be a problem. For that matter, I doubt there’s a huge amount of interest in polyamorous marriage. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2015, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/46 "2015-07-04T03:50:16Z")
I would really like to maintain the respect I have for people with different beliefs to mine, but it’s getting really difficult lately to take any religious argument seriously when they’re so blindly childishly stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2015, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/47 "2015-07-04T04:15:14Z")
Can the OP point to an actual example of a slippery slope effect occurring? They’re really rare. People are not idiots. Just because people agree to a new idea, it doesn’t mean that they’ve lost their ability to make decisions. We can extend marriage equality to same-sex couples without having to extend it to polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages, child marriages, human/animal marriages, and human/household appliance marriages (all of which are possibilities opponents have raised as arguments against same-sex marriages). Society will avoid all these slippery slopes by simply choosing not to slide down them. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2015, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/48 "2015-07-04T07:40:14Z")
I thought the slippery slope was supposed to take us into a scenario where those of us in heterosexual marriages would somehow find our relationships devalued or eroded by the fact that ssm was permitted. That would matter, if it was a real concern. Polygamy doesnt matter in the same way. (In point of fact, I think the most likely way that hetero marriage could get eroded would be for ssm to be continually resisted, because in any campaign for equality, there tends to be an element that will setlle for dragging down the opposition, if nothing else is possible) ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2015, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/49 "2015-07-04T07:54:29Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Can the OP point to an actual example of a slippery slope effect occurring? They’re really rare. > > People are not idiots. Just because people agree to a new idea, it doesn’t mean that they’ve lost their ability to make decisions. We can extend marriage equality to same-sex couples without having to extend it to polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages, child marriages, human/animal marriages, and human/household appliance marriages (all of which are possibilities opponents have raised as arguments against same-sex marriages). Society will avoid all these slippery slopes by simply choosing not to slide down them. There are plenty of example of change occurring incrementally _when there was no good reason for resisting any of it_. I guess those still qualify as slippery slopes in some way. Sometimes, we do actually need to slide down it. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2015, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/50 "2015-07-04T09:41:14Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > Yes. > > On the other hand, there is no Bible verse that calls polygamy an “abomination.” Do you wish to offer an argument as to why anyone should be compelled to treat the Bible as authoritative, or did you just post that for the sake of inserting a particularly nasty pejorative into the discussion? ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2015, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/51 "2015-07-04T11:38:04Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > Some people warned that legalizing gay marriage would open the door to all sorts of things. > > I’m not sure how often the formal argument was laid out, so here it is– > > Throughout history, **regardless of the exact form marriage has taken,** it has always been some variation on the theme of “man + woman.” It has been fairly common for more than two people to be involved, but there has ALWAYS been at least one of EACH sex. > > Once marriage is redefined to do away with that requirement, the question becomes–Where do you stop? What differentiates non-traditional marriage A from non-traditional marriage B? Why is A acceptable when B is not? > > (emphasis added) > > [Montana man seeks license for second wife - CBS News](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-for-wedding-license/) > > 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. Your OP is a big ball of nonsense. This isn’t something that has happened, it’s something that’s been ongoing. It’s not about differentiating non-traditional marriage A from B, it’s about a natural expansion of traditional marriage A, and people wanting to use this to reintroduce traditional marriage B. And if you’re for the reintroduction of trad. marriage B, as you acknowledge in a later post, you can’t use it as a negative consequence. Do you even logic? ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2015, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/52 "2015-07-04T11:46:14Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > 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? How do you define “traditional” marriage? From which period? from which tradition? Let’s start there and see where we get to. If you have no authority for your definition then I don’t see why it should hold any particular power above and beyond anyone else’s interpretation. ---
**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, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/53 "2015-07-04T13:08:33Z")
> [@Eva\_Luna](#): > > Health insurance is by far the most expensive common employer-provided benefit, though. Yes, that was my point. Currently, many employers offer unlimited benefits to minor children of employees, but those benefits aren’t very expensive. Expanding benefits to cover multiple spouses could be very expensive. > [@Mangetout](#): > > I thought the slippery slope was supposed to take us into a scenario where those of us in heterosexual marriages would somehow find our relationships devalued or eroded by the fact that ssm was permitted. > > That would matter, if it was a real concern. Polygamy doesnt matter in the same way. > > (In point of fact, I think the most likely way that hetero marriage could get eroded would be for ssm to be continually resisted, because in any campaign for equality, there tends to be an element that will setlle for dragging down the opposition, if nothing else is possible) maybe I misunderstand your point, but if we allow polygamy, isn’t every marriage somewhat “eroded” by opening the option for married people to take additional partners? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2015, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/54 "2015-07-04T13:30:11Z")
Why choose the term “eroded” rather than, say, “enlarged?” ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2015, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/55 "2015-07-04T13:41:42Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > maybe I misunderstand your point, but if we allow polygamy, isn’t every marriage somewhat “eroded” by opening the option for married people to take additional partners? I don’t think so. Can you explain how? ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2015, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/56 "2015-07-04T14:12:56Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > Yes, that was my point. Currently, many employers offer unlimited benefits to minor children of employees, but those benefits aren’t very expensive. Expanding benefits to > cover multiple spouses could be very expensive. Probably material for a different thread, but this is why health care and other portions of the social safety net shouldn’t be provided b employers, imo. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2015, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/57 "2015-07-04T14:48:47Z")
> [@kayT](#): > > Since the only government involvement in marriage is that it is a civil contract, then there should be no impediment to whatever form that will take. Religious rituals are a separate issue. legal contracts were always available prior to any court decision. ---
**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, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/58 "2015-07-04T14:57:17Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > legal contracts were always available prior to any court decision. Many of the rights of marriage cannot be obtained through private contracts. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2015, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/59 "2015-07-04T15:03:18Z")
And so it begins. The end of the nuclear family. [Ohio Supreme Court orders use of gender neutral language.](http://www.wlwt.com/news/Ohio-high-court-orders-use-of-gender-neutral-language/33970634) Say goodbye to your mother and father in court. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2015, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/60 "2015-07-04T15:31:19Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > …My position is this– > That if you allow gay marriage, then you MUST allow polygamy in order to be consistent. Consistent? How on earth did you arrive at that? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143.md?page=4)