# 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:** 4
**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 4, 2015, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/61 "2015-07-04T22:15:16Z")
> [@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:? I started this thread because there were an awful lot of liberals, who, when warned of the slippery slope regarding polygamy, said, “Nonsense. That will never happen.” Furthermore, they seemed–somehow–genuinely unaware of the fact that many of their arguments for gay marriage applied equally strongly to polygamy. ---
**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 4, 2015, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/62 "2015-07-04T22:21:56Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > 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. One man and one woman. It doesn’t matter if the woman is regarded as the man’s property; it equally doesn’t matter if the law requires joint decisions on everything; the forms, customs, and rights _within_ the framework of one man + one woman are totally irrelevant. > [@enipla](#): > > Consistent? How on earth did you arrive at that? There is only one way to be consistent on this–either NO non-traditional forms of marriage are allowed, or else ALL non-traditional forms of marriage are allowed. Anything else is picking winners and losers based on individual preference. ---
**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, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/63 "2015-07-04T22:22:16Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > I started this thread because there were an awful lot of liberals, who, when warned of the slippery slope regarding polygamy, said, “Nonsense. That will never happen.” Furthermore, they seemed–somehow–genuinely unaware of the fact that many of their arguments for gay marriage applied equally strongly to polygamy. Can you find one of those conversations?, because I remember people saying “who cares if people _do_ start campaigning for polygamy?”. I honestly think you could be misremembering. ---
**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, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/64 "2015-07-04T22:47:06Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > One man and one woman. It doesn’t matter if the woman is regarded as the man’s property; it equally doesn’t matter if the law requires joint decisions on everything; the forms, customs, and rights _within_ the framework of one man + one woman are totally irrelevant. Why do you focus on the gender of the couple to be married over and above the traditional “forms, customs and rights within the framework”? Why is the gender tradition unchangeable but multiple other “forms, customs and rights” are free to vary as cultures evolve? You don’t make a convincing case. You can invoke a supernatural mandate if you like but that is simply an appeal to (an unproven) authority and as such it holds no force at all. ---
**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, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/65 "2015-07-04T22:48:49Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > There is only one way to be consistent on this–either NO non-traditional forms of marriage are allowed, or else ALL non-traditional forms of marriage are allowed. Anything else is picking winners and losers based on individual preference. That seems a really silly idea. Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why cant we decide which traditions are worth keeping and which shoukd be discarded? Slavery is traditional, so is chicken noodle soup, so we have to have both or neither? Silly. ---
**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, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/66 "2015-07-04T23:17:19Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > One man and one woman. **It doesn’t matter if the woman is regarded as the man’s property** ; it equally doesn’t matter if the law requires joint decisions on everything; the forms, customs, and rights _within_ the framework of one man + one woman are totally irrelevant. (Emphasis added.) Well, that explains a lot. ---
**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, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/67 "2015-07-04T23:27:34Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > Furthermore, they seemed–somehow–genuinely unaware of the fact that many of their arguments for gay marriage applied equally strongly to polygamy. The only argument I can think of that applies equally well to same-sex marriage and polyamorous marriage is “the only right and moral form of marriage is one man and one woman; all other forms are wrong and immoral, and moreover identically wrong and immoral.” And I reject that argument. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2015, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/68 "2015-07-05T00:32:39Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > Anything else is picking winners and losers based on individual preference. Or based on, you know, logical arguments and rational thought. Potato potahto. ---
**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 5, 2015, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/69 "2015-07-05T01:08:47Z")
> [@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. > 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? > [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Why choose the term “eroded” rather than, say, “enlarged?” Well, my rights as a spouse are eroded if my husband can bring home another wife. I suppose my rights are also enlarged if I can bring home another spouse. Either way, it fundamentally changes MY marriage in a way that allowing same sex couples to marry doesn’t. > [@Mangetout](#): > > I don’t think so. Can you explain how? Does the above help? By the way, I’m not entirely opposed to legalizing polygamy within an appropriate legal framework that protects the rights of existing partners and children, and that somehow respects entities that provide benefits based on family structure. In practice, it might work better than “divorce and try again”, which seems to be pretty common. But I see it as a much bigger jump than same-sex marriage. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2015, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/70 "2015-07-05T12:53:50Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > There is only one way to be consistent on this–either NO non-traditional forms of marriage are allowed, or else ALL non-traditional forms of marriage are allowed. Anything else is picking winners and losers based on individual preference. That’s really, really reaching. For one thing, SSM is not going to have to look at how we handle divorce, and division of property. Gonna be pretty much the same. As far a polygamy goes, :shrug: so what. Why do you care? Does this directly effect you some how? Does SSM effect you? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2015, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/71 "2015-07-05T15:02:21Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > As far a polygamy goes, :shrug: so what. Why do you care? Does this directly effect you some how? Does SSM effect you? And there’s your slippery slope and the end of the nuclear family. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2015, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/72 "2015-07-05T15:08:32Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > …What differentiates non-traditional marriage A from non-traditional marriage B? Why is A acceptable when B is not? > > > [@](#): > > > > [snip] “It’s about marriage equality,” Collier told The Associated Press Wednesday. **“You can’t have this without polygamy.”** > > (emphasis added) Oh. Good heavens. No. Not that. _yawn_ ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2015, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/73 "2015-07-05T15:13:17Z")
> [@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? No. I don’t care about incestuous marriages, either. My position isn’t based on my fantasies. It’s based on the fact that I see no valid moral objection to such marriages (incestuous included apart from parent/child). ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2015, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/74 "2015-07-05T15:17:21Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > Incest greatly increases the probability of having children with birth defects. I would be against any legalization of incestuous relationships that could produce children. Even if you’re not married, sex can still result in pregnancy. Not a valid reason to ban such marriages. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2015, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/75 "2015-07-05T16:00:14Z")
> [@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? > > 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. You say upthread your views are based on biblical (God of Abraham/Jesus) definitions of marriage. Do you also have a problem with atheists marrying? A Hindu and a Muslim? Why are you thinking we’re on a slippery slope now, when there are plenty of other non-biblical marriages recognized by the US Government for decades upon decades? ---
**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 5, 2015, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/76 "2015-07-05T16:24:29Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > Well, my rights as a spouse are eroded if my husband can bring home another wife. I suppose my rights are also enlarged if I can bring home another spouse. Either way, it fundamentally changes MY marriage in a way that allowing same sex couples to marry doesn’t. I guess i see what you mean, but those things could happen tomorrow regardless of the law. In the sense that marriage is at risk of erosion by such changes, we have to regard it as so fragile as to be nearly worthless. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2015, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/77 "2015-07-05T16:28:13Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > Well, my rights as a spouse are eroded if my husband can bring home another wife. I suppose my rights are also enlarged if I can bring home another spouse. Either way, it fundamentally changes MY marriage in a way that allowing same sex couples to marry doesn’t. > Does the above help? > > By the way, I’m not entirely opposed to legalizing polygamy within an appropriate legal framework that protects the rights of existing partners and children, and that somehow respects entities that provide benefits based on family structure. In practice, it might work better than “divorce and try again”, which seems to be pretty common. But I see it as a much bigger jump than same-sex marriage. How so? Wouldn’t that violate your vows to one another, assuming you both agreed to enter a monogamous marriage? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2015, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/78 "2015-07-05T16:45:15Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > And there’s your slippery slope and the end of the nuclear family. Nuclear families won’t disappear unless all marriages are polygamous, which is pretty much impossible. In any case, why exactly is a nuclear family superior to an extended family? The modern Western nuclear family differs from the “traditional” extended family structure of many cultures, including earlier Western ones. ---
**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 5, 2015, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/79 "2015-07-05T16:58:36Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > And there’s your slippery slope and the end of the nuclear family. Just like the introduction of strawberry ice cream brought about the end of vanilla. ---
**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 5, 2015, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/80 "2015-07-05T17:02:52Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > How so? Wouldn’t that violate your vows to one another, assuming you both agreed to enter a monogamous marriage? The legal and social expectations of the world we live in matter. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143.md?page=5)