# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2015, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/81 "2015-07-05T17:50:38Z")
> [@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. Bullshit. Life is a series of inconsistencies, and so is the law. Humans make choices. It isn’t “eat nothing” vs “eat everything.” You choose a meal size of your liking. I can kill flies but I can’t kill people. Your position isn’t at all logical, and it can’t be \*made \*logical. Just admit that your invisible friend doesn’t like it (although the evidence is really scanty about said opinion) and move on. ---
**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, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/82 "2015-07-05T18:34:18Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > The legal and social expectations of the world we live in matter. That in no way answers my question. Again, how so? Assuming you both made monogamous vows to each other, why would, if polygamy were made legal, you expect other people to just begin to enter your marriage? Do you or your husband not respect those vows? ---
**Author:** ![Sr\_Siete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6de8d8/32.png) [@Sr\_Siete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sr_Siete)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2015, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/83 "2015-07-05T18:38:01Z")
I vote for eliminating marriage altogether. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2015, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/84 "2015-07-05T19:42:21Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > 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. Nope. There have always been all kinds of arrangements in society. This Cracked article touches on some of them: [5 Modern Controversies That Have Been Around Forever | Cracked.com](http://www.cracked.com/article_21155_5-modern-controversies-that-have-been-around-forever.html) — > [@](#): > > Set your time machine back just a few hundred years and you’d probably be surprised – maybe horrified, if you’re on the board of directors for Chick-Fil-A – about just how many gay-married couples were running around in various places, remaining un-harassed by government agencies. > > In medieval Europe, which people mostly regard as the most prudish period in human history, same-sex marriage was pretty normal right up until the 1300s. The Christian church allowed them even if they preferred to dance around the sexual implications by referring to them as “spiritual brotherhoods.” It wasn’t until Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II outlawed gay marriage in 1302 that we decided that such a thing would surely ruin society if allowed. > > In Africa, a 19th-century Nigerian woman named Ifeyinwa Olinke is well known for having a harem of nine wives (and one husband – feel free to imagine what the sex looked like, you perv). And among the Nuer people of South Sudan, marriages between women are common, and if one of the women has children from a previous sperm donation, the other woman is unambiguously regarded to be the new “father.” ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2015, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/85 "2015-07-05T19:43:38Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > And there’s your slippery slope and the end of the nuclear family. The nuclear family is not “traditional.” ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2015, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/86 "2015-07-05T20:06:59Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > Again, how so? Assuming you both made monogamous vows to each other, why would, if polygamy were made legal, you expect other people to just begin to enter your marriage? Do you or your husband not respect those vows? People violate their marriage vows all the time. I assume that **puzzlegal** and her husband are both decent, honest people, but dishonest jerks get married too and legalizing polygamy could potentially make things even worse for their unlucky spouses. Polygamy as it is practiced in other countries today generally does not require a wife to consent to her husband marrying another woman. (AFAIK no country currently allows a woman to have multiple husbands.) I think a lot of Americans would have a big problem with the idea that their spouse could unilaterally decide to legally add a third party to their marriage. Divorce would of course be an option in the US, but property division and custody arrangements in a divorce with three parties involved would presumably be even more complicated than a divorce between two people, so an after-the-fact divorce doesn’t seem like the best solution in cases where one spouse never wanted to be in a polygamous marriage in the first place. If the US legalized polygamy then we wouldn’t have to do it the same way other countries have – at the very least we’d presumably allow multiple husbands as well as multiple wives – and I can imagine several ways that polygamy could be implemented that would protect people from having new co-spouses sprung on them without their prior agreement. But this is something advocates for polygamous marriage are going to need to address if they want the idea to gain mainstream acceptance. ---
**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, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/87 "2015-07-05T20:30:43Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > People violate their marriage vows all the time. I assume that **puzzlegal** and her husband are both decent, honest people, but dishonest jerks get married too and legalizing polygamy could potentially make things even worse for their unlucky spouses. > > Polygamy as it is practiced in other countries today generally does not require a wife to consent to her husband marrying another woman. (AFAIK no country currently allows a woman to have multiple husbands.) I think a lot of Americans would have a big problem with the idea that their spouse could unilaterally decide to legally add a third party to their marriage. Divorce would of course be an option in the US, but property division and custody arrangements in a divorce with three parties involved would presumably be even more complicated than a divorce between two people, so an after-the-fact divorce doesn’t seem like the best solution in cases where one spouse never wanted to be in a polygamous marriage in the first place. > > If the US legalized polygamy then we wouldn’t have to do it the same way other countries have – at the very least we’d presumably allow multiple husbands as well as multiple wives – and I can imagine several ways that polygamy could be implemented that would protect people from having new co-spouses sprung on them without their prior agreement. But this is something advocates for polygamous marriage are going to need to address if they want the idea to gain mainstream acceptance. If there’s going to be a problem via adultery, I don’t think it needs any help by legalizing polygamy. Adultery is alive and well. Looking for a lifestyle to blame because you or your spouse want’s some “strange”, isn’t the _real_ problem, then. Your marriage is fundamentally broken. Legalizing polygamy doesn’t somehow, magically, make your own monogamous marriage a polygamous/polyamorous one. ---
**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, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/88 "2015-07-05T20:49:02Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > …If the US legalized polygamy then we wouldn’t have to do it the same way other countries have – at the very least we’d presumably allow multiple husbands as well as multiple wives – and I can imagine several ways that polygamy could be implemented that would protect people from having new co-spouses sprung on them without their prior agreement. But this is something advocates for polygamous marriage are going to need to address if they want the idea to gain mainstream acceptance. Exactly. There are a lot of i’s to dot and t’s to cross to get there. > [@cmyk](#): > > If there’s going to be a problem via adultery, I don’t think it needs any help by legalizing polygamy. Adultery is alive and well. Looking for a lifestyle to blame because you or your spouse want’s some “strange”, isn’t the _real_ problem, then. Your marriage is fundamentally broken. > > Legalizing polygamy doesn’t somehow, magically, make your own monogamous marriage a polygamous/polyamorous one. No, it doesn’t automatically make my marriage polygamous. But it does automatically open the question. As for the vows we took, hmm, I think they were something along the lines of “according to the laws of the people of Israel”, so maybe my husband didn’t vow monogamy… Well, not formally, anyway. I’m certainly not claiming that every monogamous marriage would instantly become polygamous. I assume most wouldn’t. But it would change the legal nature of every marriage, even if it didn’t retroactively change the moral nature. By the way, I once attended a marriage of two polyamorous folks. They explicitly avoided vowing monogamy. They vowed “to put you ahead of all others”, or something like that. The current laws don’t, by any means, prevent consensual polyamory. They do affect the legal status of such relationships. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2015, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/89 "2015-07-05T21:28:34Z")
[Mike Huckabee has come out against heterosexual marriage.](http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/05/politics/mike-huckabee-marriage-josh-duggar/) ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2015, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/90 "2015-07-05T22:16:22Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > If there’s going to be a problem via adultery, I don’t think it needs any help by legalizing polygamy. Adultery is alive and well. Looking for a lifestyle to blame because you or your spouse want’s some “strange”, isn’t the _real_ problem, then. Your marriage is fundamentally broken. I’m not sure what this has to do with my post, which was about the potential problem of a new co-spouse being added to a marriage and gaining rights regarding the existing property and children of that marriage without the consent of the first spouse. The whole point of legally recognizing polygamous marriage would be to grant the rights of marriage to multiple spouses at the same time. If it were just about having sex with different partners then that’s something people can already legally do. > [@](#): > > Legalizing polygamy doesn’t somehow, magically, make your own monogamous marriage a polygamous/polyamorous one. Legal polygamy in the rest of the world already unmagically allows a man to bring home a new wife without the consent of his previous wife or wives. Polygamous marriage in the US _could_ be different and more equitable, but if polygamous marriage advocates want to win over the general public then they’re going to have to explain exactly how this would work. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2015, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/91 "2015-07-06T00:08:38Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > 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. Except , of course that’s not what the order actually says. What it actually says is that gendered terms are to be construed as gender neutral until the language in the rules and forms are changed.\* Forms will say something like spouse “Spouse 1” and “spouse 2” instead of “husband” and “wife” . It doesn’t mean that during an actual case the various parties cannot be referred to by their relationships. > [@](#): > > The Ohio Supreme Court has issued an order to provide some guidance to Ohio’s courts governing references to familial relationship terms to comply with the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, Case No. 14-556. > > It is ordered, effective immediately, pursuant to Article IV, Section 5 of the Ohio Constitution and Rule 84 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, that all references to husband, wife, father, mother, parent, spouse, and other terms that express familial relationships contained in the _ **Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio and related forms and the Uniform Domestic Relations Forms of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure** _ be construed as gender neutral where appropriate to comply with the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, case No. 14-556, rendered on June 26, 2015. > > This order will remain in effect until the rules and forms are amended to reflect the changes contained in this order. > (emphasis added) > **[2015-Ohio-2568.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2015/2015-Ohio-2568.pdf)** > > 53.17 KB \*These things have happened before- there was a time when it was common for rape laws to be written in such a way that only men could be guilty.Court decisions generally changed that before the legislatures, so for a while even though the law said “man” it was to be construed as “person” ---
**Author:** ![lalaith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/96bed5/32.png) [@lalaith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lalaith)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2015, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/92 "2015-07-06T00:40:54Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > I don’t know…were they _born_ polygamous? Yes. The human race is a naturally polygamous species. It’s how we’ve evolved. You should check out the research on testicle size as it relates to monogamy and polygamy and where homo sapiens fall in the spectrum. It’s in the polygamy area. So, yes, they were born polygamous. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2015, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/93 "2015-07-06T00:47:33Z")
> [@lalaith](#): > > The human race is a naturally polygamous species. It’s how we’ve evolved. No, it’s not. The human species has evolved to be nominally (serially) monogamous with continued infidelity on both sides. In other words, coupling + cheating. ---
**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 6, 2015, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/94 "2015-07-06T03:31:20Z")
> [@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. Treppenverter: “Non-traditional” is no more a type of marriage than “non-forty-six” is a number or “non-nostril” is a body part. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2015, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/95 "2015-07-06T03:42:44Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > Except , of course that’s not what the order actually says. What it actually says is that gendered terms are to be construed as gender neutral until the language in the rules and forms are changed.\* Forms will say something like spouse “Spouse 1” and “spouse 2” instead of “husband” and “wife” . It doesn’t mean that during an actual case the various parties cannot be referred to by their relationships. Oh, well if only on legal documents that’s different. Somehow. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2015, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/96 "2015-07-06T04:07:03Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Oh, well if only on legal documents that’s different. Somehow. Who gives a shit what words are used in an Ohio Supreme Court? Whose marriage will be substantively affected by the use of “parent” instead of “mother” in a custody dispute? What do you anticipate happening next, and how do you get to there from here? This looks to me to be long on innuendo and short on substance. A court made a reasonable logistical stopgap decision. Extrapolating from it the end of the nuclear family is hilarious nonsense. > [@puzzlegal](#): > > Exactly. There are a lot of i’s to dot and t’s to cross to get there. > > No, it doesn’t automatically make my marriage polygamous. But it does automatically open the question. It’s inconceivable that polygamy would be legalized in the US in a way that allows a person to enter into multiple marriages without the consent of previous spouse[s]. While I agree that the logistical details are more complicated than Richard Parker is making them out to be, the idea of your husband springing a second wife (or husband) on you is never going to be an issue in this country. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2015, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/97 "2015-07-06T14:18:37Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > 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. I don’t agree - here in Canada at least, the change was very easy from a legal, drafting POV. All it took was re-defining “spouse”. That was it. > [@](#): > > 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. Well, therein lies the problem. What makes a particular form of marriage a “fundamental right”? In the case of SSM, the primary impetus (again, at least here in Canada) was the recognition that it was unfair to disallow a legal status that as _fundamentally similar in pretty well every respect_ to gay persons - that changing the gender of the persons involved didn’t really make any findamental difference. Opponents tried to argue against this fundamental similarity, but their arguments lacked merit. For example: marriage is for procreation, thus gays ought to be disentitled (the counter-argument being, we don’t prevent sterile straights from marrying). In the case of various polyamourous combinations, this ‘argument from fundamental fairness because of similarity’ breaks down. A group is not the same thing as a couple and the ‘slippery slope’ potential is vast - there is no obvious limit as to how large a ‘group marriage’ could be. Why would it be a violation of any ‘fundamental right’ to say that a small town cannot claim that every member is “married” to every other in a way that has legal implications? It isn’t that ‘if one has a fundamental right, the details - while vexing - aren’t important’. It is ‘if there is no obvious similarity between A and B, there is no obvious reason why depriving B of the legal status accorded to A volates any findamental right’. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2015, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/98 "2015-07-06T15:51:42Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > Polygamy as it is practiced in other countries today generally does not require a wife to consent to her husband marrying another woman. (AFAIK no country currently allows a woman to have multiple husbands.) There is a Tibetan group with a long history of polyandry (one woman multiple husbands) and as far as I know they are still legally able to engage in the practice. There is also a group of Arctic Native Americans that have a long standing tradition of polyandry (specifically, one woman two husbands). It’s rare, but not unknown. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2015, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/99 "2015-07-06T15:57:08Z")
> [@lalaith](#): > > Yes. > > The human race is a naturally polygamous species. It’s how we’ve evolved. > > You should check out the research on testicle size as it relates to monogamy and polygamy and where homo sapiens fall in the spectrum. It’s in the polygamy area. > > So, yes, they were born polygamous. > [@Acsenray](#): > > No, it’s not. The human species has evolved to be nominally (serially) monogamous with continued infidelity on both sides. In other words, coupling + cheating. Actually, the human species is _mildly_ polygamous - in hunter-gatherer and small tribal societies most people have only one partner at a time. Occasionally someone will have more than one partner, but it’s almost always someone who is extremely good at securing resources (an exceptional hunter, for example), necessary for survival in marginal environments (the Native group I mentioned where the pattern was 1 woman 2 husbands), or marriage of twins or other siblings to one individual. Cheating is not mandated, just an option than many never take. Likewise, polygamy is an option, one that many never take. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Lowry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Sam\_Lowry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Lowry)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2015, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/100 "2015-07-06T17:34:47Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > Legal polygamy in the rest of the world already unmagically allows a man to bring home a new wife without the consent of his previous wife or wives. Polygamous marriage in the US _could_ be different and more equitable, but if polygamous marriage advocates want to win over the general public then they’re going to have to explain exactly how this would work. The link in the OP is regarding a former Mormon man now unaffiliated with any religion. In the Mormon or former Mormon community that practices polygamy, does the first wife have consent over bringing further wives home? I know that there have been some Mormon cults that practiced polygamy where the wives had practically no say, but I don’t know if that’s an outlier or not. I guess it might be hard to get data since many would try to fly under the radar. But I agree, I’d like to hear from polygamous marriage advocates. If I hear from some explaining how their marriages are equitable and needed, I’m open to listen. If I hear that men should have the choice to bring home extra wives regardless of what the first wife thinks, and only men could have multiple marriages, I’m less open to hearing what they have to say. But like I’ve said in other threads, the vast majority of times that polygamous marriage is brought up, it’s not by people promoting polygamous marriage, it’s people against same-sex marriage grasping at straws. I’m less willing to hear their arguments, because those arguments are often flimsy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143.md?page=6)