# What is the rationale for opposition to same-sex marriage? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 8, 2009, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382 "2009-04-08T11:47:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 53
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1041 "2009-04-20T19:54:52Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > My “agenda”, if you insist, is to void laws (and discourage the creation of new laws) that serve no purpose, and I don’t see the purpose of opposing gay marriage. I was referring to the pro-SSM agenda in this case. > [@](#): > > Whether or not gay marriage always existed and is being denied, or it’s something new that is being resisted… I don’t care. As far as I know (and you remain invited to demonstrate otherwise) there wasn’t a good reason to block it in 1972 and there isn’t one now. Fine, you are welcome to that opinion. But you are not welcome to claim that it was ever previously a right that has since been denied as **DMC** argued and you tried to defend. > [@](#): > > I’m not arguing that they are, only pointing out that there are numerous court decisions striking down laws that discriminate on the basis of race, and others that strike down laws that discriminate on the basis of sex and (more recently) still others that strike down laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The first two allowed for the expansion of rights and the third is about to as well. Right, and as I’ve said repeatedly this is the best argument for your case. > [@](#): > > I wasn’t aware of it. Rather, “sanctity of marriage” arguments rely on the notion that marriage has some ideal form (marriage produces children and lasts “til death do us part”) that will be undermined by gay marriage. It’s a trivial effort to point out that social acceptance in recent decades of childless couples, legal divorce and children born out of wedlock has _already_ undermined this ideal, thus the ideal is not a strong basis for an argument. How gay marriage will affect the ideal at all, let alone as much as any of the above-mentioned concepts, remains unclear. I don’t get the “slippery slope” aspect of this, since I’m not making any dire predictions, just citing things that already exist, like no-fault divorce (in the U.S. since 1970). Right, it’s a slippery slope argument. That’s all I am saying. > [@](#): > > If I was saying something like “Deny gay marriage today, and next thing you know, the state will deny _all_ marriages!”… _that_ would be a slippery slope argument. No. You’re missing the point, that’s slippery slope into the future. I am talking about a slippery slope into the present from the past. Because we allowed divorce we have slid down to acceptance for SSM. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1042 "2009-04-20T19:59:43Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > _Shrugs_ But that’s exactly saying, “We’ve fallen in our standards this far, why not fall a little further?”, while turning around and arguing against slippery slope arguments. It’s double-talk. When it benefits your argument you use the slippery slope to your benefit, when it hinders it, you scoff. It’s unclear that gay marriage represents a further “fall”. As far as I can tell, whether or not a person believes it does depends on that person’s attitude toward homosexuality. I remain prepared to be convinced otherwise by a well-reasoned argument that gay marriage will cause problems. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1043 "2009-04-20T20:00:36Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > _Shrugs_ But that’s exactly saying, “We’ve fallen in our standards this far, why not fall a little further?”, while turning around and arguing against slippery slope arguments. It’s double-talk. When it benefits your argument you use the slippery slope to your benefit, when it hinders it, you scoff. Not at all. In fact, most of the posts I’ve seen arguing against the sanctity of marriage specifically point out that hetero shenanigans, by which I mean divorce, adultery, and the like, are _worse_ for the sanctity of marriage than two gay people living in happy harmony. This assumption that a happily married gay couple hurts the sanctity of marriage more than an abusive husband who regularly cheats on his third wife is baffling and illogical if we make an effort not to presume antipathy toward gays themselves on the opponent’s part. ---
**Author:** ![cwthree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@cwthree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cwthree)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1044 "2009-04-20T20:02:55Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I responded as constructively as the response warranted. Nonsense. You continue to bring up the procreative potential that you suppose to be inherent in all heterosexual couples as an basis for limiting to those couples the right to marry. I demonstrated, in what I hoped would be understood as humorous terms, that this is complete and utter hogwash with regard to civil marriage. This isn’t the first time you’ve resorted to name-calling when presented with an argument you don’t like. I’ll let you in on a secret: Dismissing someone as “silly” doesn’t actually make the other readers think you look wise. ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1045 "2009-04-20T20:04:32Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > When it benefits your argument you use the slippery slope to your benefit, when it hinders it, you scoff. Can you point to even one post where someone has used the slippery slope argument to support their position for SSM, or even talked about how marriage in general has deviated from the ideal that was not specifically in response to OSM being described as the ideal in arguments presented by the anti-SSM side? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1046 "2009-04-20T20:05:49Z")
> [@5-4-Fighting](#): > > Can you point to even one post where someone has used the slippery slope argument to support their position for SSM, or even talked about how marriage in general has deviated from the ideal, before OSM was being the ideal was presented as an argument for the anti-SSM side? I have responded to several directly on this page alone. I will leave it to your reading comprehension ability to decipher the code. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1047 "2009-04-20T20:06:58Z")
> [@cwthree](#): > > Nonsense. You continue to bring up the procreative potential that you suppose to be inherent in all heterosexual couples as an basis for limiting to those couples the right to marry. I demonstrated, in what I hoped would be understood as humorous terms, that this is complete and utter hogwash with regard to civil marriage. > > This isn’t the first time you’ve resorted to name-calling when presented with an argument you don’t like. I’ll let you in on a secret: Dismissing someone as “silly” doesn’t actually make the other readers think you look wise. Asking me to repeat myself for the thousandth time doesn’t exactly make you look wise either. Try reading my responses. I have responded to your argument at least a dozen times in other posts. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1048 "2009-04-20T20:08:18Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > Not at all. In fact, most of the posts I’ve seen arguing against the sanctity of marriage specifically point out that hetero shenanigans, by which I mean divorce, adultery, and the like, are _worse_ for the sanctity of marriage than two gay people living in happy harmony. This assumption that a happily married gay couple hurts the sanctity of marriage more than an abusive husband who regularly cheats on his third wife is baffling and illogical if we make an effort not to presume antipathy toward gays themselves on the opponent’s part. I’m sorry but the idea that gay men will live happily monogamous more often than heteros is kind of laughable. IIRC Lesbians are more often successfully monogamous. ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1049 "2009-04-20T20:10:19Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I have responded to several directly on this page alone. I will leave it to your reading comprehension ability to decipher the code. No, you posts on this page show you have misrepresented what those arguments were about and that you’ve bought into the propagandistic voices inside your own head. Your doing so repeatedly only makes it repeatedly incorrect, misguided and patently non-representative of what was actually said. Indulge me, instead of saying you’ve characterized those arguments a certain way, show me where they were made with the spirit and tone you say they were made. Can you? ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1050 "2009-04-20T20:11:24Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I’m sorry but the idea that gay men will live happily monogamous more often than heteros is kind of laughable. IIRC Lesbians are more often successfully monogamous. I’m not at all sure how to respond to this digression other than to say it strikes me as pretty irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1051 "2009-04-20T20:12:29Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I was referring to the pro-SSM agenda in this case. My agenda is pro-“individual rights” and anti-“useless legislation”. This week, gay marriage supporters get the benefit of my wisdom, such as it is. Besides, “agenda” doesn’t mean “evil conspiracy” so you may as well stop using “agenda” as if it bolstered your argument. > [@](#): > > Fine, you are welcome to that opinion. But you are not welcome to claim that it was ever previously a right that has since been denied as **DMC** argued and you tried to defend. Well, whatever. It _should_ have been accepted as a right in 1972 because there was no reason to deny it. Whether or not rights exist before they receive official approval is a philosophical question (or a dictionary one). > [@](#): > > Right, it’s a slippery slope argument. That’s all I am saying. We’re just going to have to disagree on what “slippery slope” means, then, because I don’t get your point. I’d always assumed slippery slope specifically meant “if stuff happens today - incredibly bad stuff will follow tomorrow”. If you’ve got cites of the usage you’re describing (“stuff happened in the past, making today’s incredibly bad stuff seem okay”), I’d like to read them. In any case, simply affixing the label “slippery slope” doesn’t hurt my argument, or bolster yours, especially since I’m not inclined to see gay marriage as incredibly bad stuff, or bad at all. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1052 "2009-04-20T20:19:58Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > My agenda is pro-“individual rights” and anti-“useless legislation”. This week, gay marriage supporters get the benefit of my wisdom, such as it is. Fair enough. > [@](#): > > Besides, “agenda” doesn’t mean “evil conspiracy” so you may as well stop using “agenda” as if it bolstered your argument. No agenda doesn’t mean “evil conspiracy”, so you may as well stop trying to get me not to use it in the completely normative sense that it’s meant to be used. > [@](#): > > Well, whatever. It _should_ have been accepted as a right in 1972 because there was no reason to deny it. Whether or not rights exist before they receive official approval is a philosophical question (or a dictionary one). Yes, philosophically we know which side you’re on on that one. But legally, there has not been such a right. > [@](#): > > We’re just going to have to disagree on what “slippery slope” means, then, because I don’t get your point. I’d always assumed slippery slope specifically meant “if stuff happens today - incredibly bad stuff will follow tomorrow”. If you’ve got cites of the usage you’re describing (“stuff happened in the past, making today’s incredibly bad stuff seem okay”), I’d like to read them. In any case, simply affixing the label “slippery slope” doesn’t hurt my argument, or bolster yours, especially since I’m not inclined to see gay marriage as incredibly bad stuff, or bad at all. A slippery slope refers to a progression of events that are precipitated by a specific one. You do understand how time works right? I can’t believe I have to explain this. Sometimes the hardest things to explain are the self-evident. Ok, so lets say it’s 1950-something. Divorce isn’t normally accepted. If we allow divorce then some day people will start to justify gay marriage! That’s a slippery slope argument. Something doesn’t become NOT a slippery slope just because it’s already happened. Your argument is that because marriage has ALREADY been debased, there is no reason not to debase it further, essentially. Then you argue against a slippery slope. But I guarantee you, polygamy will be arguing its case on the basis that same sex marriage is legal. So yes, slippery slope arguments ARE relevant. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1053 "2009-04-20T20:24:14Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Right, you are debasing the English language by using ‘Normal’ in an idiosyncratic fashion as though ‘Normal’ is a mark of distinction that is awarded for good behavior. > > No, heterosexual marriage is normal, homosexual marriage is not. if we legalize homosexual marriage then in about 15 years, it’ll become ‘normal’, but right now it is not, and a world without homosexual marriage is, ‘normal’. This sort of newspeak debasement of language really bothers me. Debasement of the language? Get yourself a dictionary before you make further wild accusations. Like perhaps this one [link](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/normal) One definition (2a) offers normal as conforming to some type or standard, which is the restriction you seem to wish to apply. Let’s force everybody to do what I imagine once obtained in some far away time and place, you argue, following that specific standard and no other. I do indeed impute to you this use of the word “normal”. However, normal can also refer to (3) occurring naturally, as does homosexual orientation in some percentage of the human population. Or (4b) the property of being distinctly free from mental disorder, something you seem unable to accord to homosexuals. Or even (7) being along a curve plotting distribution of some characteristic, like sexual orientation. Far from being idiosyncratic, my use of the word normal would encompass far more than yours allows. I believe that SSM would be perfectly normal without the scare quotes I applied to your use of it. Your offense at my supposed transgression against language has as little rational merit as your opposition to SSM. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1054 "2009-04-20T20:33:48Z")
Definitions 2, 6, and 7 apply to the context we are using it. No one is arguing against it being genetically normal as per definition 3, but definition 3 is irrelevant to whether or not it is socially normal as it has nothing to do with gay marriage. Homosexuality is normal, SSM is not. ---
**Author:** ![cwthree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@cwthree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cwthree)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1055 "2009-04-20T20:35:14Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > [QUOTE=cwthree] > > I disagree that “there have been no serious religious arguments raised and the majority of the anti-SSM participants are not particularly religious.” There are only two participants - **mswas** and **magellan01** - who have made significant anti-SSM contributions to this thread. **mswas** has made several references to the decline of Christianity as a dominating force in American culture, **and he has cited the acceptance of SSM and/or homosexuality as evidence and cause of this decline**. I understand that this isn’t specifically an argument from religion (i.e., he hasn’t said SSM should be prohibited because the Bible says it should be prohibited). However, he has asserted that SSM is detrimental to Christianity as a cultural force and he has suggested that this is a reason to continue to prohibit SSM. Regarded the bolded. No I haven’t. This is why I didn’t respond to you before, your posts aren’t actual responses to what I have said. You are just making stuff up and claiming I said it. [/QUOTE] I don’t have to make this stuff up. Cites: [QUOTE=mswas] My issue with this and similar ones is that I am sad to watch a great civilization die. Most of the people here say good riddance to Christendom, but I think it’s quite sad. And what’s replacing it is incredibly crass. Just hopelessly and fundamentally crass. That’s really the part that weighs on me, that makes me sad. It may be getting replaced with something more egalitarian and more free, but its at a great cost, and its a cost many people just simply do not notice or even care about. (Post 716) Christian civilization is falling to secular civilization. It is inevitable but I do not think there is something wrong with mourning what is lost in the process. That is not the same as thinking that civilization as a whole will fall into oblivion. (Post 885) [/QUOTE] Hundreds of posts into this discussion into why should support or oppose SSM, you’re waxing nostalgic for Christian civilization. [QUOTE=mswas] Asking me to repeat myself for the thousandth time doesn’t exactly make you look wise either. Try reading my responses. I have responded to your argument at least a dozen times in other posts. [/QUOTE] No one’s asking you to repeat yourself. I, and others, are still waiting for your _first_ answer to the question at hand (which, from your previous posts, is clearly not the question you felt like answering): Civil law does not take into account the reproductive goals or capabilities of a heterosexual couple when granting permission to marry; indeed, civil marriages are routinely, and legally, performed for couples whose members are, by all measures, incapable of reproducing (with or without assistance), or of having intercourse, or even of _wishing_ to reproduce. Why, then, should the reproductive potential of the same-sex couple be considered when addressing their right (or not) to marry? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1056 "2009-04-20T20:37:33Z")
You haven’t demonstrated what you think you’ve demonstrated. I never said SSM was a cause of the reduction of Christian civilization. > [@](#): > > Civil law does not take into account the reproductive goals or capabilities of a heterosexual couple when granting permission to marry; indeed, civil marriages are routinely, and legally, performed for couples whose members are, by all measures, incapable of reproducing (with or without assistance), or of having intercourse, or even of wishing to reproduce. Why, then, should the reproductive potential of the same-sex couple be considered when addressing their right (or not) to marry? This is the post-hoc slippery slope argument i have been referring to. ‘Marriage is already debased, lets debase it further.’ ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1057 "2009-04-20T20:41:04Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > This is the post-hoc slippery slope argument i have been referring to. ‘Marriage is already debased, lets debase it further.’ I think I resent that. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1058 "2009-04-20T20:46:00Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > I think I resent that. I am still arguing Devil’s Advocate. I don’t think that you being married debases marriage in any way. Just to be clear. I know a couple of guys who are fabulous who have been together for decades, they are essentially married regardless of societal acceptance. I wouldn’t begrudge them the acceptance of what is already a fact. I am just pointing out the flaw in saying, “There is no slippery slope/well we already have hetero divorce!” ---
**Author:** ![cwthree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@cwthree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cwthree)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1059 "2009-04-20T20:54:01Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > This is the post-hoc slippery slope argument i have been referring to. ‘Marriage is already debased, lets debase it further.’ How is this a slippery slope argument? Do you honestly believe that marriage is “debased” by allowing non-procreating heterosexual couples to marry? Conversely, would you support a change in civil marriage law restricting that institution only to those couples who: (1) affirm at marriage that they intend to have children, and (2) make good on that statement of intention by either begetting one or more biological children (with or without medical assistance), adopting one or more children, or fostering children. Further, would you support a change in civil marriage law such that if a heterosexual marriage has not produced or acquired at least one child within 10 years, that marriage is automatically dissolved unless the spouses can show that they are _actively_ pursuing adoption, surrogacy, IVF, or some other method of reproduction. If you wouldn’t support such a change in civil marriage, I seriously doubt your claim of “debasement.” ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2009, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382/1060 "2009-04-20T20:58:08Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > A slippery slope refers to a progression of events that are precipitated by a specific one. You do understand how time works right? I can’t believe I have to explain this. Sometimes the hardest things to explain are the self-evident. Well, when you make up new definitions, explaining them helps. And don’t bother to patronize me. You haven’t demonstrated a sufficiently strong position to do so. > [@](#): > > Ok, so lets say it’s 1950-something. Divorce isn’t normally accepted. If we allow divorce then some day people will start to justify gay marriage! That’s a slippery slope argument. Yes, that would have been dire and shocking in 1950, but even slippery slopes describe a potential process, don’t they? If the dire outcome is _too_ far removed from the current idea, it loses its punch somewhat. In retrospect, _did_ divorce in 1950 leads us to our current situation? Would anyone in 1950 have been thinking gay marriage and not, say, marriage ceasing to exist? > [@](#): > > Something doesn’t become NOT a slippery slope just because it’s already happened. Your argument is that because marriage has ALREADY been debased, there is no reason not to debase it further, essentially. Well, no, because I don’t see gay marriage as a debasement of marriage. If anything, it might actually increase the number of marriages. The point of the argument is that the idealized marriage that the anti-SSM position claims to be defending can’t be jeopardized by gay marriage (or if it can, they haven’t shown it). Such ideal marriages will continue to exist if the ideal people (child-wanting hetero couples, I guess) want them to. > [@](#): > > But I guarantee you, polygamy will be arguing its case on the basis that same sex marriage is legal. So yes, slippery slope arguments ARE relevant. Let them. If they start today, maybe they’ll be approved 37 years from now. But unlike gay marriage, there _are_ problems with polygamy, namely issues of abuse and the legal complexities in group property sharing and divorce and a few other major hurdles. I don’t have any particular emotional investment in the idea of polygamy, but I anticipate they won’t meet the same “harmless so why not?” response. At the very least, they’re going to need a generation of favourable court decisions, and I don’t see that happening anytime soon. What’s the polygamy equivalent of _Baker v. Nelson_? How far into the process are they? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=52) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-rationale-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/492382.md?page=54)