Gay marriage and the slippery slope.

Post Reply New Topic

Some people think gay marriage will lead to marriage of a human and an animal, or a human and a refrigerator. What do you think?


I think it's nonsense. That won't happen any more than allowing women to vote has lead to allowing animals or refrigerators to cast their votes. Animals and refrigerators don't have the mental capability of voting, and likewise don't have the mental capability of consenting in a marriage.

The question is will polygamy (or other multiple partner arrangements) and lowering or eliminating the age of consent be next? Still, there's only one ideal marriage arrangement for raising a family.

Gay marriage is a slippery slope to what? Gay marriage?

why does anybody care about polygamy as long the people involved are consenting adults?

People will go to any length to deny the existence of anything that threatens their view of the world.
If someone is crazy enough to get married to a goat, I just want the law to say they have to make the wedding open to the public and post it online.


Whats a gay couple going to do to hurt this world so much?
Not have children?
Anyone notice the droves of parentless children who would love two loving parents?
Or how about the fact that we are overpopulating this world and a few less couples popping out kids would be a good thing?

Is religion the issue?
If god doesn't like gay people, why'd he make people gay then?
Never minding that, a legal union under the state should be completely separate.

"Slippery slope" arguments are fallacious, unless there is good, plausible, rational reasoning that shows how and why the slope will slip.

I don't think there is much good reason why consensual polygamy shouldn't be legal.

By the way, although I am not a libertarian (In the current US American use of the term, i.e. socially left economically right), the idea of just eliminating marriage altogether (so far as government is concerned) is better than discriminating. I would literally rather see marriage just totally scrapped as a legal thing entirely than continue to have discrimination against LGBT people.

BUT THEN THEY'LL CATCH THE GAY!

(I am being sarcastic here)

Why should any of these things be necessary or even likely impacts?

The position of legal challenges to opposite sex marriage is that they exclude same-sex couples from the legal protections and benefits enjoyed by opposite sex couples. In Canada that was found to violate the equal benefit provisions of the Charter. In the United States, it will likely fall afoul of the fourteenth amendment. In other countries, similar findings will eventually be made. But polygamy has never created the same kind of barrier.

As for the age of consent, why would same sex marriage have any impact there? The only action necessary is to ensure an equal age of consent for all sexual activity. Given that ages of consent for sexual activity are, generally, lower than the age of consent to enter into a marriage in most jurisdictions, it seems to me that there is nothing likely to happen in this vein.

As for the ideal marriage arrangement for raising a family--there is none. Such a thing has never existed and never will. To borrow from Douglas Coupland: "All Families are Psychotic." The best arrangement for raising a specific child can only be determined in reference to that child and the available options. There are any number of opposite sex married couples who are complete failures at raising their children. There are plenty of single parents who are outstanding successes. Given any family configuration, there will be examples that serve to demonstrate both success and failure.

Now, you might believe that a particular family configuration is the only appropriate one--and you are perfectly correct to insist that any child of yours be raised in such a family. (Assuming, of course, that the child's other parent agrees with you). But your opinion--like mine--is of absolutely no worth or relevance to any other parent of any other child.

To bad the anti-gay marriage folk who say that aren't.
But yes, god forbid a child learn to find love in twice the pool of a heterosexual like myself.

I agree completely, the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. That should be between the individuals involved and whatever god they choose to believe in. However in the mean time I don't think the government should discriminate against a certain set of people.

Comparing gay marriage to polygamy seems has some point but when people try to compare it to marrying animals, inanimate objects, or children it's just getting silly. Consenting adults shouldn't be infringed upon.

If you're going to have marriage, then yes, equality. No the governement shouldn't force religions to marry anyone they don't want to - that's up to them and their angels on pinheads stuff.

'Slippery slope' is arsebiscuits.

I'm guessing it's between a white conservative christian woman and a white conservative christian man, no?

White conservative Christian rich American man and woman

I don't get why adultery is legal but polygamy is not. What is the insurmountable obstacle to creating a legal framework for it?

Shouldn't you be happy that there is biblical precedent for polygamy?

If I'm allowed to marry a woman, it's just going to lead to me still having gayladysex, and then marrying a chair and having a half-human/half-chair baby and really... what kind of life is my human-chair baby going to live?

Look at countries that have already legalized gay marriage. Do they anymore problems regarding marriage rights? No.

Well, you have divorce courts, insurance policies, inheritances laws, custody laws, ect. The US can't even fix a leaky roof (ref), let alone redesign its marriage laws to include more than one spouse. I'm not against polygamy. I just think we need more competent lawmakers to implement a system for it.