Posted on 06/28/2015 9:43:18 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Shortly after the Supreme Court’s historic ruling in favor of the right for same-sex couples to marry, conservatives rushed to condemn the ruling by invoking the slippery slope logical fallacy that permitting gay couples to marry opens the door to legalizing polygamy too. Conservative commentator Bill Kristol tweeted “Polygamy here we come”. Fox News host Martha MacCallum queried:
So suppose three people say, we want to be a marriage; we’re three people, and we love each other, and we want to be a marriage. What’s to prevent that, under this?
Even Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts employed the “slippery slope to polygamy” argument in his dissent, arguing:
It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry?
Societies and sub-cultural groups that have practiced plural marriages have been hetero-normative rather than gay friendly. While conservatives enjoy making absurd slippery slope arguments in their feeble attempts to discredit same-sex couples, their arguments are wrapped in emotion rather than logic.
To illustrate the flawed logic of the conservative’s arguments, the slippery slope fallacy can be applied with equal silliness to straight marriages. If a man is permitted to have one wife what is to stop him from having two or even three wives? While that argument may seem patently silly, it is parallel to the argument conservatives are making against same-sex marriages. Well, almost parallel. The truth is a man with one wife is one wife closer to having multiple wives than a man who has no wives and a husband is to having multiple wives.
If conservatives want to argue that gay marriage should not be legal, they have every right to make their case. However, if the best they can come up with is the faulty argument that allowing gay marriage opens the door to polygamy then they might as well keep their mouths shut. If that is the only objection they can muster, it fails basic logic and they have no case.
If a bisexual woman falls in love with both a man and a woman, she shouldn’t have to choose. The author is a puritanical bigot clinging to old-fashioned and outdated norms.
It won't just be the fundamentalist Mormons pushing for polygamy, it will be a group that he didn't even mention -- Muslims.
That’s way I wrote that it was a subset of Mormons who practice polygamy. Would you not agree that there are in fact some Mormons who are engaging in polygamy, even if their unions are not legally recognized?
As for Muslims, one study estimated that between 50,000 and 100,000 American Muslims are living in polygamist arrangements in the United States today.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90857818
Now this ahole knows better than the chief justice of the SCOTUS?
This guy is a moron. “Polyamorous” relationships are actually in vogue in some circles, and they are informal expressions of polygamy and polyandry. The Supreme Court has given us no basis for saying that those forms of marriage could or should be prohibited.
Wanna bet, oh liberal cretin?
.....................
The cretins will fade back into the woodwork once the next great Rights Crusade begins.
You won’t find this cretin and his cretinous assurances anywhere around.
Ha ha ha.
Our argument isn’t based just on logic but on the One SUPREME ruler and Judge. And He says One Man and One Woman.
Man is flawed and man will get it wrong. God will not be mocked.
The argument against homosexual marriage is simple, homosexuality is abnormal (whether by birth or upbringing is immaterial) and to reward it with complete equality to heterosexuality is absurd on its face.
So why is it abnormal? Simple. There is one characteristic common to all life, the ability and drive to procreate, to survive (there are no life forms that are immortal). Homosexuality by definition is a biological dead end. As a corollary, being born blind, or becoming blind by other means, is abnormal. How do we know?...because nature gave us eyes so we can see. One can argue both are disabilities. Should we discriminate against that blind person?..while most people would say we shouldn’t, we do it all the time...we don’t issue them drivers licenses, allow them to operate helicopters, perform brain surgery, and countless other things.
Some might say, homosexuality is present in only 2-3% of the population, so should it really matter...but homosexuality is still abnormal, regardless if there was only one or a billion, nor does it matter if its caused at birth or comes about after birth, just like with a blind person.
So, should we have unlimited discrimination against people who are homosexual? In most respects, absolutely not (just like with the blind, and others with disabilities)...but I view marriage as an exception...Since there is no scientific evidence of a homosexual gene (after a lot of searching), there is the very likely possibility that homosexuality results from post birth factors...by allowing homosexuals to marry and raise kids we may in fact be contributing to a sexuality that is proven to be abnormal.
Another away to make my point. Assume God like powers for a minute. You have to decide one issue - the nature of life throughout the universe, and you have 3 choices. A) all life is heterosexual, B) all life is homosexual c) flip a coin, head: heterosexual; tails: homosexual. If you believe homosexuality is just an alternate life style, and equal to
heterosexuality, the right choice is C - although there is a 50% chance you will extinguish all life in the universe. Of course, the only logical choice is A.
>>Sadly the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the conservative commentators who echo his argument seem to lack understanding that slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies. There is no relationship between same-sex marriage and polygamy. In fact, historically, polygamy has been almost exclusively practiced in conservative, male-dominated patriarchal cultures that are the antithesis of the progressive and liberating redefinition of marriage being promoted by LGBTQ Americans and their straight allies.<<
This idiot claims something is illogical and attempts to prove it by asserting something even MORE illogical. How in the hell does WHO practices what determine whether the legal arguments for one support the other?
Also, she admits this is a redefinition.
This is either the poorest argument one could make against polygamy, or the author is engaging in some tongue and cheek writing. (Not that cheek!!!)
True, next is pedophilia marriage. I just read that a 14 girl is going to ask her mom to let her marry her girlfriend(who is not 14). If the mom has any sense, she will say no f—king way.
The vast majority of homosexuals being “married” have no intention of ever being in a monogamous same sex relationship for the rest of their lives... they will bounce around spreading their deadly disease and corroding all of human society. And as they do their lustfull passions will increase to include every vile act that can be imagined and will demand that whatever they wish to indulge themselves in also be normalized and celebrated...
Well why wouldn’t it? The word “marriage” no longer has an objective meaning at least in the legal sense and the Court found itself not bound by language, so why couldn’t this, or anything else, be “next”?
And he must have missed all of the articles detailing where this is now the next battle, as well as articles, including in mainstream publications such as the Los Angeles Times, where “throuples” are going to be making efforts to be legally recognized as marriages.
All three are involved in the making of said child? Which of those ‘ladies’ created the sperm. (I saw that scientists are creating sperm from eggs and eggs from sperm). Did all three gave the said child the chromosomes of all of them?
Bingo!
The Federal Government declared war on average Americans some time ago. President Caligula er, er Obama is advocating civil war. Since the best armed militia can't compete, we cam only pray that when it starts our citizen soldiers refuse to participate.
Oh, and Kennedy, by the way, is a joke. Clowns like Kagan, Ginsburg and Sotomayor vote the way they do because they believe the United States is fundamentally immoral and needs to be dismantled, Constitution be damned. Clown shoe Kennedy would have you think he's a swing voter because he his just that much more thoughtful, and certainly the other "Justices" who make up the rules as they go along can be persuaded by thoughtful reasoning.
The only way to fix this is the way those Texas public high school kids did when the Supreme Court told them they could not pray before a football game. They did it anyway and dared O'Connor to come down and stop them.
What we desperately need is for some Bobby Jindal type to get his legislature to back him, then send a nearly verbatim copy of the Declaration of Independence to every member of the Supreme Court, the Congress and the Administration (all of whom have declared war on average American citizens, with the copy to the President entirely in capital letters). He can invite states that share his views to join in his new country.
He can dare these p@&ck*r heads in DC to try to do something about it! IMHO, that's called push back.
It's time for people that care about this country to start pushing back and find some way to groin kick people in DC until THEY scream for mercy.
I'm really tired of people thinking this country needs to be fundamentally changed, especially when that change means this country ceases to exist.
First will be the attacks on the Christian churches by requiring them to participate in homosexual marriage while at the same time there will be attempts to neutralize age of consent laws as some states have age of consent to marry as low as 14
The argument will be if they are mature enough to marry at 14 they are old enough to consent to sex outside of marriage & if they are mature enough to consent to sex out side of marriage they are mature enough to be the leading actor/actress in a porn movie.
We are on the express lane to legalizing polygamy and soon to follow polyamory and child marriage. All it will take is some action by unelected judges.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.