Tell me about it...
Married lesbian trio from Massachusetts expecting first child together
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.
Liberals first lie to themselves. They give themselves permission and a list of excuses to allow that which the emotions desire. Being human, when they fail to meet their own expectations, they create another layer of lies and excuses so they don’t have to take responsibility.
A liberal then lies to their loved ones, their family, their friends, their business associates, their co-workers, everyone they interact with. The “truth” is only an alternative reality to a liberal, one reality among many possible. Truth itself is malleable and plastic. What is “true” in the morning might not be “true” at noon.
A liberal, in his own mind, cannot commit sin. Every action is excusable, at least after the fact. Thus, they cannot do what God requires of every human in order to have a relationship with Him: because a liberal never committed any sin, he does not have anything to repent of.
Liberals, of all humans, have cut themselves off from God. Now of course God has a plan to deal with liberals, but that is why he gives so many warnings, and why in the end, He promises to shock the world, so as to shock as many liberals as possible into the real world.
No person who declines to fully participate in reality can be granted the free gift of salvation. Such a person could not successfully have eternal life. They would fail in the same way that Lucifer failed.
That is the hard truth of the human condition, and why God is not playing games.
Keith needs to talk to Frederick at Politico:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3305319/posts
Pure idiocracy, preached to an army of violent hypocrites.
The anti-polygamy laws? What argument can be made to uphold those laws now? If three, four, or more people want to marry, don't they deserve their "dignity" as well?
Indeed. Aside from the financial benefits, that is a large part of the push for gay "marriage."
Maybe 15 years ago, when I was a student at UC Davis, a lesbian wrote to the campus newspaper stating exactly what you said. Her family did not accept her as normal. According to her faulty logic, if she could only get married to her girlfriend and make the relationship legal the way heterosexuals legalize their relationships, her family would realize that she is just as normal as any heterosexual.
Tellingly, her argument did not contain any discussion of love--for her, the gay "marriage" issue was about being seen as normal, and had nothing to do with the actual relationship.
Once the sanctity of the words themselves have been distorted or damaged beyond rectification, then the gates ARE wide open and can mean anything the speaker wants them to mean. Gay “marriage” is in and of itself just a chock to hold the doors open, while every other formerly persecuted and often prosecuted deviation comes streaming through. Sodom and Gomorrah did not happen overnight, though it was perhaps only a short span of time from the first rationalizations until the complete dissolution of inhibitions overtook the whole district.
The decadence that was the Roman Empire was also noted for its rather loose interpretation of what constituted moral righteousness and acceptable behavior. But then, life in the Roman Empire tended to be rather brutish and short anyway, scarcely better than the Germanic tribes to the north.
Polygamy is NOT next.
I don’t know a single woman who would agree to it.
Polyamorous is next.
Its already very active in the NW with older men/women and among the Millennials.
Usually in this type of relationship, the woman is the controller, gets most of the benefits but the men don’t have to worry about the divorce $$$ or paying all the bills.
The end result is the woman finds someone she wants, dumps the rest of the guys and moves on.
Think of it as an extended FWB relationship but with much more drama.
Like Kennedy says, with gays want dignity - Muslims and Mormons only want dignity too
Nothing now other than social non-acceptance and we see how quickly that evaporates. The folks lobbying for polygamy will use the same arguments homosexuals did.
Why are we privileging sexual relationships when it comes to conferring legal benefits?
Why not let everyone have ONE primary relationship regardless of its basis, when it comes to tax benefits, inheritance, medical decision making, etc.?
The relationship could be sexual, familial, friendship or convenience.
We can call it LNOK, legal next of kin, pronounced ellnock. And then we can stop worrying who is screwing who, and what people have done to marriage, and demanding that other people recognize and validate ellnock ceremonies.
We can require it to be a mutual, two-way relationship, to prevent abuse, as might occur when a cult leader became the beneficiary of all his followers. That also prevents polygamy.
You’re welcome.
"Slippery slope" is a logical fallacy when it's used to argue, "The reason we can't allow this is because it could lead to that."
But that's not the argument conservatives are making. We've been laying out all the reasons against changing the definition of marriage. "Slippery slope" isn't the reason. But it is what we're headed down.
Slippery slope arguements are logical fallacies?
Well that would explain why the Marxists employ this arguement when it comes to gun “control”
Wow, great minds think alike. I saw your post after I sent mine #49 - LOL!
Why not? And, what's to stop the government from putting people in prison that disagree with gay marriage for religious reasons? We already fine 'em out of existence.
Who will stop them? Boehner? McConnell? (Time to move on) Bush (if we have the misfortune of seeing him get elected)?
When will the government start fining the Catholic Church out of the country for disagreeing with what happened this week? Who will stop them?
Nope. They may be activists, but they have GOT to be tools of the Left and the Enemy Media as they’re such a tiny percentage of the population - and all we ever hear is gay, gay, gay 24/7. WHO is giving them a platform to speak from? It ain’t those of us on the Right!
I am sticking with my original assessment. See me in 50 years...if we’re not in the reeducation camps by then! :)
Why not necrophilia? They want to be next.
I think animals are next... mostly for insurance purposes.. People ‘love’ their pets and want to add them to their health care policy... Why not? Love is love, right?
And if the Confederate flag is removed from the capitol building it won’t be removed from war memorials. And if you like your healthcare plan you can keep your plan.
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.