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.
Wanna bet, oh liberal cretin?
English PM “ We have peace in our time “ following a meeting with Adolf Hitler.
Why not polygamy? The ‘Supremes’ have now decreed that words have no integrity, the meaning can be anything you want it to be for any given word. Maybe in the future there will be a ‘court’ with fundamentalist Mormons and they will ‘decree’ that the word ‘marriage’ includes polygamy, too. Anything goes in the USA.
The only reason its not next is because pedophilia is next.
No he’s right. Pedophilia s next. Gays want young boys not 5 wives.
“slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies”
No, they aren’t. This is a common misconception. The objection to ‘slippery slope’ arguments does not come from them being fallacies. This person doesn’t know what a logical fallacy is.
I’d like to hear this writer’s explanation of why two brothers couldn’t marry each other under the new rules.
Yep. Sure. Right.
Are the gays EVER going to realize what TOOLS they are for the Left in the utter destruction of America? I mean, the blacks and other minorities haven’t figured it out in FIVE DECADES now, so how long of a run will the gays have?
Grrrrr!
If you allow one you allow all the flood gates are open see amnesty .
The progressives will not stop at anything.
Took this clown 500 words to say absolutely nothing.
Either that or bestiality.
There is now no language in the Constitution which blocks polygamy.
State laws (ex. Utah) on the subject of marriage ae now null and void.
Tradition (ex. no homosexual marriage) is gone - it's no longer a factor.
Religion (ex. no homosexual marriage) is gone - it's no longer a factor.
Question: Why is the world WOULDN'T polygamy be next? What blocks it?
This is the gist of his argument basically:
“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.”
THAT IS THE SUMMARY OF HIS ARGUMENT.
Why not two brothers marrying or two sisters, no children would result. It is all about love isn’t it?
Of course this isn't the end of it. Gays are seeking validation of their lifestyle, and they're not going to get that from just a marriage certificate. They want us to pretend it's a normal and healthy activity, and they want us to celebrate it.
Pretty soon Sandusky will be a "freedom fighter" hero for the left... and no child will be safe in this country.
The author is one dumb son of a gun. Sure he’s got some ten dollar words in there, but he is completely illogical.
Yes, it does!!
This idiot overlooks an important point. Historically (and even in other cultures around the world today), polygamy has had far more legal and cultural acceptance than "gay marriage."
Anyone who deigns to suggest that polygamy is not going to follow the same road to legal acceptance here in the U.S. is either delusional or is lying. The Supreme Court didn't change the legal definition of marriage last week. It eliminated any basis for any definition whatsoever.
No, Keith Brekhus, you are either missing the point or trying to hide the Truth. You cannot make such a sweeping ‘assurance’ because all your future is belong to the all powerful, every changing federal demigod. They will determine what is allowed, not the states, so you cannot assure anyone of anything because you do not know the future pronouncements of the dead-soul government.
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.