Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No Conservatives, Legalizing Gay Marriage Doesn’t Mean Polygamy Is Next
Politicus USA ^ | 06/27/2015 | By: Keith Brekhus

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?


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.

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; keithbrekhus; libertarians; medicalmarijuana; obamanation; polygamy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121 next last

1 posted on 06/28/2015 9:43:18 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Wanna bet, oh liberal cretin?


2 posted on 06/28/2015 9:45:18 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

English PM “ We have peace in our time “ following a meeting with Adolf Hitler.


3 posted on 06/28/2015 9:46:45 AM PDT by American Constitutionalist (BeThe aKeystone Pipe lik Project : build it already Congress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


4 posted on 06/28/2015 9:47:00 AM PDT by originalbuckeye ("In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The only reason its not next is because pedophilia is next.


5 posted on 06/28/2015 9:47:04 AM PDT by Steely Tom (Vote GOP: A Slower Handbasket)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

No he’s right. Pedophilia s next. Gays want young boys not 5 wives.


6 posted on 06/28/2015 9:47:13 AM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“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.


7 posted on 06/28/2015 9:47:40 AM PDT by Viennacon (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I’d like to hear this writer’s explanation of why two brothers couldn’t marry each other under the new rules.


8 posted on 06/28/2015 9:48:04 AM PDT by Argus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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!


9 posted on 06/28/2015 9:48:20 AM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (I don't have 'Hobbies.' I'm developing a robust Post-Apocalyptic skill set...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

If you allow one you allow all the flood gates are open see amnesty .
The progressives will not stop at anything.


10 posted on 06/28/2015 9:48:32 AM PDT by Vaduz (women and children to be impacted the most.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Took this clown 500 words to say absolutely nothing.


11 posted on 06/28/2015 9:49:00 AM PDT by Michael.SF. (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

Either that or bestiality.


12 posted on 06/28/2015 9:49:59 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Qui me amat, amat et canem meum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
This is just stupid.

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?

13 posted on 06/28/2015 9:50:04 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Henry Bowman where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.

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.


14 posted on 06/28/2015 9:50:23 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

Why not two brothers marrying or two sisters, no children would result. It is all about love isn’t it?


15 posted on 06/28/2015 9:50:27 AM PDT by pleasenotcalifornia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
We should have never even legalized gay sex in the first place. That was the beginning of the slippery slope we find ourselves sliding down right now.

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.

16 posted on 06/28/2015 9:50:30 AM PDT by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The author is one dumb son of a gun. Sure he’s got some ten dollar words in there, but he is completely illogical.


17 posted on 06/28/2015 9:51:08 AM PDT by lacrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Yes, it does!!


18 posted on 06/28/2015 9:51:20 AM PDT by Cowboy Bob (Isn't it funny that Socialists never want to share their own money?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
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 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.

19 posted on 06/28/2015 9:51:51 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("It doesn't work for me. I gotta have more cowbell!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


20 posted on 06/28/2015 9:51:56 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson