...and here's the slippery slope

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

maxiep

RIP Dr. Jack
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
28,321
Likes
5,919
Points
113
I have never had a problem with gay marriage. However, I often read in response to my warning that one would then have to allow polyamory (polygamy and polyandry) as well as incest. After all, the argument was framed in terms of equal rights. I was told I was being sensationalist and ridiculous in my warnings.

Well, here they are within 30 days of the Supreme Court decision.

http://prospect.org/article/slippery-slope-polygamy-and-incest

http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2013/07/marriage-polyamory.html

Rather than saying "I told you so" (as I don't care about being right or wrong), I am starting this thread to re-propose my original position: Get government out of the marriage business. Government can create "civil unions" and cannot discriminate in any way shape or form as long as the parties are of the age of consent. However, marriage should be a religious connotation only, and those religious institutions should be allowed to marry or not marry anyone they please.
 
I can see polyamory being more likely than incest. Polygamy can not cause debilitating conditions in their offspring.
 
Exactly. No defects there.

Did you know that in the Middle East incest marriage is allowed? In order for them to get married; they must go to a genealogist to make sure they won't have deformed babies. So if that's allowed; then it's okay right?
 
Did you know that in the Middle East incest marriage is allowed? In order for them to get married; they must go to a genealogist to make sure they won't have deformed babies. So if that's allowed; then it's okay right?

I didn't know that.
 
I can see polyamory being more likely than incest. Polygamy can not cause debilitating conditions in their offspring.

You're tying marriage and offspring together in order to help justify an argument, but they don't necessitate each other.
 
Apparently not.

From t3h wikis: "Cousin marriage was legal in all states before the Civil War." The founding fathers could marry their cousins! :ghoti:

I thought only in America; you can only marry your "second cousins"; but in the Middle East; they marry their first cousins.
 
Can someone give me a compelling argument why any level of Government should be involved in marriage instead of civil unions?
 
I have never had a problem with gay marriage. However, I often read in response to my warning that one would then have to allow polyamory (polygamy and polyandry) as well as incest. After all, the argument was framed in terms of equal rights. I was told I was being sensationalist and ridiculous in my warnings.

Well, here they are within 30 days of the Supreme Court decision.

http://prospect.org/article/slippery-slope-polygamy-and-incest

http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2013/07/marriage-polyamory.html

Rather than saying "I told you so" (as I don't care about being right or wrong), I am starting this thread to re-propose my original position: Get government out of the marriage business. Government can create "civil unions" and cannot discriminate in any way shape or form as long as the parties are of the age of consent. However, marriage should be a religious connotation only, and those religious institutions should be allowed to marry or not marry anyone they please.

Exactly correct. :clap:
 
I guess I'm wondering why you care so much max? Dont like the states weaseling 50 bucks for a marriage cert?
 
Honestly, if both parties are consensual and of age, it shouldn't be against the law. Don't get me wrong, incest is disgusting and should be roundly mocked in society, but it's not the govt's job to make moral determination. We don't have laws against pregnant mothers drinking, and that causes far more birth defects than incest (mainly because of how prevalent it is). The social norms should make people feel horrible for drinking a lot while pregnant and for incest. But I don't think the govt should care.
 
Honestly, if both parties are consensual and of age, it shouldn't be against the law. Don't get me wrong, incest is disgusting and should be roundly mocked in society, but it's not the govt's job to make moral determination. We don't have laws against pregnant mothers drinking, and that causes far more birth defects than incest (mainly because of how prevalent it is). The social norms should make people feel horrible for drinking a lot while pregnant and for incest. But I don't think the govt should care.

Well they should care; but not intervene. The commercials showing pregnant mothers smoking or drinking; with studies on defects.

But if a state allows gay marriage; then they should legalize the others too.
 
I guess I'm wondering why you care so much max? Dont like the states weaseling 50 bucks for a marriage cert?

I care because I want to limit the role of government in my life as much as I can. And the idea that my government--where all people are created equally--can tell me who I can and cannot marry, I find offensive. They have no right to discriminate. Religious institutions, however, can discriminate as much as they wish.
 
I didn't see a slippery slope. I saw the same old bigot argument that "marriage equality will inevitabley lead to polygamy because I say so" even though it has not anywhere in the world (and the countries that allow polygamy do not allow same sex marriage) and some academic saying discuss polyamory. Discuss anydamnthing you want. It's free speech. But it also has nothing to do with marriage equality.

When straight folks are ready to renounce their right to legal marraige, then you can ask gay folks to do the same.
 
I care because I want to limit the role of government in my life as much as I can. And the idea that my government--where all people are created equally--can tell me who I can and cannot marry, I find offensive. They have no right to discriminate. Religious institutions, however, can discriminate as much as they wish.

So the slippery slope? I guess I've only heard that used with negative connotations.
 
I can see polyamory being more likely than incest. Polygamy can not cause debilitating conditions in their offspring.

From the first article linked:

This argument is more relevant to incest than polygamy. Incest raises the risk of birth defects, or so we’ve been told. But the risks are reportedly small, and probably less than for parents over forty, or smokers, or those with certain hereditary diseases. If the government stepped in to regulate the decisions of potential parents on those grounds, we’d rightly dust off our “nanny state” bromides. This is the kind of thing we usually leave for people to decide for themselves.

As soon as the government makes smoking and drinking while pregnant a crime, or forbids motherhood after age 40, then the "birth defect" argument against incestuous marriage holds water. However, we know that none of those will ever happen.
 
Last edited:
So crandc, do you believe polygamy should be legal or illegal?

I am for gay marriage, and for polygamy, and I do see legalized polygamy as a natural extension of the legalization gay marriage. I think all the same arguments hold. But I have not thought hard on the subject, perhaps I am looking at it as wrong.


The slippery slope part that seems like a silly and juvenile extension are the bestiality type arguments. I don't see the parallel there.
 
Honestly, if both parties are consensual and of age, it shouldn't be against the law. Don't get me wrong, incest is disgusting and should be roundly mocked in society, but it's not the govt's job to make moral determination. We don't have laws against pregnant mothers drinking, and that causes far more birth defects than incest (mainly because of how prevalent it is). The social norms should make people feel horrible for drinking a lot while pregnant and for incest. But I don't think the govt should care.
3ura6i.jpg
 
Any adult human should be able to marry any adult human
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top