File this under "It had to happen."
According to this MSNBC story, "Defense for polygamists cites gay marriage". The argument is simple. "'If (homosexuals) can marry, what is the reason that public policy says one person can't marry more than one person?' said Suffredine, a former provincial lawmaker."
"Oh, that ol' stupid 'slippery slope' argument! That won't happen!"
Sure, except ... it has.
For those who would like to argue "Changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples won't pave the way for polygamy (or other variations)" (and would do so in the face of the fact that the argument is being made), I still have to ask ... why? Laying aside any alarmist "It could pave the way for other variations!" which we might (okay, actually do) throw at the discussion, my question is "Why?" What makes you think it won't happen? No, more to the point, on what basis would you prevent it from happening? If you argue that human beings have an intrinsic right to marry (and then you redefine "marry" to include "same sex"), on what basis would you then forbid marriage to multiple spouses (or animals or his favorite automobile)? I'm not trying to offer an argument here. I'm asking a question. If the measure is "I have the right to marry as I please" (again, requiring a knowing and intentional redefinition of "marriage"), on what basis would you prevent marriage on any basis whatsoever?
Well, according to MSNBC, the slippery slope argument, often erroneous, turns out to be entirely accurate in this case.
3 comments:
Yep. Slippery slope arguments aren't always logical fallacies. Things don't always go the same dirction forever.
I viewed the oxymoronic same-sex marriage topic to be more of a cliff than a slope. All the criteria to justify polygamous, incestuous, etc. "marriages" are the same or virtually the same as for gay marriage (civil rights, born that way, gov't out of bedrooms, etc.).
And since we are slowly leaning toward the UNITED NATIONS stance on children...soon they will have the same rights as adults and parents will have NO rights. Who has a right to deprive the 50 year old man of marrying that 5 year old boy or 8 year old girl...or both? It is just a matter of time if we continue in the direction we are flowing.
There are way too many (and too scary) slopes that will give way here. Polygamy, incest, bestiality, adults marrying children, all sorts of other combinations ... it is a frightening slide without any rational defense in the public arena.
Post a Comment