Is this what conservatives meant when they said "slippery slope?"
I really don’t want to get into the gay marriage discussion now, but what is going to keep the number "2" sacred?
These are honest questions. While I may not be open to the possibility of rewriting Scripture, I am not as closed about what our laws should say.
If man and woman should not be held as the only standard for marriage, why will man/man or woman/woman be the final change?
Some may have no problem with polygamy and they are definitely entitled to that opinion, but the majority of those in support of gay marriage have assured everyone else that it would not lead to polygamy or other variations of marriage.
If you open up the definition to change, why should everyone not get their say into what is allowed in "marriage?"
is there some way or reason that two will remain sacred where man and woman has not?
I think that it is clear that if we affirm gay marriage as acceptable, we will also have to acknowledge polygamy and group marriage (polyamory) as well. Unless someone can make a distinction?
"Is there some way or reason that two will remain sacred where man and woman has not?"
A revealing choice of words: "sacred." Why should civil marriage have anything to do with what is or is not sacred? What does religion have to do with it? We are discussing civil marriage here, I hope, and, as such, religious doctrine should have nothing to do with it. Do what you want in your church, but, as you are always so quick to point out, this is not a christian theocracy so christian dogma and prejudice should have nothing to do with it.
Which also brings to mind: doesn't polygamy figure in the Bible? I'm not an adept, but I've heard that it does. I also recall something about Abraham and Hagar.
Also, where is this "definition" I keep hearing about? It seems to me that man/woman-only marriage can only rise to the level of tradition, not definition, because "definition" is a purely man-made dogma and not existing out there somewhere in space. It's what most people have always done so, the reasoning goes, it's what we always should do because, well, because we've always done it that way. And, of course, the majority is always right.
You might counter that this is God's "definition," but, again, civil marriage should have nothing to do with what certain religious sects believe.
Polygamy and polymory are separate issues regardless of how traditionalists try to yoke them to the issue of gay marriage.
When it comes right down to it, the issue is semantic: the word "marriage" gets everyone all in a snit. Why not legalize full civil unions across the board with all the same rights and responsibilities, then we can call it what we want and religious bigots can call it what they want? No, the real issue here is homophobia and patriarchy. The marriage argument is a stalking horse for an across the board attack on gay equality: attack our relationships and attack us.
I wonder if families across Massachusetts are disintegrating at a faster than normal rate or has nothing much changed? Are straight couples throughout Spain and Canada divorcing in horror at the thought of gays sharing the word "marriage" with them? Are children being abandoned en masse? Are cats and dogs mating and worlds colliding?
Just wondering.
Louis, you will not find me saying that families are failing apart at the seams because of gay marriage. I have said before divorce is more of a damaging influence on marriages today than gay marriage.
My use of sacred was possibly a bad choice of words. My question is what makes it stop at 2?
I agree that polygomy is a seperate issue from gay marriage, but does this case show a causation or linkage between one and the other? Will one automatically lead to the other?
I really don't know the answer to the questions, but this does not bode well for those who told us that gay marriage would not bring with it polygomy and other types of marriages.
Aaron and Seeker,
For God's sake, just post that you don't want gays getting married. Enough of these allegedly impassioned defenses of traditional marriage. Just admit that gays creep you out and you don't want them having access to what you have. If you'd just be honest about this – that you think that your relationships are vastly superior to those of gays – we wouldn't have to sit through these concerns about polygamy.
(In case you're wondering, most polygamy (Mormon polygamy for exampe) tends to involve victimized wives. Gay marriage involves NO victims other than you two.)
Sam, get over it. I told you that I am open to the possibility of civil union or some such.
I just need concerns addressed before we throw tradition out the window. I do not think gay marriage is like polygomy, but my question was does it lead to it by allowing for one change in marriage.
It has nothing to do with not wanting someone else to have "access to what [I] have." I am actually someone that can be won over to change, if I see a well-reasoned argument and some of my concerns addressed, but simply alledging that my concerns are only me being "creep[ed] out" by gay people does little to advance your cause.
That is what irritates me the most about debates like this. If someone raises concerns about a change, then, "Oh, you must be homophobic, or racist, or a bigot, etc, etc. How dare you raise an objection to my point of view."
For people that pride themselves on "dissent," liberals don't like to hear it too much. (Not all of this is directed at you, Sam, but your comment hit a nerve that stretches across numerous debates.)
Aaron, have you read Robert Heinlein's "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress"? There's a depiction of a poly-something marriage there that looks fairly innocuous. Of course, it's a libertarian tract (in a way), so it'll probably put your teeth on edge anyway.
I don't see much danger of polygamous liasons becoming accepted in the near future. It is happening in Mass. or Canada or Spain or Holland? And, again, it's the slippery slope argument all over again: we daren't make this change because all these horrible things will happen down the road. There's no way to prove it. It's just fear.
Let's watch Mass. and see what happens shall we?
(Sorry, but I still see homophobia behind much of this "pro-family" agitation.)
Aaron,
Tradition is a bad reason to oppose – or even consider opposing – change. After all, just a cursory glance at the history of our great nation reveals an unbelievable number of incredibly stupid traditions.
The illegality of interracial marriage for example. Allowing the marriages of blacks and whites hardly did anything to the tradition of marriage. Yet there were scores of Americans that believed allowing the marriages of blacks and whites (or whatever other combinations) was surely to be the end of marriage.
And yet, marriage survived. Just as marriage will survive allowing gays to marry. Finally, and perhaps this is most important, there has been a long-standing worldwide tradition of allowing for polygamy. While you are suggesting that allowing for gays to marry threatens traditional marriage, in fact the coupling of only two individuals straight OR gay in fact threatens the long-standing worldwide tradition of polygamy.
Traditions tend to be stupid after all.
Actually Louis, I have a big libertarian streak in me, which is why I say I am open for debate on the issue of civil unions and such.
I don't know why that posted under your name Aaron, but the post above this one is MINE.
Typically, when conservatives have talked about the slippery slope, they've spoken about it as a legal matter. And, it's really one of the poorest arguments I've ever heard (it's not really an argument, though – it's more like emotive bleating).
As a moral matter, is there a slippery slope? I doubt it. There really isn't a loud & vocal pro-polygamy lobby, so it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that people will gradually sympathize with over time. Plus, all of us have been tempted to snab a 2nd partner, so to speak, and the vast majority of us have concluded that it'd be morally messed up to do so. So, while gays really are different than me and you, polyamorists aren't fundamentally different. They're just losers.
That's my hunch, anyways, as to why I don't think there's a moral slippery slope.