A question about the slippery slope argument in reference to gay marriage:?

Question

I've heard it said that next people would be wanting to marry their livestock and trees and whatnot. Isn't there a difference between consenting (human) adults, and your horse or mulberry tree? is this really a distinction that needs to be pointed out? Jeez!

I did specify consenting adults...

Answer 1

I would suggest that there isn't anyone that has refrained from having sexual relations with the family sheep because they were afraid of the legal implications.

I really dont think that if they went and legalized beastiality I would all of a sudden start looking at Fido in a new way.

Answer 2

Bettie, I agree with you.

To lundstrom: I think you make MANY good points. But in regards to brother-sister marrying -- If a marriage is between a man and a woman, why should a consenting man and woman be forbidden to marry if they are brother and sister? (this statement ALSO applies to lion of Judah!)This changes IN NO WAY if we allow 2 men or 2 women to get married. It is one of the reasons a slippery-slope argument (or fallacy) tends to be an illogical one. And as for the pillar of our society, one of the things that the 'society' has a responsibility for PROTECTING the minorities. Some things, ESPECIALLY RIGHTS OF MINORITIES, need to be exempt from the majority rules issue. And as for judges, they rule ON the base of law. It seems to me that some people, whenever the judge rules in favor of the base of law, they cry "activist judge!!!" when they disagree with the ruling. I did read the 92 page judgment of the New Jersey Supreme Court when they ruled that same-sex civil unions were REQUIRED by law. Reading that judgment and the relevant laws, it seems to me that it was the ONLY conclusion that could have been made, but since it was not what the president wanted to hear. He cried 'activist judge' when if the judges had ruled the way HE wanted, THEN they would have been activist, in fact!

Answer 3

The "slippery slope" is making the Rule of Law arbitrary...

Like others, you are very clear to qualify your stance with the term "consenting adults."

Who are you, however, to demand such a qualifier?
What is the basis of your demand? Tradition? Morality? The Law? Are these not are the same grounds for the one man/one woman argument? There was a time when 13 was considered a suitable marriage age, so it can be argued that the legal precedent already exists.

What most advocates do not realize is that, beyond whatever issue they support, they are demanding that the established process of law be circumvented to meet their demands. This opens the door to a system of law that serves the loudest demanders...and not the community as a whole.

My only personal argument in the gay marriage issue is not same sex marriage, but the cavalier attitude of some judges and government officials toward the process of law. Shouldn't the definition of marriage be written by the society at large? Our laws are built on the concept of "majority rule and minority protection."

The fact is that the Law can change to reflect societal changes. But there is a process that must be upheld in order for the Law to have meaning.

Most advocates seem to think that the fact a Gay Marriage law would not pass majority vote is reason enough for one to be forced upon the books. Wouldn't society be better served if they instead put their efforts toward educating the majority...toward reaching out and fighting for change within the system of law?

Because you feel, in your heart, that something is right is not reason enough for the law to be changed on your behalf. It is, however, reason enough for you to fight for your beliefs, to share them with others and to be the instrument of change...just don't demand that others do it for you.

Answer 4

It's just another excuse to call us animals, incestual, perverts, rapists etc.

Consenting love between humans has long been an issue for religion.

Remember Khalil Aswad? Remember segregation?

Look at the slippery slope that happened allowing blacks and whites (consenting adults) to marry...

(crickets)

Problem is, a lot of religion is messed up about sex so much that they can only think about sex when the word marriage is mentioned. They forget the 'L' word, and the 'F' word.

Love and family.

Answer 5

The truth is almost always found on a slippery slope. That is why it is so hard to get to. Simple minds, avoid the slippery slope, and go for a very easy position to hold in their mind. Some people like to be told, what position to take, and not have to think about it. Thinking can be a lot of work.

Answer 6

Most such comments are an exaggeration. I have not heard anyone dispute that incest and polygamy could be legally prevented, once the laws are overturned.

The real slippery slope is that any church that refuses to perform same sex marriage will be attacked. You may expect them to lose their tax exempt status, and be denied other rights. They will get treatment similiar to the Boy Scouts.

Answer 7

That mulberry tree is probably a better date than some humans I've met! (So don't insult it.)

Edit: Purple, do you really care if consenting adults have multiple spouses? Is it really any of your business? (As for children, that's unlikely. Marriages used to be arranged for girls before they hit puberty. Now that we have actual rights, I doubt it will ever be a serious problem again.)

Answer 8

The slippery slope started when the government decided that marriage was a legal agreement. If the homophobes want to stop the slope, they should be for banning marriage altogether.

Answer 9

Agreed. And seriously, if two people truly love each other, I don't get why it's so horrible for them to get married. Besides, a cow or mulberry tree can't say "I do."

Answer 10

There might be a distinction, but consider this: If we let gay people marry, before long, Christians will be allowed to get married. Then what? Marrying a doornob?