Legal Recognition of Same Sex Marriage Slippery Slope Fallacy

[Coloradomtnman]

Many on the right seem to fall for the slippery slope logical fallacy that legal recognition of same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy, incestuous marriage or people marrying animals.

Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marrying one's siblings is not analogous to marrying someone not related to you but who is of the same sex. Neither is polygamy or marrying an animal.

False analogy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incestuous offspring have a higher chance of developmental disorders. That is a rational argument.

I think consenting adults should have polygamous marriages recognized as well. They aren't any more harmful than traditional marriages.

Animals can't consent to marriage. End of argument.

Because there is no empirical or rational argument to back up their disagreement with legal recognition of same sex marriage and the argument from religious or traditional stances are obviously weak positions social conservatives fall back on the above logical fallacies.

Agree of disagree?

Discuss below.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

No refutations?

Is my argument THAT strong?

Hm. Guess I win.

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat right - dis country needs more Congress people to stand up fer decent values...

Pol with gay son: No gay marriage
4/1/13 - Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) opposes gay marriage, despite having gay son

Arizona GOP Rep. Matt Salmon reaffirmed his opposition to gay marriage this weekend — even though he has a gay son. “I don’t support the gay marriage,” Salmon told KTVK, an independent station in Phoenix. “My son is by far one of the most important people in my life. I love him more than I can say.”

Salmon’s reaction creates a sharp contrast to that of Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman, who announced his support of same-sex marriage last month. Two years earlier, Portman’s son Will had come out to his parents. “I’m just not there as far as believing in my heart that we should change 2,000 years of social policy in favor of a redefinition of the family,” Salmon said. “I’m not there.”

Rep. Matt Salmon, a Mormon, was elected in 2012.

Salmon said he doesn’t believe his son chose to be gay. “It doesn’t mean I don’t have respect, it doesn’t mean I don’t sympathize with some of the issues, it just means I haven’t evolved to that station, Rob Portman apparently has,” he added later. “I haven’t.” Salmon, a Mormon, was elected in 2012. He served a previous stint in the house from 1995 to 2001.

In 2010, the Phoenix New Times reported Salmon’s son, also named Matt, was in a relationship with Kent Flake, a second cousin of Sen. Jeff Flake. The paper said the younger Salmon hoped to run for office. Arizona, which has a constitutional ban on gay marriage, had four LGBT candidates run for congressional seats in 2012. One of those candidates, Democrat Krysten Sinema, became the first openly bisexual member of Congress.

Read more: Arizona lawmaker Matt Salmon with gay son: No gay marriage - POLITICO.com

 

[Pop23]

Many on the right seem to fall for the slippery slope logical fallacy that legal recognition of same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy, incestuous marriage or people marrying animals.

Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marrying one's siblings is not analogous to marrying someone not related to you but who is of the same sex. Neither is polygamy or marrying an animal.

False analogy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incestuous offspring have a higher chance of developmental disorders. That is a rational argument.

I think consenting adults should have polygamous marriages recognized as well. They aren't any more harmful than traditional marriages.

Animals can't consent to marriage. End of argument.

Because there is no empirical or rational argument to back up their disagreement with legal recognition of same sex marriage and the argument from religious or traditional stances are obviously weak positions social conservatives fall back on the above logical fallacies.

Agree of disagree?

Discuss below.

I'll take swing

How do you handle consenting adult siblings that wish to marry? Seems to me that you have to treat the same gender siblings differently than the opposite gender siblings.

Just sayin

 

[PratchettFan]

Many on the right seem to fall for the slippery slope logical fallacy that legal recognition of same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy, incestuous marriage or people marrying animals.

Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marrying one's siblings is not analogous to marrying someone not related to you but who is of the same sex. Neither is polygamy or marrying an animal.

False analogy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incestuous offspring have a higher chance of developmental disorders. That is a rational argument.

I think consenting adults should have polygamous marriages recognized as well. They aren't any more harmful than traditional marriages.

Animals can't consent to marriage. End of argument.

Because there is no empirical or rational argument to back up their disagreement with legal recognition of same sex marriage and the argument from religious or traditional stances are obviously weak positions social conservatives fall back on the above logical fallacies.

Agree of disagree?

Discuss below.

I'll take swing

How do you handle consenting adult siblings that wish to marry? Seems to me that you have to treat the same gender siblings differently than the opposite gender siblings.

Just sayin

I'll swing back.

It is not the place of the government to tell people how to live their lives, so long as they do not injure anyone by so doing. If siblings wish to marry, that is their concern. If three men wish to enter into a marriage with two women, that is their concern. So long as the people who wish to enter into a marriage are consenting adults, how they wish to structure that marriage is entirely their concern.

 

[martybegan]

No refutations?

Is my argument THAT strong?

Hm. Guess I win.

FYI, waiting only 1 hour on a non real time board before saying "U guyz cant refute my logics, neener neener" is considered poor form.

Actually by saying you would also approve polyarmorous marriages actually PROVES part of the slippery slope argument, as you would allow the next step to occur.

 

[Hollie]

Many on the right seem to fall for the slippery slope logical fallacy that legal recognition of same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy, incestuous marriage or people marrying animals.

Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marrying one's siblings is not analogous to marrying someone not related to you but who is of the same sex. Neither is polygamy or marrying an animal.

False analogy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incestuous offspring have a higher chance of developmental disorders. That is a rational argument.

I think consenting adults should have polygamous marriages recognized as well. They aren't any more harmful than traditional marriages.

Animals can't consent to marriage. End of argument.

Because there is no empirical or rational argument to back up their disagreement with legal recognition of same sex marriage and the argument from religious or traditional stances are obviously weak positions social conservatives fall back on the above logical fallacies.

Agree of disagree?

Discuss below.

Agree. You made a solid argument. Most of the countering arguments I have seen are only founded In religious appeals.

 

[Pop23]

Many on the right seem to fall for the slippery slope logical fallacy that legal recognition of same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy, incestuous marriage or people marrying animals.

Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marrying one's siblings is not analogous to marrying someone not related to you but who is of the same sex. Neither is polygamy or marrying an animal.

False analogy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incestuous offspring have a higher chance of developmental disorders. That is a rational argument.

I think consenting adults should have polygamous marriages recognized as well. They aren't any more harmful than traditional marriages.

Animals can't consent to marriage. End of argument.

Because there is no empirical or rational argument to back up their disagreement with legal recognition of same sex marriage and the argument from religious or traditional stances are obviously weak positions social conservatives fall back on the above logical fallacies.

Agree of disagree?

Discuss below.

I'll take swing

How do you handle consenting adult siblings that wish to marry? Seems to me that you have to treat the same gender siblings differently than the opposite gender siblings.

Just sayin

I'll swing back.

It is not the place of the government to tell people how to live their lives, so long as they do not injure anyone by so doing. If siblings wish to marry, that is their concern. If three men wish to enter into a marriage with two women, that is their concern. So long as the people who wish to enter into a marriage are consenting adults, how they wish to structure that marriage is entirely their concern.

If we were not dealing with the reality of existing law, it might agree. Problem is, the law, and the basis of the law would still prohibit opposing gender siblings from marrying, but there would be no basis to prohibit same gender siblings from a legal marriage. It's a problem that I don't see resolution too.

 

[Katzndogz]

It was once thought that if we allowed interracial marriage, it wouldn't lead to same sex marriage. We now know that the same arguments made in favor of interracial marriage are being made to support same sex marriage. And the arguments to support same sex marriage will be made to support every other kind of coupling.

It's the same as prohibition. The same arguments used against alcohol prohibition are being made now against pot prohibition. And the same arguments against pot prohibition will be used to legalize cocaine, heroin, meth and any other kind of drug you can think of.

Homosexuals wan a line against creeping depravity just like anyone else. They just want that line drawn after them. They just won't be able to do that.

 

[PratchettFan]

I'll take swing

How do you handle consenting adult siblings that wish to marry? Seems to me that you have to treat the same gender siblings differently than the opposite gender siblings.

Just sayin

I'll swing back.

It is not the place of the government to tell people how to live their lives, so long as they do not injure anyone by so doing. If siblings wish to marry, that is their concern. If three men wish to enter into a marriage with two women, that is their concern. So long as the people who wish to enter into a marriage are consenting adults, how they wish to structure that marriage is entirely their concern.

If we were not dealing with the reality of existing law, it might agree. Problem is, the law, and the basis of the law would still prohibit opposing gender siblings from marrying, but there would be not basis to prohibit same gender siblings from a legal marriage. It's a problem that I don't see resolution too.

We will always being dealing with the reality of existing law, which is really just a reflection of the mores of the society. 20 years ago, the discussion of same sex marriage as a serious possibility would have been laughable. 20 years from now, I think it will be the norm. Mores change. So while I see no reason to prevent siblings from marrying I don't seen any significant change in our mores happening in the near future. But the question was, "how would you handle it". I would remove all restrictions on consenting adults. Let them decide how to live their lives.

 

[Pop23]

I'll swing back.

It is not the place of the government to tell people how to live their lives, so long as they do not injure anyone by so doing. If siblings wish to marry, that is their concern. If three men wish to enter into a marriage with two women, that is their concern. So long as the people who wish to enter into a marriage are consenting adults, how they wish to structure that marriage is entirely their concern.

If we were not dealing with the reality of existing law, it might agree. Problem is, the law, and the basis of the law would still prohibit opposing gender siblings from marrying, but there would be not basis to prohibit same gender siblings from a legal marriage. It's a problem that I don't see resolution too.

We will always being dealing with the reality of existing law, which is really just a reflection of the mores of the society. 20 years ago, the discussion of same sex marriage as a serious possibility would have been laughable. 20 years from now, I think it will be the norm. Mores change. So while I see no reason to prevent siblings from marrying I don't seen any significant change in our mores happening in the near future. But the question was, "how would you handle it". I would remove all restrictions on consenting adults. Let them decide how to live their lives.

Think of the marketing campaign, I don't care if it's 20 or 100 years from now. Legalized incest approved.

Again,

Just sayin

 

[PratchettFan]

If we were not dealing with the reality of existing law, it might agree. Problem is, the law, and the basis of the law would still prohibit opposing gender siblings from marrying, but there would be not basis to prohibit same gender siblings from a legal marriage. It's a problem that I don't see resolution too.

We will always being dealing with the reality of existing law, which is really just a reflection of the mores of the society. 20 years ago, the discussion of same sex marriage as a serious possibility would have been laughable. 20 years from now, I think it will be the norm. Mores change. So while I see no reason to prevent siblings from marrying I don't seen any significant change in our mores happening in the near future. But the question was, "how would you handle it". I would remove all restrictions on consenting adults. Let them decide how to live their lives.

Think of the marketing campaign, I don't care if it's 20 or 100 years from now. Legalized incest approved.

Again,

Just sayin

And you said it well. It's a pity the rest of the world doesn't just agree to do what I tell it. Things would be so much easier.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

No refutations?

Is my argument THAT strong?

Hm. Guess I win.

FYI, waiting only 1 hour on a non real time board before saying "U guyz cant refute my logics, neener neener" is considered poor form.

Actually by saying you would also approve polyarmorous marriages actually PROVES part of the slippery slope argument, as you would allow the next step to occur.

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind next time and just type "Bump" since sarcasm doesn't get across to all in written form.

The slippery slope argument is always a logical fallacy and isn't proved or unproved by me being okay with polyamorous relatioships.

And, some might say its the next step following same sex marriage, other might be okay with it but not same sex marriage i.e. some Mormon sects. Since polyamorous relationships have existed since recorded history, I would think its not the next step but a step taken long ago. Either way, it is not analogous. Same sex marriage is different fundamentally from polyamorous marriage.

 

[martybegan]

No refutations?

Is my argument THAT strong?

Hm. Guess I win.

FYI, waiting only 1 hour on a non real time board before saying "U guyz cant refute my logics, neener neener" is considered poor form.

Actually by saying you would also approve polyarmorous marriages actually PROVES part of the slippery slope argument, as you would allow the next step to occur.

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind next time and just type "Bump" since sarcasm doesn't get

across to all in written form.

The slippery slope argument is always a logical fallacy and isn't proved or unproved by me being okay with polyamorous relatioships.

And, some might say its the next step following same sex marriage, other might be okay with it but not same sex marriage i.e. some Mormon sects. Since polyamorous relationships have existed since recorded history, I would think its not the next step but a step taken long ago. Either way, it is not analogous. Same sex marriage is different fundamentally from polyamorous marriage.

No worries on that. It just that the "y u no respond" thing is used by some of the more idiotic trolls on this board, and I assume you dont want to be included in that squad.

As to your main point, Same sex marriage is something not really seen in ANY culture going as far back as history goes back, and yes polygamous (not really polyamerous) marriage has been allowed in some cultures. That being said, why is same sex two person marriage now "the same" as two person heterosexual marriage? One would think that since there is precedence for polygamy, it would be more equal than same sex marriage, right?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Many on the right seem to fall for the slippery slope logical fallacy that legal recognition of same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy, incestuous marriage or people marrying animals.

Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marrying one's siblings is not analogous to marrying someone not related to you but who is of the same sex. Neither is polygamy or marrying an animal.

False analogy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incestuous offspring have a higher chance of developmental disorders. That is a rational argument.

I think consenting adults should have polygamous marriages recognized as well. They aren't any more harmful than traditional marriages.

Animals can't consent to marriage. End of argument.

Because there is no empirical or rational argument to back up their disagreement with legal recognition of same sex marriage and the argument from religious or traditional stances are obviously weak positions social conservatives fall back on the above logical fallacies.

Agree of disagree?

Discuss below.

I'll take swing

How do you handle consenting adult siblings that wish to marry? Seems to me that you have to treat the same gender siblings differently than the opposite gender siblings.

Just sayin

Because of the potential harm to potential offspring, there is empirical evidence and logical reasoning for an argument against opposite gender siblings marrying (or even having intercourse). Because same sex marriage is an equality under the law issue, then same sex gender sibling marrying would still be illegal.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If we were not dealing with the reality of existing law, it might agree. Problem is, the law, and the basis of the law would still prohibit opposing gender siblings from marrying, but there would be no basis to prohibit same gender siblings from a legal marriage. It's a problem that I don't see resolution too.

The law prohibits the marriage of siblings (and other close biological family members), the gender composition of the couples is irrelevant to that section of the (various) laws.


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

Many on the right seem to fall for the slippery slope logical fallacy that legal recognition of same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy, incestuous marriage or people marrying animals.

Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marrying one's siblings is not analogous to marrying someone not related to you but who is of the same sex. Neither is polygamy or marrying an animal.

False analogy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incestuous offspring have a higher chance of developmental disorders. That is a rational argument.

I think consenting adults should have polygamous marriages recognized as well. They aren't any more harmful than traditional marriages.

Animals can't consent to marriage. End of argument.

Because there is no empirical or rational argument to back up their disagreement with legal recognition of same sex marriage and the argument from religious or traditional stances are obviously weak positions social conservatives fall back on the above logical fallacies.

Agree of disagree?

Discuss below.

I'll take swing

How do you handle consenting adult siblings that wish to marry? Seems to me that you have to treat the same gender siblings differently than the opposite gender siblings.

Just sayin

Because of the potential harm to potential offspring, there is empirical evidence and logical reasoning for an argument against opposite gender siblings marrying (or even having intercourse). Because same sex marriage is an equality under the law issue, then same sex gender sibling marrying would still be illegal.

So in the end you are still making a judgement call on what is considered equal, and what is not considered equal. What is the diffrerence between where you are drawing the line, and those who draw the line at the point of same sex vs. heterosexual couples?

Your argument is also similar to the "well gay people can still marry, they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex" argument that same sex marriage supporters dismiss out of hand.

 

[martybegan]

If we were not dealing with the reality of existing law, it might agree. Problem is, the law, and the basis of the law would still prohibit opposing gender siblings from marrying, but there would be no basis to prohibit same gender siblings from a legal marriage. It's a problem that I don't see resolution too.

The law prohibits the marriage of siblings (and other close biological family members), the gender composition of the couples is irrelevant to that section of the (various) laws.


>>>>

but if equal protection holds unlimited sway, then by that logic denying someone the "right" to marry just because they are siblings (or 1st cousins in some states) is unconsitutional.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If we were not dealing with the reality of existing law, it might agree. Problem is, the law, and the basis of the law would still prohibit opposing gender siblings from marrying, but there would be no basis to prohibit same gender siblings from a legal marriage. It's a problem that I don't see resolution too.

The law prohibits the marriage of siblings (and other close biological family members), the gender composition of the couples is irrelevant to that section of the (various) laws.


>>>>

but if equal protection holds unlimited sway, then by that logic denying someone the "right" to marry just because they are siblings (or 1st cousins in some states) is unconsitutional.

Equal Protection doesn't hold unlimited sway.

Equal protection means that laws in general have to have a rational basis and equal application to all - if that case applies then the law is Constitutional.

However if the law targets a specific group for invidious or capricious reasons, the the rational basis test is not longer the standard - it then moves to strict scrutiny of the law and the government must show a compelling government interest to justify treating the targeted group differently. When it comes to gender based issued, the courts have used what is called "heightened scrutiny" or "intermediate scrutiny" which falls somewhere between "rational basis" and "strict scrutiny".


So, Equal Protection does not hold "unlimited sway" but the government is required to demonstrate a compelling government interest to justify not conforming to that standard.


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

The law prohibits the marriage of siblings (and other close biological family members), the gender composition of the couples is irrelevant to that section of the (various) laws.


>>>>

but if equal protection holds unlimited sway, then by that logic denying someone the "right" to marry just because they are siblings (or 1st cousins in some states) is unconsitutional.

Equal Protection doesn't hold unlimited sway.

Equal protection means that laws in general have to have a rational basis and equal application to all - if that case applies then the law is Constitutional.

However if the law targets a specific group for invidious or capricious reasons, the the rational basis test is not longer the standard - it then moves to strict scrutiny of the law and the government must show a compelling government interest to justify treating the targeted group differently. When it comes to gender based issued, the courts have used what is called "heightened scrutiny" or "intermediate scrutiny" which falls somewhere between "rational basis" and "strict scrutiny".


So, Equal Protection does not hold "unlimited sway" but the government is required to demonstrate a compelling government interest to justify not conforming to that standard.


>>>>

Ask most same sex marriage supporters, and you would not get the well reasoned response you provided. They would just spout "equal protection" and not understand the meaning of it.

Where we disagree is how the burden is placed on a given law, respecting the fact that said law was passed by the will of the people, and not say, by some executive fiat. To me there is no compelling reason consitutionally EITHER way on the issue of same sex marriage, the consitution does not ban it, nor does it grant it as a right. Therefore it reverts to the legislature to determine the nature of the government recognized legal contract, not the courts to impose thier will upon the rest of us.