I now pronounce you Politics and Controversy: Santorum and the Slippery Slope

DanyBoy wrote:
Amoebic wrote:

I just can't follow the rationale that same-sex marriages would open the door to polygamy. What the...how does that even...buh? How on earth are the two things even related?! Do people actually think like that, or do you think that it's a weak farce that everyone knows is crap, but they're just throwing it out there to as a way to be offensive towards homosexuals without straight up saying "ew, no homos?"

Or is that seriously the best they can come up with? I'm having trouble coming to terms with the fact that grown adults could rationally come up with a statement like that.

I don't even really understand how it's an argument against gay marriage in the first place, even if the logical connections were there.

"We better not legalize this type of contract between consenting adults! If we do, it might open the door for other kinds of contracts between consenting adults. Oh noes!!"

You can also say that about anything that has been discovered or invented. Anything can be a gateway for something else that is undesirable.

We can't build cars because that might lead to reckless driving.

We can't manufacture syringes because that may lead to drug abuse.

We can't allow those Wright Brothers to build that plane because someone might fly one of those things into a building.

Etc.

It is a silly argument made by a desperate man.

Ultimately what they should probably do is separate marriage entirely from the state, and if necessary replace it with some sort of 'household' system calibrated to whatever the policy is supposed to be regarding residential incentives/disincentives.

Of course, this will not happen because the political establishment is too invested in the ridiculous third-rail issue they've built atop the 'ew'/secret boner reaction some people have to the idea of different forms of sexuality. Gay marriage generates campaign revenue, and then polygamy will generate campaign revenue, and hell, if they thought they could generate campaign revenue by lobbying for and against marrying animals they would do that too. I get the impression even the Democrats are more interested in lobbying for gay marriage than actually achieving it.

DanyBoy wrote:
Amoebic wrote:

I just can't follow the rationale that same-sex marriages would open the door to polygamy. What the...how does that even...buh? How on earth are the two things even related?! Do people actually think like that, or do you think that it's a weak farce that everyone knows is crap, but they're just throwing it out there to as a way to be offensive towards homosexuals without straight up saying "ew, no homos?"

Or is that seriously the best they can come up with? I'm having trouble coming to terms with the fact that grown adults could rationally come up with a statement like that.

I don't even really understand how it's an argument against gay marriage in the first place, even if the logical connections were there.

"We better not legalize this type of contract between consenting adults! If we do, it might open the door for other kinds of contracts between consenting adults. Oh noes!!"

That's my point. It's not an argument against gay marriage. If anything it shows just how ridiculous it is that the government sanctions marriage beyond civil contracts. To me that's the lesson. Get it out of the government. Let gays marry, let people marry 3 people. I don't really care. As long as there is a legal framework to handle custody, property, child welfare and decisions of medical necessity I could care less what arrangements people decide on.

The fear mongering is despicable, but the legal concerns people such as Santorum have aren't without merit.

Man and woman (of same color) marriage leads to man and woman marriage (of different colors) leads to Gay marriage leads to polygamous marriage leads to cyborg + human marriage leads to cyborg + cyborg marriage leads to cyborg + robot marriage leads to robot + robot marriage leads to human + robot marriage...

=

DON'T DATE ROBOTS!

DSGamer wrote:

The fear mongering is despicable, but the legal concerns people such as Santorum have aren't without merit.

Of course the legal concerns aren't without merit. However, Santorum is not the white knight on this issue as his motives are very questionable.

That being said, if polygamy were legalized, I am sure we would muddle through the concern about the legalities of it all and work something out.

plavonica wrote:

Man and woman (of same color) marriage leads to man and woman marriage (of different colors) leads to Gay marriage leads to polygamous marriage leads to cyborg + human marriage leads to cyborg + cyborg marriage leads to cyborg + robot marriage leads to robot + robot marriage leads to human + robot marriage...

=

DON'T DATE ROBOTS!

:D

"You allow wizards to marry, what next? You have people marrying minotaurs, centaurs. Then what you got, you got minotaurs marrying centaurs, what's that get you? I suppose it gets you a child that's one quarter horse, one quarter bull, uh, I'm not very good at fractions—I do know there's a lot of livestock in that child."

You know, a lot of people seem to forget that the term "slippery slope" frequently describes a logical fallacy rather than a valid argument. This is almost always the case in political rhetoric, where it is used as a shorthand way of 'proving' that A leads to Z without actually addressing the validity of A->B, B->C, and so on. When people say that gay marriage will lead to legalizing sex with dogs and then justify it by saying "it's a slippery slope!", that is akin to saying "Raising taxes won't fix the economy because you f*ck dogs: It's an ad hominem!"

Letting gays marry would naturally inevitably lead to the fall of the American nation! It's a false dichotomy.

Phoenix Rev wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

The fear mongering is despicable, but the legal concerns people such as Santorum have aren't without merit.

Of course the legal concerns aren't without merit. However, Santorum is not the white knight on this issue as his motives are very questionable.

Of course. I already said his motives were flawed and based purely in his bias and throwing red meat to the Christian base. I'm simply saying that just because his reasons are wrong doesn't mean his logic, in this one very specific case, isn't. I think that's the whole reason for this thread, because people can't separate why Santorum is saying this from whether it's true or not. I'm in the camp of people who can separate the motivation from the logic.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

That being said, if polygamy were legalized, I am sure we would muddle through the concern about the legalities of it all and work something out.

Absolutely. While it's legitimate to say that X may lead to legal challenges on Y it doesn't mean you don't do X. In fact, it's a good argument, once again, for government getting out of the business of legislating X and Y. Those are all contracts. End of story. Then churches, synagogues, mosques, whatever can provide whatever meaning you'd like to imbue from a ceremony / tradition standpoint.

I believe history will paint those against gay marriage the same as interracial marriage:

IMAGE(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Little_Rock_integration_protest.jpg/500px-Little_Rock_integration_protest.jpg)

4xis.black wrote:

You know, a lot of people seem to forget that the term "slippery slope" frequently describes a logical fallacy rather than a valid argument. This is almost always the case in political rhetoric, where it is used as a shorthand way of 'proving' that A leads to Z without actually addressing the validity of A->B, B->C, and so on. When people say that gay marriage will lead to legalizing sex with dogs and then justify it by saying "it's a slippery slope!", that is akin to saying "Raising taxes won't fix the economy because you f*ck dogs: It's an ad hominem!"

Santorum presupposes that lawmakers can somehow control what society wants by simply making laws. Gay marriage is a socially accepted construct by most people already; it's not recognized in law, but those laws are simply outdated and don't reflect that reality.

You aren't planting any kind of seed of an idea in anybody by changing the law, you're just playing catch up with what society already accepts.

I have no doubt that some day polygamy will be accepted the same way we accept homosexuality now, but when that happens the laws will trail behind that acceptance in exactly the same way. The idea that "marriage is between a man and a woman" is laughably anachronistic, and no law anybody makes will change anything about that.

gore wrote:

I have no doubt that some day polygamy will be accepted the same way we accept homosexuality now, but when that happens the laws will trail behind that acceptance in exactly the same way. The idea that "marriage is between a man and a woman" is laughably anachronistic, and no law anybody makes will change anything about that.

I honestly believe that the far right way of thinking is dying a slow death and in a a generation or so, dinosaurs like Santorum will be relegated to the same scrap heap has feudal lords and slave owners. The youngest generation is poised to be the most open-minded, inclusive generation in history. That's a deathbell for people like Santorum.

I actually didn't mean either war. Those were Robear's words. I simply meant that women got the right to vote and then after that began entering the workforce in greater numbers. Just that. That's all I was saying.

Relax. I was not putting words in your mouth. I was simply pointing out that women began entering the workforce in greater numbers *before* they got the vote, not after as you said. No big deal. Suffrage was probably helped along by the previous years of increased exposure to women in the workplace during WWI.

Amoebic wrote:

I just can't follow the rationale that same-sex marriages would open the door to polygamy. What the...how does that even...buh? How on earth are the two things even related?! Do people actually think like that, or do you think that it's a weak farce that everyone knows is crap, but they're just throwing it out there to as a way to be offensive towards homosexuals without straight up saying "ew, no homos?"

No, as you can see many people on this forum think that same logic is sound, and those of us who do all think that gay marriage should be allowed, and I think most of us, because we do see them logically the same, think that by the same metric polygamous marriage should be allowed.

From how you said this connection would make people go "ew, no homos" it seems like you think that polygamous relationships are gross, so an attempt to link them to homosexual marriage has to be an attempt to make homosexuals seem gross. We are taking it the opposite way though, saying that homosexual marriages are fine and positing that that means that polygamous marriages should be fine too.

Yonder wrote:

No, as you can see many people on this forum think that same logic is sound, and those of us who do all think that gay marriage should be allowed, and I think most of us, because we do see them logically the same, think that by the same metric polygamous marriage should be allowed.

From how you said this connection would make people go "ew, no homos" it seems like you think that polygamous relationships are gross, so an attempt to link them to homosexual marriage has to be an attempt to make homosexuals seem gross. We are taking it the opposite way though, saying that homosexual marriages are fine and positing that that means that polygamous marriages should be fine too.

Society will always have the option to allow polygamy or anything else it believes is in the best interest of its public policy.

However, it is important to point out that in Massachusetts, the state that has had gay marriage for almost a decade now, there is no legislative action on revamping the polygamy statutes nor repealing the bestiality or incest statutory prohibitions.

So, while Santorum may have logic on his side, reality is certainly not his ally at the current time.

Miley Cyrus roundup, things Santorum and beyond:

http://blogs.laweekly.com/westcoasts...

Amoebic wrote:

I just can't follow the rationale that same-sex marriages would open the door to polygamy. What the...how does that even...buh? How on earth are the two things even related?! Do people actually think like that, or do you think that it's a weak farce that everyone knows is crap, but they're just throwing it out there to as a way to be offensive towards homosexuals without straight up saying "ew, no homos?"

Homosexuality doesn't lead to polyamory, but the realization that state recognition of some relationships[color=red]*[/color] but not others is arbitrary could lead to someone deciding that polygamy should have the same protection as monogamous relationships of whatever gender/race combinations people choose.

FWIW, I do think that Santorum believes his line here. He has a history of equating homosexuality with not only polygamy, but adultery and incest as well.

2003 Interview[/url]]SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.

[color=red]*[/color]With the caveat that we're only discussing relationships between consenting adults here.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

FWIW, I do think that Santorum believes his line here. He has a history of equating homosexuality with not only polygamy, but adultery and incest as well.

That makes me realize that no-fault divorce is a bigger step towards polygamy than legalizing same-sex marriage.

The funny thing is, the more Santorum brings up polygamy and equates it to same-sex marriage, the more I think he's doing to legitimize polygamy in the eyes of a lot of people.

Today, Rick Santorum just reached new heights in douchebaggery.

For the second time in as many days, Rick Santorum waded into the issue of gay marriage, suggesting it was so important for children to have both a father and mother that an imprisoned father was preferable to a same-sex parent.

Citing the work of one anti-poverty expert, Santorum said, "He found that even fathers in jail who had abandoned their kids were still better than no father at all to have in their children's lives."

That man has no soul.

So Father in Jail + Mother > Mother....in what way does that prove Father in Jail + Mother > 2 Mothers? Also doesn't that terrible logic also lead to the idea that 2 fathers is even better?

very old Santorum quote wrote:

"All of us have heard people say, 'I privately am against abortion, homosexual marriage, stem cell research, cloning. But who am I to decide that it's not right for somebody else?' It sounds good, but it is the corruption of freedom of conscience."

Unless you can and do impose your personal morality on everyone else your 'freedom of conscience' becomes corrupt! (but wouldn't that mean those other groups are also entitled to... oh wait, no, it's only valid for Santorum's morality.)

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Today, Rick Santorum just reached new heights in douchebaggery.

For the second time in as many days, Rick Santorum waded into the issue of gay marriage, suggesting it was so important for children to have both a father and mother that an imprisoned father was preferable to a same-sex parent.

Citing the work of one anti-poverty expert, Santorum said, "He found that even fathers in jail who had abandoned their kids were still better than no father at all to have in their children's lives."

That man has no soul.

The man is a joke. He's silly, sometimes outright hilarious, often offensive in content, and ultimately should not be taken seriously. A gorram joke.

He is a joke, like most of the GOP candidates, because he does not understand the issues he rails about. He was interviewed not too long ago (on Meet The Press, I think) where he talked about, as President, he would take us to war with Iran if they "crossed the line" or something. I wonder how he would respond if asked about the limits of presidential authority regarding taking the country to war (as in, it's technically the responsibility of Congress). And as with most small-gov'ment republicans, how can he advocate for significant downsizing of the government while simultaneously desiring to maintain thousands of military bases all over the world?

Yonder wrote:
Amoebic wrote:

I just can't follow the rationale that same-sex marriages would open the door to polygamy. What the...how does that even...buh? How on earth are the two things even related?! Do people actually think like that, or do you think that it's a weak farce that everyone knows is crap, but they're just throwing it out there to as a way to be offensive towards homosexuals without straight up saying "ew, no homos?"

No, as you can see many people on this forum think that same logic is sound, and those of us who do all think that gay marriage should be allowed, and I think most of us, because we do see them logically the same, think that by the same metric polygamous marriage should be allowed.

From how you said this connection would make people go "ew, no homos" it seems like you think that polygamous relationships are gross, so an attempt to link them to homosexual marriage has to be an attempt to make homosexuals seem gross. We are taking it the opposite way though, saying that homosexual marriages are fine and positing that that means that polygamous marriages should be fine too.

Sorry to confuse you, that's not what I meant at all.

I was trying to fathom what possible connection there could be between gay marriage and poly marriage, and wondering if this whole "one will lead to the other" is just a strawman because the people who are opposed to gay marriage don't want to run purely on the "we don't like gays 'cause they're icky" platform alone. Sorry I wasn't more clear.

I have no negative opinions of poly relationships, personally. My limited experience with one was positive, and I fully support those who are willing to commit to them long-term.

Amoebic wrote:

I was trying to fathom what possible connection there could be between gay marriage and poly marriage, and wondering if this whole "one will lead to the other" is just a strawman because the people who are opposed to gay marriage don't want to run purely on the "we don't like gays 'cause they're icky" platform alone.

If the argument is that society's laws can't reflect its morals without some objective benefit, that has implications on any number of other issues.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Amoebic wrote:

I was trying to fathom what possible connection there could be between gay marriage and poly marriage, and wondering if this whole "one will lead to the other" is just a strawman because the people who are opposed to gay marriage don't want to run purely on the "we don't like gays 'cause they're icky" platform alone.

If the argument is that society's laws can't reflect its morals without some objective benefit, that has implications on any number of other issues.

On the other hand, the argument that society's laws can't reflect its morals without some objective benefit when the prohibited conduct is intimate between consenting adults has far fewer implications.

So, um what does this have to do with jobs, the deficit, federal spending? I enjoy a fabulous, lavender smoke screen as much as the next guy. It just seems a more prudent campaign would center around the issues most people care about.

KingGorilla wrote:

So, um what does this have to do with jobs, the deficit, federal spending? I enjoy a fabulous, lavender smoke screen as much as the next guy. It just seems a more prudent campaign would center around the issues most people care about.

This has always been Santorum's shtick, though.

In a primary dominated by people who agree with each other on practically everything of substance (excepting Paul and Huntsman, who have more nuanced positions and are therefore simply ignored), being the most super-Christian, poly-bashing, gay-hating mothaf*cka around is the way Santorum distinguishes himself from the pack a bit.

CheezePavilion wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

If the argument is that society's laws can't reflect its morals without some objective benefit, that has implications on any number of other issues.

On the other hand, the argument that society's laws can't reflect its morals without some objective benefit when the prohibited conduct is intimate between consenting adults has far fewer implications.

True, but that's also a much weaker argument. Your addition is already a subset of "no objective benefit", correct? I mean, Kennedy spent a whole section on that in Lawrence v Texas, but making the case that general logic is only applicable to a specific case without a real explanation is essentially saying "I don't like this law so I'm sniping it".

And I think that either "no objective benefit" or "sniping a law I don't like" can actually be abused or result in bad outcomes. So, there's the concern.

I would argue that ending systematic discrimination has often been viewed as an objective benefit by the United States.

KingGorilla wrote:

So, um what does this have to do with jobs, the deficit, federal spending? I enjoy a fabulous, lavender smoke screen as much as the next guy. It just seems a more prudent campaign would center around the issues most people care about.

Actually the far right candidates like Perry and Santorum have tied stuff like this. When they say kings like "returning to the values that made America great" they are implying that implementing these conservative values will impact several areas of the nation.