Thursday, February 25, 2010

Checkmate

Alan writes:
What would be your objection to legalizing same-sex and multi-partner marriages at the same time? What unacceptable harm do you imagine will occur?

And so I win the argument.

The implication here is that there is a slippery slope from gay marriage to polygamy, but that the slippery slope doesn't matter.

4 comments:

Bill Flanigen said...

I would have no objection at all to legalizing them both at the same time. (Unlike a lot of people who bring up the polygamist argument, I don't do it in order to discredit gay marriage.) My objection is to wave after wave of marriage equality advocates who think that we don't have to do this in order to remain consistent in our principles.

Bah. I am done thinking about this issue for a long time.

rahowe said...

Your thoughts on victory are certainly curious.

Your inference might be that there is a slippery slope, but I have flatly asserted previously that there is not. There is absolutely no implication that there is in my statement. I have refuted it clearly.

If you were to attempt to answer my questions, you would find that you have different reasons for opposing same-sex marriage than you have for opposing multi-partner marriage. That would end your argument that the two are the same and your refusal to accept my arguments that they are fundamentally different. Give it a try.

FLG said...

"Your inference might be that there is a slippery slope, but I have flatly asserted previously that there is not. There is absolutely no implication that there is in my statement. I have refuted it clearly."

If there is no slippery slope, then there's no reason to consider why polygamy is bad. We can just assert it, and then talk about the slippery slope. Shifting ground toward looking at what is wrong with polygamy is a de facto acknowledgment that there is a slippery slope.


"If you were to attempt to answer my questions, you would find that you have different reasons for opposing same-sex marriage than you have for opposing multi-partner marriage."

Perhaps, but that's would consequentialist argument. Therefore, it's no longer about rights. It's about how this one only has smaller or less dangerous consequences.

"That would end your argument that the two are the same and your refusal to accept my arguments that they are fundamentally different."

My point is that I don't see them as fundamentally different. Just different. And I have no rationale for allowing gay marriage that does not allow for polygamy.

Withywindle said...

In arguing, too, the parson own'd his skill,
For even though vanquish'd, he could argue still.

 
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.