T Nation

Slippery Slope Predicted?


#1

You'll have to forgive the fact that this article is not the original, but as I was already on the NRO reading on the IRS I figured I would just take this straight off there. You can read the original article in Slate.

"Lessons in Marriage from a Poly-amorist" http://www.nationalreview.com/article/362141/lesson-marriage-polyamorist-mona-charen

Beans, you were right. And...I don't remember if it was Pat or Sloth that called it, but um...looks like it took less time than I thought for somebody to seize the line of argument.

The thread or argument is not fully evolved yet of course, but it looks like it is going to come up much sooner than I otherwise would have considered likely. Interesting.


#2

Pandora's Box is now open.


#3

Ok, so you're practically inviting the 'I told you so's'....who's first?


#4

Well, yeah. What's a vastly more widespread phenomenon, the homosexual lifestyle? Or, for example, guys wanting more than one lady sex partner....Predisposition!

The only non-"bigoted" position was that "married" should simply come to mean "US adult citizen." Single, gay, non-sexual arrangements, romantic, non-romantic, 1,2, 30 partners, etc., etc. Marriage became an institution for individual expression. Basically, what it is has been thrown open so wide, it actually isn't anything at all. It's like piercing your nose, now. Just, potentially, much more painful.

There is no longer a just argument for preventing consenting adults to form any and all "marriage" arrangements the human imagination can come up with. "Bigotry" was always a phony argument to allow a whole one other arrangement, discriminating against all others still left behind, without the justification of heterosexual coupling being naturally reproductive.


#5

"...justice demands that his wishes be given the same legal recognition as monogamous heterosexuals and in many states, homosexuals."

Isn't that already the case?


#6

Not sure what you're saying?


#7

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#8

Is there a law saying a man cannot have more than one sex partner? What legal recognition do monogamous heterosexuals have vs non monogamous ones?


#9

They want to be able to get married to all of them....and allow the same benefits for all of them, the same as a heterosexual marriage or a homosexual one.


#10

Oh. But I see the need for multiple sex partners being mentioned which does not mean need for multiple wives.


#11

It says they want to be treated the same as the other couples....currently polygamy is illegal.

And what legal reason would you have to deny then the right to get married to as many women as they want?


#12

Is a set of articles published by a second-rate news outlet which has a profit interest in controversy--is this fulfillment of the prophecy?

I could find much stranger editorials being tossed around the world of internet news.


#13

Once a state begins earnestly considering the legalization of polygamy, then I'll agree re: slippery slopes.


#14

Well the first step to being treated the same as other couples is to remain a couple.


#15

Not sure what you mean, in Utah and Idaho alone there are thousands of families with one husband and many "wifes".....what legal reason is there that they should not be able to be married?


#16

I think it was a joke. Like, if you want to be treated like a couple (2) you probably should remian a couple (2).


#17

The slippery slope that was discussed earlier, is that now virtually anybody has a legal argument on why they should be able to be married.


#18

Ya, I agree with you.


#19

But even when gay marriage wasn't an issue, polygamy was. So if gay marriage were to be shot down, polygamists would still complain.


#20

Yes but they would not have newly passed LEGAL precedent on their side....as they do now.

Lets not forget the pedo perverts who are going to argue that they should be able to marry their underage paramours.

Slippery slope.