This essay is divided into two sections, a theory section and an analysis of a news article
Instead of viewing the legalisation of gay marriage as fixing discrimination against sexual preference, they see it as perverting their sacred concept of marriage with something weird, so naturally other weird things can be legalised now.
Naturally some people will see legalisation of some type of marriage as progress for legalising a different type of marriage they want, but there is no causal relationship between the two. People who want to legalise something are going to promote their cause regardless, and the precedence of legalising gay marriage does not affect other types of marriages. It does not set a precedence because this is not the first time a “non-traditional” type of marriage has been legalised. In 1967 the United States Supreme Court legalised interracial marriage, which also had public opposition.
There is little difference between discrimination against skin colour and discrimination against sexual preference. Despite this there was no slippery slope effect after the legalisation of interracial marriage. This is about letting any human beings getting married, it is about fixing a deficiency. It is not about expanding on something that is complete and fine as it is now.
The difference between a real slippery slope effect and the slippery slope fallacy is causality. There is no causal relationship between eliminating discrimination in a legal state recognised union and legalising forms of marriage that cater to specific sexual desires. Interracial marriage and gay marriage are not just “strange” forms of marriage, they allow for all human beings to marry the person they love. If you think these forms of marriage are strange it is because you are not open minded enough to recognise that sexual preference is arbitrary, there is no rational basis for marriage only being allowed for a man with a woman.
Marriage, specifically in this case, state recognised marriage, is simply a way to legally declare to the state that you and your partner should be considered as presumably permanent partners who have rights to facilitate them having a family and to share their belongings. There is no reason a couple should be deprived of these things simply because the state does not like who their partner is.
Religious beliefs have no place in this discussion because this is a purely legal discussion. The United States has a separation of church and state explicitly stated in its constitution and bill of rights, and does not have an official religion. Those who think the United States should sponsor or promote the beliefs of a religion, especially in legal matters, are imposing their beliefs onto others without justification. That is no different than theocratic authoritarian states such as Iran.
You are free to believe and act as you wish, but you do not have the right to deny couples the rights that heterosexual white couples have. Even if you do not approve of their marriage or even them being together, that is not a basis for the restriction of their rights. If you believe that your religion opposes their marriage, then you should promote them not being able to be married in your religion’s churches, mosques, temples, or whatever religious building your religion has, but that has nothing to do with legal matters. If you believe that the United States should be more like Iran or Israel and start making laws based on religious texts, then you do not understand the freedom that the United States promotes so ardently.
“Threeway Marriages May Now Be Legalized”
“Mr. Conservative is the top website for news, political cartoons, breaking news, republican election news, conservative facts and commentary on political elections.”
Yeah and then people will be marrying horses and anime pillows.
This is a slippery slope fallacy the right wing use to justify their position against gay marriage. This article uses a picture with three brides, one of whom has blue hair to make this issue seem even more out of the ordinary and fetishist. It then goes on to talk about the Green Party in Britain considering promoting polyamourous rights. The Green Party has only recently won a position in parliament, and Green parties are generally considered to do poorly in elections, especially for presidency or prime minister. It also says that they were only “open” to the idea, not that it was a major part of their campaign.
They then openly state that “one of the main criticisms people have for gay marriage is that it would create a “slippery slope” that would result in marriage being defined in many ridiculous ways.” While they say as if it were a justified criticism it seems more as a way to relate to “conservative” readers by using a common fallacy that people have heard before and are more likely to believe. Further showing their bias they describe the possible resulting marriage “definitions” as “ridiculous” without any justification. Instead they simply leave the definition and implications open to interpretation so that the readers can imagine whatever horrors of marriage they can think of.
In the next paragraph they then give examples of such horrors from a British minister of parliament Matthew Offord, who “compares same sex marriage to polygamy (not once, but twice) and incest “-http://labourlist.org/2012/12/tory-mp-compares-same-sex-marriage-to-polygamy-not-once-but-twice-and-incest/
They do not however give an explanation as to why there would be slippery slope effect.
They then give a single example without any link or citation of what is presumably a study that shows that polygamy increases the probability of heart disease, possibly to give an appearance of a scientific basis to oppose polyamourous relationships.
The study shows that
“Men with multiple wives were more likely to be older, live in a rural area, have a higher income and also have a history of coronary artery bypass grafting”
“Polygamy may be more frequent in rural areas because it is more culturally acceptable and getting married at a young age is more common”
“there was a higher percentage of national citizens residing in rural areas… Men with multiple wives have to be well supported financially”, enforced by the fact that very few women work in Saudi Arabia since they have very few rights. Naturally a husband with many wives will have to work more to support more family members. This article says that older people who need to work more have more stress. It does not report a causal relationship between polygamy and heart disease. It should also be noted that these high socially relative issues would be different in the United States.
Finally, the article ends by essentially blaming Europe for “[paving] the way for gay marriage to be brought up in the U.S.”. This makes it sound like Europe is responsible for the US considering legalising gay marriage. Gay marriage is a civil rights issue that every state with a regard for human rights should bring up. Finally they use two fallacies, a slippery slope fallacy “Should Britain legalize threeway marriages, it won’t be long before it makes it’s way to the U.S.” and a religious appeal to fear: “God only knows what’s next…”
While this doesn’t affect the truth of their article and should not be taken as an ad hominim argument, it is interesting to note that the Breitbart article they mention also happens to look surprisingly similar to theirs.
Legal marriage is not the same as religious marriage, let people have the same legal rights you have no matter who they are.