Thread: Legalizing Gay Marriage: The 'Slippery Slope' Argument doesn't exist

It drives me up the wall when those against gay marriage use the 'slippery slope' argument. You'll hear idiots like Bill O'Reilly on television use it all the time in defense to legalizing gay marriage.

"If you legalize gay marriage, than what's next? People should be able to marry turtles?"

That's a ridiculous notion. The only reason legalizing gay marriage is a pressing issue right now is because there's a significant portion of the population that is gay and that wants to marry a same-sex partner. On top of that, half the population of heterosexuals have no problem with it.

Additionally, if idiots like O'Reilly want to use the 'slippery slope' argument, why do they choose to use that excuse now. Shouldn't the notion of the 'slippery slope' gone in effect after legalizing man-woman marriage? You know, something like this...

"If you allow a man to marry a woman, what's next? People of the same sex can marry each other?"

Discuss.

Originally Posted by BringDownMugabe

It drives me up the wall when those against gay marriage use the 'slippery slope' argument. You'll hear idiots like Bill O'Reilly on television use it all the time in defense to legalizing gay marriage.

"If you legalize gay marriage, than what's next? People should be able to marry turtles?"

That's a ridiculous notion. The only reason legalizing gay marriage is a pressing issue right now is because there's a significant portion of the population that is gay and that wants to marry a same-sex partner. On top of that, half the population of heterosexuals have no problem with it.

Additionally, if idiots like O'Reilly want to use the 'slippery slope' argument, why do they choose to use that excuse now. Shouldn't the notion of the 'slippery slope' gone in effect after legalizing man-woman marriage? You know, something like this...

"If you allow a man to marry a woman, what's next? People of the same sex can marry each other?"

Discuss.

The slippery slope is correct when behaviors, lifestyle choices and sexual attractions are designated as a "right".

The slippery slope would not be in effect if gay marriage became legal through our process of voting or through legislative representation.

Originally Posted by CKW

The slippery slope is correct when behaviors, lifestyle choices and sexual attractions are designated as a "right".

The slippery slope would not be in effect if gay marriage became legal through our process of voting or through legislative representation.

Well since gay marriage is a legislation process, it's not a slippery slope effect.

The real concern is polygamy. The American population is 1% Muslim, but as that percentage increases the demand for legal polygamy will increase. What shall we say to them?

Originally Posted by BringDownMugabe

Well since gay marriage is a legislation process, it's not a slippery slope effect.

Gay marriage has achieved mostly through judicial. Ya know...those 4 or 5 unelected opinionated guys on the bench.

If marriage is no longer for the purpose of procreation and/or uniting families through bloodlines then why not marry turtles? I'm serious. If we're redefining it to mean providing financial shelter for someone you love...why not? People frickin' love their pets. Some pets are --wait, most pets are more loyal than people.

Most of the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage could be accomplished with forms a lawyer could prepare in his office. And yet, very few gays take that option. Why?

Only Religion promulgates dogma that may prohibit some forms of Iron Age morals; probably for health reasons.

There is no basis under any office of public trust of the United States; for any authority to deny or disparage the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several States.

Article 6 of our Supreme law of the Land specifically enumerates that even Ten religious Commandments must be less supreme than our temporal, secular, and civil law of the land.

Originally Posted by Zosiasmom

If marriage is no longer for the purpose of procreation and/or uniting families through bloodlines then why not marry turtles? I'm serious. If we're redefining it to mean providing financial shelter for someone you love...why not? People frickin' love their pets. Some pets are --wait, most pets are more loyal than people.

Our supreme law of the land only covers Persons. There is no need for a private marriage to necessarily become a public act; except for civil legal purposes.

Originally Posted by CKW

The slippery slope is correct when behaviors, lifestyle choices and sexual attractions are designated as a "right".

Why is marriage a fundamental right essential to the fulfillment of happiness when two people of different races want to marry, but a behavior, lifestyle choice and sexual attraction when two members of the same sex want to marry? Sexuality is never brought up in the defense of people's fundamental right to marry, unless people are talking about gays marrying for some reason. Yet they marry for the same reason as anyone else would choose. It's about establishing the legal bonds with the person you love, either way. And as with all rights, even fundamental rights, there are reasonable restrictions given the consideration of age and the ability to give consent, as well as similar situation.