There is no slippery slop? are you sure?

I love this argument. They keep trying to tell me the slippery slop argument is some sort of logical fallacy. I keep saying but logically once you allow same sex marriage you have no choice but to allow polygamy. It is a logical consequence of removing the children from the scenario and making it about love that the number TWO in question becomes an accident. That means it does not really matter anymore. Its irrelevant. I get told all the time this is mean, this is absurd. Ahh, but do we not live in an absurd world. Being mean to children and women is considered equal rights. So read this because I live in the absurd nation of Australia. This is not happening in the back ground but very much out in the open.

anybody still think the one does not logically lead to the other. Because the activists seem to think that they do. You see these activists are using all the SSM arguments to justify there new “relationship”. “they can’t help it if they love more than one person.” That is the actual argument that is being made. That did not even take long. Any thoughts? Anyone want to still say that these things are completely different and that one won’t logically lead to the other. I mean “oh my goodness batman”

“For too long has Australia denied people the right to marry the ones they care about. We find this abhorrent. We believe that everyone should be allowed to marry their partners, and that the law should never be a barrier to love. And that’s why we demand nothing less than the full recognition of polyamorous families.”

I have to say that I like the line that they are tired of being the bottom of a slippery slope!

But seriously, in addition to this, another study came out recently which purported to show that adult-very yong person sexual relationships have positive benefits for the younger person… that’s in addition to the one I read about years ago, so I know of two.

Frankly, I’ve always through that polygamy was a steep climb back up the slope from forcing everyone to call homosexual relations a marriage.

How could that be? Scripture does not say man leaves his mother and clings to his wives. LOL.

I don’t think the two are much different, really. Not insofar as their sinfulness is concerned at least.

I would accept Polyamorous relationships as Marriage long before I’ll accept same sex unions as such.
There’s an enormous difference:
A polygamous relationship remains intrinsically ordered to the procreation and rearing of children. For a Same Sex union that’s a pie-in-the-sky pipe-dream.

It fails to meet the Christian definition of marriage, but that definition places divine revelation on top of Natural Law.

I’m not sure Natural Law prohibits Polyamorous (Poligamy / Polyandry) marriages.
same sex marriages are a totally different matter.

It’s adultery. Polygamy is adultery.

Slippery Slope arguments seem a bit desperate to me, so I don’t like them.

I think its much better to stick with the historical definition of marriage argument, and the idea that it’s about providing parental linkage.

Who are your parents? Is that a legal definition? Or is it something much deeper. I think it’s deeper, and this is the argument, at the end of the day, that is most relevant to this discussion. IMO. From a parental standpoint, a kid can’t have two daddies or two mommies. Biologically impossible. Two male guardians? Yes. Two male parents? Not possible.

point well taken and I agree with you. It is just that is goes so far beyond that. And this bit we are discussing this is not “the bottom of the hill” This is a speed bump as we go flying further down the hill. It is not the end however. There is still further to go, and they will get it if marriage is redefined to involve something other than parenting.

Hi DownUnder,

I hear what you’re saying but I wouldn’t use the argument as a slippery slope argument because such arguments are only probabilistic and therefore won’t convince some people. Rather, turn the argument on them.

Q. “So you think Australian law should allow people to marry those they care about?”
A. “Yes.”
Q. “Should we make limits on this law?”
A. “Yes/No.”
If “Yes” - ask what limits and ask for a justification for those limits that also doesn’t undermine same-sex marriage. For instance, if they say, “Oh, we shouldn’t be allowed to marry our relatives because of the problems that could result from having children”, that’s an understandable response. You could of course reply by saying: “Well, what if the couple doesn’t want to have children, should it be okay then?” or some such.

But if they say, “Oh, we shouldn’t allow polygamy…” It’s difficult to see why polygamy should be banned using their logic. I’d just push that point. Why not allow polygamous marriage since it allows even more people to marry those they care about.

Really, think about it. Imagine a guy was torn between his love for two women - oh, the heartache for all involved! Hey presto - all solved with polygamy :slight_smile:

By the way, I’m in Oz too - Melbourne. Let’s hope Gillard doesn’t cave in and Labor either get Rudd back or get kicked out next election.

There is more historical and current support (social norms, legal, religious) for polygamy than there is for gay marriage. In fact, there is more historical support for brother-sister and first cousin marriages than there is for gay marriage.

Unfortunately supporters of same-sex marriage rarely care much about history or the consensus of the world in general, just what they and their friends believe is right. It’s ironic that as a group claiming they are fighting for equality and freedom, they tend to ignore the voice of history and of most of the world’s population (for instance, in Africa, Asia and Latin America).

To be fair, I’m not a big fan of “history” as a guide for policy. However, the philosophical underpinnings of this topic are crucial, so if that’s what we mean by history, then I agree - history should not be ignored.

The funny (tragic) thing about “progressives” is that they arrogantly think their current “ivory-tower” supported preferences are justifiably the basis for governing those they deem to ignorant to understand what “the truth” is.

This is where I bend libertarian a bit. Less government, all around, gets us away from this silly notion that an elitist few know what’s best for the “ignorant masses”.

It has its negatives, like anything else. But at least with libertarianism, I have the freedom to influence the private behaviors of my family, friends and cohorts without government baby sitting. In the nanny-state, you have to hope the government “does the correct thing”, whatever THAT is…

What I mean about the importance of “history” in a decision like this, is that it should at least be grounds for consideration when 100% of past societies have recognised marriages as being between a man and a woman and 0% of past societies have recognised marriage as being between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman (there are a few exceptions but they are small-time, utilitarian or extraordinary, and more cases of gender-bending than same-sex marriage). When something is so universal and transcends social structure, government type, level of technological development, division of labour, etc. we would be fools to ignore it.

I don’t think “slippery slope” is a fallacy at all, really.

“Slippery slope” arguments simply say “If we accept argument X on grounds Y, then we must also accept argument Z, which is justified on the same grounds Y.” In other words, failure to enact argument Z becomes an unprincipled exception to grounds Y which, we were just told, we must accept. If we can exempt Z, then there’s no good reason not to exempt X, as well. But if we can’t exempt X, why can’t we exempt Z?

Now, either Z is also justified by reference to Y or not. If it is, then the argument is not a fallacy at all: it’s simply truth. And if it’s not, then the argument is fallacious because the logic girding it involves a non sequitur.

Sure, but there are circumstances where polygamy or something like it is permissible. I recall the Church OKing polygamy back in the early 20th or late 19th century in response to a civil war that wiped out much of the nation’s male population. Can’t remember the details, so maybe I’m making it up. And I think the terms weren’t really “marriage” per se, since it was understood that it was a temporary arrangement in response to a particular arrangement. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is never permissible and never serves a purpose.

Having lived in a fraternity house, I rarely encountered slop that wasn’t slippery.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit