Slippery Slope Predicted?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]smh_23 wrote:Yeah, we pretty much agree here. I certainly don’t think that the idea isn’t going to start appearing.

However, I don’t think anybody is going to be buying it, and I don’t think it’ll get political traction. If for no other reason than the following: Most people don’t feel an attraction to people for the same sex. This allows them to analogize it with the attraction that they feel toward their wife/girlfriend/husband/boyfriend. This, in turn, gives them some measure of natural empathy.

Polygamy, on the other hand, is not easily analogized. We understand love of one other person; it is much harder for us to understand, or really care about, love of ten people.

I, for example, feel no sympathy for someone who wants ten hot wives–I want an Andalusian horse that can fly and breathe fire. I’m not crying over the fact that I’ve been told it’s not going to happen.

By the way, I was referring to Slate with that. I don’t think too highly of it, though they have a few good people. It’s mostly the PC and really left-field feminist stuff that they publish.[/quote]

Another thing to keep in mind is the popularity and the number of people. Most of us know a gay person or are related to one. I don’t know anyone who is arguing for polygamy to be legal. They are out there and some people on here may know them, but I also know a guy who has a zombie apocalypse bunker (seriously)…doesn’t mean that it’s a normal view.

Gay marriage legality nationwide has moved to where keeping it illegal is the minority view. The only poll I could find on the subject has gay relations at 38% morally wrong and polygamy relations as 83% morally wrong. So you have a smaller amount of people arguing for something with a larger amount of people disagreeing with it. Will this be the case for forever? Who knows and I would never make a forever type bet on anything.

62

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

What do you think is a better model for marriage?

  • Age limits but allow gays
  • No age limits and no gays
    [/quote]

How about one where sexual orientation is irrelevant to the government, and it is viewed as a custody contract between two consenting adults like any other contract. Oh and the same government doesn’t tell churches or private business what it can or can’t do or say in regards of the matter, unless that business harms a person or persons.[/quote]

This is exactly what I want. The idea that gay marriage is bound to lead to all of these horrific marriage based outcomes is specious reasoning at it’s finest. But Utah isn’t saying that…he’s just saying, well now you can ARGUE that lol.

I’m not saying this will lead to babies being eaten for breakfast, I’m just saying it COULD. Don’t jump on me, I’m not saying It WILL. Just kinda throwing that out there ya know. [/quote]

Yeah…

You are ignoring the point.

There is no room left to argue against polygamy in the offical narrative.

Ideas do matter though, so it is only a matter of time.

If your only argument is that it has not happened YET, you are in fact arguing that those heteronormative monogamous bastards are still oppressing polyamourous people.

Can we have that in this egalitarian times?[/quote]

Lol, your only argument is that it will happen. So let’s recap:

You argue this will happen because of gay marriage. You could still be correct, but right now you are demonstrably incorrect.

I argue gay marriage is no reason to assume this will happen. Gay marriage in some places has been around for a while, and this hasn’t passed in any of those places. I could still be incorrect, but right now I am demonstrably correct.

You do realize legally arguments were made long before gay marriage passed about polyamorous relationships right? And now magically because of the passing of gay marriage in some places you feel as if the only logical conclusion is this will lead to legal victories about that right now?

Again, why is heroin illegal if alcohol is legal again? None of you are touching that one.

[/quote]

Well, its should not be and for the longest time it was not.

But it will be, after cannabis, cocaine and whatnot.

But, you know, IT HAS NOT HAPPENED YET, IT HAS NOT HAPPENED YET, is not too much of an argument either.

Look at the changes of the last 100 years and tell me in which direction the wind is blowing. [/quote]

A better chance exists that you will be dead when it happens than alive. Predicting the long term future is fucking dumb and fruitless. Only the biggest of fools would have predicted a black President 100 years ago and we all would have laughed at him.

As for the here and now…gay marriage has been around in states for a while and nothing has changed in regards to polygamy. Rational thinkers have no reason to believe the next decade will see any changes. The long, long term? Who knows? If it has not happened yet is a poor argument, then what it is will happen based on the direction of the wind eventually? Save me the times are changing talk for now.

I would probably agree one of these days heroin may be legal again…but it is far more likely you won’t see it than you will.

64

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Would someone be willing to place a small bet with me on this subject? Say…I bet within 10 years polygamous marriage suits will be in several courts across the land. I’d place a second bet that some court somewhere will grant the plaintiff’s request.

Who wants to take me on?[/quote]
But you would win the moment the bet was placed. Reynolds v USA took place in 1878. You really think between then and now no suits were filed?

65

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Would someone be willing to place a small bet with me on this subject? Say…I bet within 10 years polygamous marriage suits will be in several courts across the land. I’d place a second bet that some court somewhere will grant the plaintiff’s request.

Who wants to take me on?[/quote]

Polygamy suits have already done that long before gay marriage was allowed anywhere. What a silly setup to win bet. If you actually feel strongly about something go ahead and place some beans in the basket.

How about this:

One decade from now no state will legally allow a polygamous marriage. You may not be wanting to touch that one so much. In fact I’d love to get a list of posters on here that thinks that will happen.

You guys keep wanting to argue that people will be able to argue this. Any judge may easily agree. The idea that this is about to become law is absurd and I look forward to you guys cementing your stance so I can continue to bring it up over and over again and laugh at how wrong you are.*

*The polls are all biased, Romney wins easy! Some of my first viewings of PWI posts.

[/quote]

Take my bet then.

We’ll bet on a few jugs of protein powder or something like that.
[/quote]

Don’t be a vag Push, your bet would be won almost immediately and you know it. Gay marriage doesn’t have a thing to do with you setting that up. Mine is much more of a will gay marriage lead to this type bet, but you don’t have actual confidence in your position (because you know it won’t anytime soon) so you’ll ignore mine. Shit I gave you a decade. And nothing but silence. Cause no rational thinker believes that even in a decade it would happen.

Nut up and make a real bet if you are confident in your position, not a bet on something that has already happened before gay marriage existed.

68

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Would someone be willing to place a small bet with me on this subject? Say…I bet within 10 years polygamous marriage suits will be in several courts across the land. I’d place a second bet that some court somewhere will grant the plaintiff’s request.

Who wants to take me on?[/quote]
But you would win the moment the bet was placed. Reynolds v USA took place in 1878. You really think between then and now no suits were filed? [/quote]

Good grief, you have a reading problem.[/quote]
No, you have two bets. The marriage suits already exist so that bet is like betting on who will win the first superbowl. The second bet? Some court somewhere (Montana) sentenced a rapist to 30 days. He was 50 she…was 14. So that second bet is not really much of a gamble especially when you consider that cases have been filed for over a hundred years.

69

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Would someone be willing to place a small bet with me on this subject? Say…I bet within 10 years polygamous marriage suits will be in several courts across the land. I’d place a second bet that some court somewhere will grant the plaintiff’s request.

Who wants to take me on?[/quote]

Polygamy suits have already done that long before gay marriage was allowed anywhere. What a silly setup to win bet. If you actually feel strongly about something go ahead and place some beans in the basket.

How about this:

One decade from now no state will legally allow a polygamous marriage. You may not be wanting to touch that one so much. In fact I’d love to get a list of posters on here that thinks that will happen.

You guys keep wanting to argue that people will be able to argue this. Any judge may easily agree. The idea that this is about to become law is absurd and I look forward to you guys cementing your stance so I can continue to bring it up over and over again and laugh at how wrong you are.*

*The polls are all biased, Romney wins easy! Some of my first viewings of PWI posts.

[/quote]

Take my bet then.

We’ll bet on a few jugs of protein powder or something like that.
[/quote]

Don’t be a vag Push, your bet would be won almost immediately and you know it. Gay marriage doesn’t have a thing to do with you setting that up. Mine is much more of a will gay marriage lead to this type bet, but you don’t have actual confidence in your position (because you know it won’t anytime soon) so you’ll ignore mine. Shit I gave you a decade. And nothing but silence. Cause no rational thinker believes that even in a decade it would happen.

Nut up and make a real bet if you are confident in your position, not a bet on something that has already happened before gay marriage existed. [/quote]

See, Harold, this is why my assumption about your personal misery is probably spot on. Your wretched, cranky ol’ attitude speaks for itself.

My bet is that the SAME verbiage, the same positions, AND the precedent, used in the past decade to advance legalized gay marriage will be used in the next decade to successfully allow polygamous/polyamorous marriage.

I’m not being sneaky about anything. Just a straight up simple bet.

Now get the broomstick out of your ass and settle down a bit.[/quote]

Lol, what was wretched about my post? I called you a vag Push because you tried to make a girly bet. Stop being so sensitive buttercup. This is T-Nation, I apologize for using language that may offend you. I will try to keep your feelings in mind a bit more. I’m glad you are concerned about my misery, but I’m concerned about yours. You live at this place apparently and you are the king of personal attacks. Moving on to you being wrong though:

If you actually believe that the next decade will successfully allow polygamous marriage then agree to my bet. First off my bet is completely straightforward while yours is not. My bet has a simple win/lose proposition while yours makes no sense. In your bet several courts across the land is subjective and something that has already taken place before gay marriage. The second part that a judge may grant a victory doesn’t mean anything if it doesn’t lead to a changed law.

If you actually believe in your position then I have made a simple bet proposal. You don’t believe that strongly in your position so you keep trying to switch it to yours which you know is very likely to happen as it already has happened throughout history.

70

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Would someone be willing to place a small bet with me on this subject? Say…I bet within 10 years polygamous marriage suits will be in several courts across the land. I’d place a second bet that some court somewhere will grant the plaintiff’s request.

Who wants to take me on?[/quote]
But you would win the moment the bet was placed. Reynolds v USA took place in 1878. You really think between then and now no suits were filed? [/quote]

Good grief, you have a reading problem.[/quote]
No, you have two bets. The marriage suits already exist so that bet is like betting on who will win the first superbowl. The second bet? Some court somewhere (Montana) sentenced a rapist to 30 days. He was 50 she…was 14. So that second bet is not really much of a gamble especially when you consider that cases have been filed for over a hundred years. [/quote]

He realizes how setup for victory his bet is that’s why he made it that way. It’s very interesting that none of the people in this thread who feel so strongly about gay marriage leading to law changes at the state level will take my bet though.

71

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Remember Courtney Stodden and her 50+ year old husband?
[/quote]

I think that Hutchinson would have been better off buying a RealDoll.

It would have cost way less, contained just as much silicone, looked about the same, and best of all, one can fuck a RealDoll as much as one wants without people thinking you’re a pervert, the way they do if you marry a woman who is one third your age.

72

634×895 208 KB

See what I mean?

73

She is disgusting to look at. Of course, if anyone says that he probably says they’re just jealous.

74

LOL…my only point was, now there is legal precedent for an argument. The court ruling that marriages of the same sex was outside the historical norm for marriage, were in fact not able to be outlawed.

Now people can argue other outside the norm marriages.

Public opinion is irrelevant…legal rulings are.

75

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
LOL…my only point was, now there is legal precedent for an argument. The court ruling that marriages of the same sex was outside the historical norm for marriage, were in fact not able to be outlawed.

Now people can argue other outside the norm marriages.

Public opinion is irrelevant…legal rulings are.[/quote]

People have always been able to argue that. They have been arguing it for over a century. Why are you acting as if this is new? Gay marriage changed nothing in that regard.

Of course public opinion matters. If gay marriage was where polygamy was at in terms of public opinion it would be illegal all over. Like polygamy.

76

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
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.[/quote]

No, that’s why I put the question mark in the title. However, I’m not sure I’d call NRO or Slate second rate. No AP press for certain, however they are pretty widely “with it” from various poles of the political spectrum.

Certainly not calling it a prophecy…perhaps your time in the “Hell” thread is seeping through your terminology ;). I did find it interesting that this line of argument took so little time to come up into print–that is what I was alluding to. As I mentioned in my OP I didn’t think this would be even mentioned in mainline outlets (opinion or news) for much longer than the people who did keep mentioning it.

I tend to agree with your assessment of the slippery slope argument. It is not structurally valid (obviously) and it usually deals with inductive logic which strictly speaking is not structurally valid in the first place anyway (because the conclusion is not 100% entailed by true premises). However that isn’t to say it is absurd to speak about it: the slippery slope hasn’t been slid down many times before in many other areas trhoughout history. I think it is useful to differentiate between structurally unsound and absurd. In many cases something structurally unsound can be restated to make it sound. The trouble of course is defining precedent or reasoning with a slippery slope.[/quote]

Yeah, we pretty much agree here. I certainly don’t think that the idea isn’t going to start appearing.

However, I don’t think anybody is going to be buying it, and I don’t think it’ll get political traction. If for no other reason than the following: Most people don’t feel an attraction to people for the same sex. This allows them to analogize it with the attraction that they feel toward their wife/girlfriend/husband/boyfriend. This, in turn, gives them some measure of natural empathy.

Polygamy, on the other hand, is not easily analogized. We understand love of one other person; it is much harder for us to understand, or really care about, love of ten people.

I, for example, feel no sympathy for someone who wants ten hot wives–I want an Andalusian horse that can fly and breathe fire. I’m not crying over the fact that I’ve been told it’s not going to happen.

By the way, I was referring to Slate with that. I don’t think too highly of it, though they have a few good people. It’s mostly the PC and really left-field feminist stuff that they publish.[/quote]

Well, I would pretty much agree with you on all counts (especially Slate haha). However, the Devil’s Advocate says: 40 years ago people said the same thing about gay marriage gaining political traction “can’t ever happen, no empathy”, so you never know.

77

Let the fun begin!!

Federal Judge strikes down portions of the polygamy law, setting up a higher court battle.

LULZ.

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2013/12/utah-federal-judge-strikes-down.html

78

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Let the fun begin!!

Federal Judge strikes down portions of the polygamy law, setting up a higher court battle.

LULZ.

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2013/12/utah-federal-judge-strikes-down.html[/quote]

no lulz, just sad. slippery slope is getting rather slippery.

79

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Let the fun begin!!

Federal Judge strikes down portions of the polygamy law, setting up a higher court battle.

LULZ.

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2013/12/utah-federal-judge-strikes-down.html[/quote]

no lulz, just sad. slippery slope is getting rather slippery.
[/quote]

I can’t wait for people to say “this is no big deal…this is just Utah weirdos” until the law applies nationwide.

How about a family with 6 wives and 30 kids on public assistance?

Lovely.

80

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Let the fun begin!!

Federal Judge strikes down portions of the polygamy law, setting up a higher court battle.

LULZ.

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2013/12/utah-federal-judge-strikes-down.html[/quote]

no lulz, just sad. slippery slope is getting rather slippery.
[/quote]

I can’t wait for people to say “this is no big deal…this is just Utah weirdos” until the law applies nationwide.

How about a family with 6 wives and 30 kids on public assistance?

Lovely.[/quote]

They already are. Families with a father in the home are not on public assistance so that wouldn’t be applicable. However, it is common practice among FLS to collect public assistance because the families are not technically wed.

Read “Under the banner of heaven” for a shocking look into FLS. I don’t know how accurate it is because the author certainly seems to have an ax to grind but it is a fascinating book. Same guy that wrote Into thin air, The pat Tillman story and Into the wild.