I feel a need to spell-out the rebuttals to the gay-marriage slippery slope arguments.

[Deep13]

Seeing that they are on the wrong side of history, vocal opponents of marriage equality have resorted to the logically suspect slippery slop argument. Specifically, allowing two same sex adults to marriage will lead to bestiality, incest, and marriage with children. All are nonsense.

Right now plural marriages are illegal and the ones that exist tend to be coercive and involving under-age girls. It tends to look like slavery. If a plural marriage really was based on gender equality and knowing, un-coerced consent of all involved, I would have no reason to oppose it.

The whole animal thing is impossible because it would be entirely one-sided. An animal cannot comprehend marriage, let alone knowingly agree to it. Likewise, children cannot legally consent because the law protects them from their inexperience and immaturity. So cases where only one side agrees are not analogous to same-sex marriage.

As far as incest, there are strong, built-in inhibitions to seeing close relatives as sex partners. Those inhibitions are codified in legal prohibitions. Part of the reason is genetic, but part of it is so that people can exist in families without being seen as potential sex partners by their close relatives. So, that really is not a good analogy either.

[Notafraidtoo]

1. Not to mention the obvious

Animals do not have the ability to enter legal contracts and the Constitution does not cover them.

As far as plural marriage goes it does say one man and his wives plural in the bible so its weird how they have a issue with that on religious grounds. honestly as long as its equal i don't see a issue with it.

As far as incest goes the known harm it would cause to potential offspring is enough to keep it illegal forever. We can go one step farther a family member can inherit,make legal decisions on ones behalf, take care of children of deceased parents and visit the family member in the hospital with out having to get married..There for they are still equal under the law.

Republicans are stupid.

[Deep13]

2. True about the contracts.

I talked about consent and agreement which are necessary parts of a contract. I did not use contracts as a reason specifically because these days they are mostly commercial instruments.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

6. If you want an argument against incest

Just look at King Charles II of Spain, whose eight great-grandparents were all cousins, and whose mother was his father's niece (his paternal grandmother was also married to her uncle).

[customerserviceguy]

3. The test case for plural marriage

will probably not involve Warren Jeffs style women in granny dresses, but could involve a multiple male, one female scenario. In that situation, there is no hint of coercion involved, and it becomes a case of what consenting adults want to do. I don't see any reason why the logic of the recent DOMA decision couldn't be applied.

Yes, we "settled" plural marriage at the Supreme Court quite some time ago, but that was around the same time that Plessy vs. Ferguson's "separate but equal" doctrine was also arrived at. People who want plural marriage in this country will find much to cheer them in last week's ruling.

I agree, the bestiality, incest, and any other relationship not involving consenting adults can easily be differentiated from plural or same-sex marriage.

[lunatica]

4. the idea of plural marriages involving both many men and many women intrigues me

I got the idea from a Robert Heinlein book. It has always given me much food for thought. It would be one of the most stable institutions available. Marriages could potentially be made up of lawyers, doctors, teachers and homebodies who take care of the offspring. Everyone could have their needs met. Anyone could take a year or two off work if they wanted to, or travel as it would give people much more freedom to do what they aspired to rather than be tied to a job just to survive.

Interesting idea.

[Deep13]

7. Perhaps. My concern would be that jealousies would tear it apart.

Nevertheless, if they are all adults, I don't think it is for the state to decide.

[lunatica]

17. The 'rules' would be different

sex itself would be a free choice option for the individuals as, in time, the age difference among the spouses would vary just as an extended family does today. Anyone marrying into the family would have to be accepted by the entire family. I think most people would opt to stay in the extended marriage as it would be far more stable and supportive of each individual within it. This includes the elder spouses and the youngest child.

Like I said, I've given it much thought. And I don't see any down side to it. If someone wanted out they could divorce their way out. Then they'd have to live with the family rules about child custody, property, etc.

[justiceischeap]

5. The real issue of the slippery slope argument is that it's yet another way

to attempt to dehumanize gay people. Lump us in with ideals that Americans find abhorrent and it then makes us look abhorrent too. It's the Rights' (wrongs') way of trying to delegitimize and stigmatize gay people.

On edit:
Some one posted a graphic recently of several states that still allow first cousins to marry, and I don't see these folks up in arms about getting those laws repealed.

[Deep13]

8. Where to draw the line for incest will always be judgement call.

Certainly siblings and linear descendants/ancestors are out. 3rd cousins 2 generations removed? Meh.

Agree that the strategy is to dehumanize the "other" by comparing them to animals and perverts. Glad it failed.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

9. You forgot one objection...

Inanimate Objects.

Because now that gay marriage is legal, I'm going to go out and fuck me a toaster. Right goddamned now..

[Deep13]

11. I've been flirting with a cute pencil sharpener.

Well, since corporations are people, I could marry one of them.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

15. Ow. Just...you know. Ow.

[el_bryanto]

10. What of the argument that Churches will be eventually required to marry people they don't want to?nt

[Deep13]

12. They are not required to do it now.

My own wedding was wholly secular.

[el_bryanto]

13. You can choose not to - but if you want to be married in a Catholic or Baptist or Muslim ceremony

should they have the right to discriminate against same sex couples and say no?

Bryant

[Deep13]

14. Sorry, but the 1st Am. protects institutional bigotry if it is religious.

The RC Church currently will not marry previously divorced people, same sex people, those seeking plural marriages, those who do not agree to raise their kiddos RC, those who admit to using birth control, or members of the clergy unless they quit.

[customerserviceguy]

16. Here's the answer to that

Divorce is recognized in all fifty states. There isn't one locality in the US that doesn't allow it.

Nobody has (or would be able to) prevail in court to force the Roman Catholic Church to extend their sacrament of matrimony to a divorced Catholic whose ex-spouse is still living. That's the clearest evidence that churches have the right to not marry who they deem unworthy of their rituals.