4 ms·

Isn't this the 'slippery slope' argument that gay marriage advocates said would never happen? Well, it happened.

by paulhauggis 11y ago

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
If you actually read the article, you'll notice that it's on your side of 'what won't those hippies do next.'
- dropit_sphere 11y ago
  I don't get that vibe. As far as I can tell, the tone is more, "Regrettably we had to demonize polygamy to avoid guilt by association, but it's time to pay the technical debt and extend marriage equality to all."
- ewzimm 11y ago
  That's definitely the tone, but it's pretty funny since it's talking about the erosion of traditional marriage. Polygamy is almost certainly the most traditional marriage there is. Groups of people dedicated to each other who shared the responsibility of raising children definitely came before people decided to partner-up. For an example, I'm not saying you have to believe the Bible literally, but most of the men in the early parts of it had multiple wives. Now, maybe it's a radical idea for the majority of the population to consider Biblical marriage traditional, but even if you don't believe in that particular religious text, it's at least evidence that plural marriages were pretty common thousands of years ago. I'm not saying they're better or worse, but they're definitely traditional.
  - yeahdude 11y ago
    If most men had many wives, there must have been a lot less men than women, and/or a lot of men with no wife at all. Or perhaps wife sharing would account for it.
    - ewzimm 11y ago
      Or, like a lot of books, most of the stories were about rich men who had things others didn't. That part isn't glossed over at all. But that's just about the Bible stories. If you're talking about my comments on early humans, I think it's likely that sharing partners was more common.
Terr_ 11y ago
No, they usually went straight to "marrying pets" and "marrying children". That said, the gulf between monogamy and polygamy is enormously larger and more complicated than the comparatively minor jump to same-sex monogamy. From a procedural and logical perspective, gay marriage is a SMALL change, opposed mainly due to cultural mores. However, any programmer can tell you that refactoring from a one-to-one relationship to a many-to-many relationship adds complexity, and polygamy involves a similar architectural change that touches many issues. Just for starters, start thinking about issues like inheritance, custody, power of attorney, and tax-law.
- paulhauggis 11y ago
  "No, they usually went straight to "marrying pets" and "marrying children"." I disagree. This is the first argument I heard about gay marriage and everybody said it was ridiculous. But I have now heard that this should be the next issue from many people on Facebook. I guess they weren't so crazy after all.. "Just for starters, start thinking about issues like inheritance, custody, power of attorney, and tax-law." ..Or how easy it would be to bring citizens over from any country and fake citizenship.
  - oe 11y ago
    Haven't heard anyone calling it ridiculous before, but that might be our individual Facebook bubbles in action. The reaction to the slippery slope argument I've seen has always been more of a "Sure, why not? But let's fix the same sex marriage first."
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

Isn't this the 'slippery slope' argument that gay marriage advocates said would never happen? Well, it happened.

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago

If you actually read the article, you'll notice that it's on your side of 'what won't those hippies do next.'

dropit_sphere 11y ago
I don't get that vibe. As far as I can tell, the tone is more, "Regrettably we had to demonize polygamy to avoid guilt by association, but it's time to pay the technical debt and extend marriage equality to all."
ewzimm 11y ago
That's definitely the tone, but it's pretty funny since it's talking about the erosion of traditional marriage. Polygamy is almost certainly the most traditional marriage there is. Groups of people dedicated to each other who shared the responsibility of raising children definitely came before people decided to partner-up. For an example, I'm not saying you have to believe the Bible literally, but most of the men in the early parts of it had multiple wives. Now, maybe it's a radical idea for the majority of the population to consider Biblical marriage traditional, but even if you don't believe in that particular religious text, it's at least evidence that plural marriages were pretty common thousands of years ago. I'm not saying they're better or worse, but they're definitely traditional.
- yeahdude 11y ago
  If most men had many wives, there must have been a lot less men than women, and/or a lot of men with no wife at all. Or perhaps wife sharing would account for it.
  - ewzimm 11y ago
    Or, like a lot of books, most of the stories were about rich men who had things others didn't. That part isn't glossed over at all. But that's just about the Bible stories. If you're talking about my comments on early humans, I think it's likely that sharing partners was more common.

Terr_ 11y ago

No, they usually went straight to "marrying pets" and "marrying children". That said, the gulf between monogamy and polygamy is enormously larger and more complicated than the comparatively minor jump to same-sex monogamy. From a procedural and logical perspective, gay marriage is a SMALL change, opposed mainly due to cultural mores. However, any programmer can tell you that refactoring from a one-to-one relationship to a many-to-many relationship adds complexity, and polygamy involves a similar architectural change that touches many issues. Just for starters, start thinking about issues like inheritance, custody, power of attorney, and tax-law.

paulhauggis 11y ago
"No, they usually went straight to "marrying pets" and "marrying children"." I disagree. This is the first argument I heard about gay marriage and everybody said it was ridiculous. But I have now heard that this should be the next issue from many people on Facebook. I guess they weren't so crazy after all.. "Just for starters, start thinking about issues like inheritance, custody, power of attorney, and tax-law." ..Or how easy it would be to bring citizens over from any country and fake citizenship.
- oe 11y ago
  Haven't heard anyone calling it ridiculous before, but that might be our individual Facebook bubbles in action. The reaction to the slippery slope argument I've seen has always been more of a "Sure, why not? But let's fix the same sex marriage first."

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]