Slippery Slope…Steep Cliff
Those who agitate to de-define marriage consistently ignore the reason the state recognizes marriage in the first place. In America, marriage has always been an institution existing primarily to protect children created within the one and only union that can naturally produce children. The opposition has twisted marriage into a government endorsement of close relationships. The logical end of that idea is obvious: there no longer exists a legal difference between same-sex couples who want to “marry” and all other combinations of “loving” adults who want to “marry the person (or people) of their choice.” If marriage is nothing but a state stamp of approval on intimate adult relationships, what is the argument for denying “marriage” to any number or combination of adults who claim to be “in love”? If the gender composition of a marriage is unimportant, what is so sacred about the number of participants? The very arguments used on behalf of same-sex couples apply equally to “bisexuals” or polyamorists who would like to “marry” a number of different people.
What about a brother and sister “in love?” The typical objection when confronted with the brother-sister “marriage” challenge is that procreation between siblings increases the chance for birth defects in children. So then, what is the objection to two brothers “marrying?” The opposition cannot object to a brother-brother “marriage” absent an appeal to a moral standard. But in objecting to all sibling “marriages” they are unwittingly arguing that marriage: 1) is essentially a procreative institution, 2) benefits the state primarily as a child-protective institution, and 3) may be limited by moral considerations. These are the very arguments they must reject in order to justify the imposition of same-sex “marriage.” But the opposition refuses to engage in a thoughtful debate on these issues. They know, when confronted with their own self-negating logic, their slippery slope becomes a steep cliff. If marriage can mean same-sex relationships, it can mean anything. If marriage can mean anything, it means nothing. If marriage means nothing, children are guaranteed to pay the price.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
I hear that many countries are shifting to defending same sex marriage. But, does that mean that the U.S. should follow the other countries? I believe we all have to examine our value on marriage. If the government legalizes marriage for same sex couple, people’s moral and value on marriage will be corrupted in the future. Children would be confused about their identity and sex. Often, the opponents argue that the same sex couple can be a mother and a father. However, I believe they are dividing responsibilities rather than fulfilling their children’s needs. In order to raise children in the best environment , the government should not legalize marriage for the same sex couple.
Moreover, even if the couple loves each other, their love should be examined. As one mentions about sisters and brothers marriage, if we once accept same sex marriage, we cannot disagree for blood related marriage or any other marriage if people claim that they are in love. Before we move onto legalizing marriage for the same sex couple, the government should offer counseling or any other aids for them to examine their true identity, and reasons for marriage.
You raise some very valid points. I think it is highly important to clearly define what marriage is before trying to remold it by allowing homosexual marriage. I don’t think that our society has a grasp on the very definition of marriage. How can the government say that the marriage union between two people of the same sex is legal when marriage has yet to be clearly defined? I appreciate the fact that you introduce alternatives to the situation. Maybe it is that counseling should be a mandatory practice for all couples seeking to be married. However, I am not sure how much of this the government can actually regulate. It seems unrealistic to think the government can regulate or measure the love between two people. I agree though, that the government needs to be clearly defining marriage before anything is legalized because if they legalize this who knows what new definition of marriage will be advocated for next.
As for child rearing, I am not sure that there is much evidence to show the impact of homosexuality on child rearing either way. However, I think it could be argued that there are multiple environments that could be considered “bad” for a child’s development. Although I do understand where you are coming from, right now it seems more important to focus on the problems we have as it regards to bettering children’s lives in any way we as a society can.
While I ultimately agree with your conclusion, I find your premise a bit limiting. While procreation certainly can have a fair bit to do with marriage, if that is all we recognize its usefulness for, we miss out on a great deal more and sell marriage short. First, if marriage was simply about children, we would object to the elderly marrying or to those who are unable to have children. Both objections are, of course, absurd and rarely happen. Other benefits of marriage abound though and include lower crime rates among married people, more responsibility with money-related issues, and the trust, commitment, and companionship which flourish beautifully in healthy marriages. While none of the benefits I’ve listed are useful in arguing against homosexual marriages, they are very real and very important parts of marriage. To say that marriage is merely about children (though I concede that may be an important element) leaves marriage looking more like a babysitting job for co-workers instead of the mutually beneficial relationship it can be.
You are right to say, though, that if marriage is anything a person wants it to be, it ultimately means nothing at all.
Finally, I realize this discussion is about same-sex marriages, but I also want to note that so many of us are up in arms about the sanctity of marriage and we rush to preserve it by quoting verses about it being a sacred union between an man and a woman….While I agree with that, it seems a few more of us could be looking at the first word: sacred. Not only should we be protecting the sanctity of marriage against being redefined, we ought also to be defending it from the onslaught of embarrassingly high divorce rates.
I like how you looked at a different side of this argument and I definitely agree that marriage isn't only about having children and so pointing out that that is a weak argument. I also agree that upholding sanctity means upholding marriage against divorce too. I think it's also important to look at the concepts of relationship in America in general. The destruction of the family unit seems to be more and more common today. So I believe that not only should we look at marriage, but widen our horizons to take in the fact that there are also couples who work so much they hardly ever see each other and others have to raise their children, that there are many one parent families, that there are many many families living in poverty, and so many other things. So I agree with everything you said TyJohn but I just wanted to broaden the scope a little more.
will keep going!Viva la traditional marriage .
I have been reading through the comments about same-sex marriage . I am in favour. Have always been and view it as positive. God has nothing to do with civil society o else it would be a theocracy . I believe that a true civil society (i.e. France) would only recognize marriages performed by the state rather than by churches. Slippery slopes: well look at Las Vegas marriages. It's a silly argument b/c ultimately it has nothing to do with gay marriage - the issue is bigotry. If Jesus was one of us, I am sure he would fool most people. His message is of peace and tolerance . And sadly no one is listening. I aplaud any laws that speak out for tolerance. BTW i have no issue with polygamy between consenting adults. Who cares. Abraham did it right!!! Goodness people just let your neighbours be happy, life is short.
It's sad when comments like this come to light. These types of comments show ignorance about how western society came to be and who Jesus is. Western society was built upon the Judeo-Christian tradition. A simple look at the 10 Commandments should be a clear indication the basis of our own laws. There are some Greek and Roman philosophies thrown in, but the foundation of our system of justice is the 10 commandments. Our founding documents mention God and Creator, and many of the state constitutions mention God directly. A theocracy is a government run by religious leaders, usually of one denomination -- that's what the 1st Amendment prohibited. However, our country was founded by religious men who trusted in God and the Bible to guide their daily lives. And regarding the tolerance of Jesus, you obviously have no clue. Yes, Jesus Christ represents love in its purest form, in that He sacrificed Himself for mankind to pay for sin . But regarding marriage, God created Adam and Eve, therefore defining the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman. Same-sex "marriage" pokes God in the eye and warps His definition of marriage. Do you really think Jesus Christ will tolerate people thumbing their noses at God's institution?
Going by your logic, slavery should be legal. After all, the founding fathers demonstrably had or condoned having slaves (as evident in the Dred Scott v. Sandford reasoning).
Shall we bring on the slaves, then?
Ah, the slavery strawman ... what a waste of an argument. First of all, slavery has nothing to do with this issue. Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not innate and not a civil right. There is an overwhelming amount of research and studies that prove homosexuality is not inborn. There are few studies that may indicate otherwise, but one has to look hard and with a strong bias to find such indications. People cannot change the color of their skin; homosexuals can change their behavior. My father is the perfect example. He said he was never truly happy in that lifestyle, not because of the negative attitudes toward homosexuality, but because homosexuality was his attempt to satisfy himself sexually. He came to realize the lifestyle is self-destructive and left it. His only regret was that he didn't leave that lifestyle sooner.
Well if there is OVERWHELMING research then why dont you send me a couple of links? because i can send you pages an pages of scientific research that proves you wrong.
Interesting..... homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Well, I must say that I feel a bit "ripped off", because I never got to make a choice. Somewhere along the line during pre- adolescence to adolescence, I began to find females (I am male) sexually attractive, and males....well, not so. No choice involved.
So, when did you make YOUR choice. Did it take long? Was it difficult? Or maybe you mean that if you are heterosexual by nature, there is no choice, but if you are homosexual by nature, then there is a choice to be made. And the only correct choice is to choose to go against your nature, or to agree with you.
By the way, your comment regarding "overwhelming research " proving homosexuality is not innate is patently incorrect. It IS correct to say that nearly all of the research on the topic done by theological institutions & organizations agree with your premise. Nearly ALL of the research done by organizations not thusly hampered by religious bigotry & delusion indicate that sexuality is determined LONG before any ability for conscious has developed.
"Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not innate and not a civil right."
If anything, this is the red herring. The point I bring up when I invoke Dred Scott v. Sandford is that Justice Traney and the Justices that followed him used flat-out originalist thinking when forming their opinion. They -didn't care about justice- at all. They cared about what the founding fathers (allegedly) thought about, and nothing else. All I said was that originalist viewpoints cannot stand on their own.
Homosexuality being a choice is irrelevant to discussion.
Personal appeals are irrelevant to law.
Are you about to tell me not only (1) that your experience is more valuable than someone else's, and (2) that we should all follow your opinion? Perhaps I think being a vegetarian is more healthy than eating meat , yet I'm not about to pose the same standards upon you.
I do agree with you regarding the Founding Fathers treatment of slavery and American Indians in the Constitution. Many of our Founding Fathers were opposed and relunctantly accepted its inclusion to keep the framework going. As abhorrent as slavery is, the Supreme Court upheld its constitutional duty in the Dred Scot decision -- the court interpreted the law at that time. It did not make new law, an unconstitutional action that the Burger Court assumed. When American society finally realized the evils of slavery, the Constitution was amended, as outlined by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.
Homosexualty being a choice is not irrelevant to this discussion. It actually goes to the heart of the matter. Civil rights were denied to African-Americans simply because of their skin color, something they could not change. Homosexuals are commandeering the African-American struggle for civil rights as their cause. Homosexuals are claiming that they're born homosexual , and thus cannot change. That's the red herring in this debate.
My experience is no more valuable than anyone else's, but I use it to back up my side of the debate. Personal appeals enact more laws that you're giving credit for. That's why we have such laws as "Meghan's Law" and the current mortgage bailout . Our government didn't want to see people losing their homes, even though those people weren't responsible enough with their own money to buy homes they could afford. Whenever someone testifies before Congress in support of or in opposition to proposed legislation, they are making personal appeals in relating their positions.
And when the government steps in and requires me to become a vegetarian like you, will you stand with me in opposition to that intrusion?
Not that I actually believe that anyone's sexuality is truly a choice, but that really doesn't matter. Religion is a choice, and if there were laws enacted that prevented couples of two different religions from marrying, that would still be discrimination (in fact, this couldn't even be considered religious discrimination, since many churches don't recognize such marriages either). Discrimination or not?
Along with this, if you believe that it is a choice to be attracted to either men or women, then would it not also be a choice to be attracted to people of a certain race ? So why did those interracial couples get interracial marriage? Why did the SCOTUS not just rule that laws criminalizing cohabitation of interracial couples be struck down without actually making every state actually perform/accept interracial marriages? They could have simply been married by their churches or had whatever ceremony they wished and left marriage to those who choose to be with members of their same race.
Most evidence does point to homosexuality, every sexuality, not being a choice. It can change, just as a person's attractions to other characteristics can change (although it is more likely that the person always was bisexual). But that doesn't make any person's actual sexual orientation a choice.
Again, I'm not equating African-American civil rights to homosexual civil rights. I'm just opposing originalist thinking.
"And when the government steps in and requires me to become a vegetarian like you, will you stand with me in opposition to that intrusion?"
I will. Because individuals should have the right to choose their lifestyles so long as it doesn't disrupt another person's life, liberty, property, or pursuit of happiness. Until it can logically and empirically be shown that non- vegetarianism directly harms another individual, and that that harm is great enough to warrant government intrusion, I would never find it fit for a government to coerce people into becoming vegetarians .
Similarly, I would never find it fit for a government to coerce people into becoming heterosexual. THIS is the point I'm making.
It is a discussion concerning religion . If you removed the word marriage and says cohabit with same the legall benefit. the discussion is changed. The law does not distinguish between men and women. Why shut it make difference between men and men or women and women. In my country we have the gay marriage since 1 April 2001. and the gay right movement is compared with the Feminist movement.
For background's sake. I was raised a Christian and my credentials are excellent. I am very well versed on the 10 commandments, old and new testament, as well as most things Christian. My family has many members who have devoted their lives to serve their religion and are placed very highly in the Church. Now that this is established, please be careful when you attack people for their ignorance. What comes out when you attack like this is that it reveals your ignorance and anger. Clarity of mind only comes when calm.
I wanted to comment that although our Western society has based its legal system on the Judeo-Christian faiths, it does not mean that it was right or that it should be so or be imposed on citizens. We live in a world of many belief systems and we cannot choose one faith over another. The best choice for civil society is to choose laws based on tolerance and respect. Individuals can choose their gods and live by their belief systems at home. No one will impede on those rights. At least it gives an equal chance for everyone to live free from fear.
As for God being written into our constitutions and courts of law. I believe it is a grave error. It is a North American and not a European tradition. The French revolution got rid of God in its civil society to create a clear separation of church and state. The state doe snot have any allegiances other than to its citizens.
So to put the debate back to same sex marriages, if one desires to be married to a partner of same sex than by all means please do. You don't have too. That is true freedom. God will one judge you. You are not God so please do not judge others. You are not responsible for the soul of others.
Responding once again that there's no such thing as Judeo-Christian. It's just Christian. Jews were not involved.
It's a shame that you have such a strong Christian background and yet have fallen for the New Age philosophy. It appears you have rejected Biblical principles in favor of the politically correct philosophy of today's world. All societies "impose" on their citizens their particular belief systems. I disagree that God being written into our founding documents is a North American tradition. Western society (Europe, North and South America) is what it is today because of Christianity; the practice of Christianity throughout western history has been somewhat dubious, but the principles are what established western society. The abuse of Christianity was only one cause of the French Revolution. The main causes were famine, high taxes , and debt . The French Revolution may have eliminated Christianity in its government, and look at how irrelevant France is today.
Regarding true freedom -- freedom is not free and true freedom comes with responsibility. You are confusing freedom with licentiousness. Freedom doesn't mean doing what you want when you want. The American concept of freedom means that government should stay out of your way so you can determine your life. But government has established all sorts of limits on individual freedom, even those outlined in the Constitution, for the betterment of society as a whole. What insight have you gained that declares 10,000 years of human history wrong regarding homosexual marriage?
As far as my judging others, Jesus Christ specifically said in John 7:24 -- "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." Since homosexuality goes against God's Word, I am judging homosexuality, not homosexuals. Opposing the act of homosexuality is righteous judgment. Someone well-versed in Scripture should know that. God has already judged me through the blood of Jesus Christ. One day I will have to stand before God and answer for my actions, but my soul has already been judged and redeemed. When I do stand before God, I'll have to answer for a lot of things, but at least I won't have to explain why I went against Him in the area of homosexuality. And while I'm not entirely responsible for souls, I am responsible for spreading the gospel message of hope. So I do have a part to play.
Arguing that same-sex marriage is a slippery slope completely ignores the fact that society and courts are able to distinguish between different situations. Courts, state, and the federal government will easily be able to recognize gay marriage while still banning marriage between blood relatives.
Assuming that once gay marriage is allowed that all types of marriage must follow also ignores that standards can be developed and lines can be drawn.
When marriage between interracial couples was finally recognized, did that former slippery slope lead to polygamy? When women were finally granted the right to vote , did that lead to infants being allowed the right to vote?
It is important to not factor in "slippery slopes" with regard to fundamental rights. Fundamental rights should be protected among all citizens, including the fundamental right to marry. Recognizing a slippery slope when protecting a human right is illogical and ridiculous.
The slippery slope argument comes in if you use a 14th Amendment argument but it isn't. It's a Full Faith and Credit argument. A marriage from one state HAS to be recognized in all the states. Once Iowa legalized gay marriage the argument against gay marriage became moot!
When marriage between interracial couples was finally recognized, did that former slippery slope lead to homosexual marriage?
That's precisely what you're doing. How is it just to deny same-sex marriages on the unfounded argument that "it might open the door to other kinds of marriages"? That's like saying that, since allowing people to ingest green ketchup, people will begin to ingest everything green and slimy including pickles and toxins; therefore, green ketchup should not be eaten. Or like saying that, since it's okay to put your child in time-out for one minute, it will be okay to put them in time-out for two minutes, or three, or all eternity; therefore, time-outs should be prohibited. Or perhaps since it's okay to slip in one red herring, we'll slip in a second and a third and pretty soon the discussion of same-sex marriages will become one of metaphysics and philosophy, neither of which have a standing in law; therefore, we should abandon discussion of same-sex marriages altogether.
I don't think I need to slap you in the face and tell you to focus on what's actually going on here. The question is whether same-sex couples -should- be allowed to marry. That question can be answered by asking the question: In today's society, what does marriage signify?
What about a brother and sister “in love?” The typical objection when confronted with the brother-sister “marriage” challenge is that procreation between siblings increases the chance for birth defects in children. So then, what is the objection to two brothers “marrying?”
Several other reasons that sibling-sibling (and, for that matter, parent-child) marriages are unadvisable are here elided, including perhaps most important—the likelihood of coercion. Indeed, considering that married couples who are known to have a high probability of producing children with very severe congenital conditions are permitted to procreate, it strikes me as being significantly less important than the question of informed consent.
The opposition cannot object to a brother-brother “marriage” absent an appeal to a moral standard.
There seems to be an unstated assumption that those on the side of marriage equality reject the idea that marriage should be subject to moral constraints, but very few actually do. The argument in favour of marriage equality is that the current moral standard which excludes same-sex couples is inappropriate , not that there should be no moral restrictions whatever.
But in objecting to all sibling “marriages” they are unwittingly arguing that marriage: 1) is essentially a procreative institution, 2) benefits the state primarily as a child-protective institution, and 3) may be limited by moral considerations. These are the very arguments they must reject in order to justify the imposition of same-sex “marriage.”
It is unclear why the first two premises are important to the scenario presented above, and the last premise misrepresents the arguments underlying marriage equality.
See above. Sibling-sibling marriages are legitimately rejected on a basis other than procreation.
Children are not a prerequisite to being recognised as married, nor are same-sex parents unheard of. Additionally, there are other statutory benefits to stabler, happier, more affluent families.
See above. Arguing against one particular, extant restriction does not constitute a challenge to them all; this is as true in the case of marriage equality for same-sex couples as it was for that of marriage equality for interracial couples.
But the opposition refuses to engage in a thoughtful debate on these issues.
Perhaps there are some individuals who do not wish to investigate this issue with composure and honesty, but it is unfair to characterise all by the actions of a few.
I inadvertently submitted this as though I were "uncommitted". This is not true: so that you may know my biases, I am firmly on the "yes" side.
Also, the odd structure of the post is because I was not sure if HTML is accepted here—apparently not. If it were, the quotes would be indented, and my rebuttals to the numbered suppositions would be presented as a numbered list. Also, a couple of words would have been emphasised.
My apologies for any confusion caused. To present my excuses: this is my first time on the site, and as a web developer I am naturally inclined to use HTML if I think I possibly can!
In advocating same-sex marriage, we acknowledge that any two people who love each other should be able to marry each other, and children, in a safe and loving environment, will be raised well by any parents. We do, of course, have to lay certain restrictions on love and marriage, for the sake of the exploited and the offspring (in the case of incest). Children cannot marry each other, for they are not mature enough to consent to a commitment and to sexual relations. An adult cannot marry a child, for the child still cannot consent. Nor can bestiality be tolerated—it is abusive to the animal—or (generally speaking) incest, since the offspring of that relationship would be unfairly subjected to the genetic disturbances consequent of inbreeding. The great irony of the Alliance Defense Fund’s argument is that they expose the bias of those who might advocate same sex marriage with one hand, and decry other sound marriages with the other.
Those marriages between consenting adults must be tolerated, unless it is an incestuous relationship that may produce children. We do not have to be comfortable with it—if we cannot deny it based on logic, then government and society must be tolerant of others beliefs. I am a practicing Catholic, and I wholeheartedly side with my church on issues of incest and polygamy, but I cannot ask my government to make laws against them, for my beliefs in their immorality are founded in religious dogma, not secular reason, and as such, it would be unjust, and un-Christian, of me to force my religious dogma upon other people.
I object to the assumption that the purpose of marriage is for procreaion. Were this the case we would prohibit couples where either the man or the woman were sterile, couples who had progressed past the child-bearing age, or couples who did not intend to have children with the same legal strictures that we place on gay couples.
Accepting same-sex couples marrying is not the same as relatives marrying, nor is it the same as multiple marriage, or "marriage" to an animal. Each of these are very seperate and distinct arguements.
The legal basis for marriage exists to ensure the rights that the states and federal government provide such as visitation in hospitals, tax incentives, etc. Should there be an objection on a religious basis this is for each church, synagogue, mosque, etc to determine on their own what they choose to do, from their own religious standpoint. The seperation clause should keep that decision out of a legal framework.
Two people of the same sex getting married is just two people playing house. It has nothing to do with hate or discrimination. It has to do with what is right or wrong. Allowing gay marriage is just showing that the society is going deeper into moral decay. God is the one that created marriage & it is between one man and one woman anything else apart from that is not of God therefore, cannot be called a marriage.
Some people might say God does not judge them well let's clarify that. While you are alive on this earth in your mortal body God has not yet pass judgment on anyone because he wants everyone to be saved and that means accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of your life, because after death is the judgment. Everyone will give have to an account on the type of life they lived here on earth.
Does God allow each of us to make our own choices? Yes, but know this every decision you make has consequences. The Bible said in Revelation 2l verse 8, "But the cowardly, the unbelieving the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars-their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." I am not making this up it is already written.
I for one would rather burn in hell then allow some asshole tell me who i can and cant marry. if you want to qoute the bible i'll quote it right along with you. God created everyone in his image right. it says that in the bible. and you know what if your so called god/savior actually loved everone why would he condem us to hell for loving.... i firmly belive that you will be the one going to hell because your hating against us and were only loving deary.
Tamara;
How nice of you to define marriage for me and everyone else. If you wish to (pesonally) not recognize a marriage that doesn't meet with your religiopus convictions, that is fine. Don't let them into your house , your church , your private club, but you may not deny them their rights as humans.
It is the height of ignorance and arrogance to insistently inflict a judeo-christian " god -ethic" upon those that don't accept this particular view.
Have you ever lied, Tamara?
But maybe someone else did. I recognize your right to believe in any god you choose, but I do ask that you also recognize others' rights to believe (or not) as they wish, and that therefore turning religion into law goes against a basic human right to choose not to believe in a religion. If your intent is to convince others that same-sex marriage is wrong, you will do better if you rely on logic rather than faith.