No Conservatives, Legalizing Gay Marriage Doesn’t Mean Polygamy Is Next

supreme-court-gay-marriage for favorible ruling
Shortly after the Supreme Court’s historic ruling in favor of the right for same-sex couples to marry, conservatives rushed to condemn the ruling by invoking the slippery slope logical fallacy that permitting gay couples to marry opens the door to legalizing polygamy too. Conservative commentator Bill Kristol tweeted “Polygamy here we come”. Fox News host Martha MacCallum queried:

 So suppose three people say, we want to be a marriage; we’re three people, and we love each other, and we want to be a marriage. What’s to prevent that, under this?

Even Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts employed the “slippery slope to polygamy” argument in his dissent, arguing:

It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry?

[[AD2]]
Sadly the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the conservative commentators who echo his argument seem to lack understanding that slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies. There is no relationship between same-sex marriage and polygamy. In fact, historically, polygamy has been almost exclusively practiced in conservative, male-dominated patriarchal cultures that are the antithesis of the progressive and liberating redefinition of marriage being promoted by LGBTQ Americans and their straight allies.

Societies and sub-cultural groups that have practiced plural marriages have been hetero-normative rather than gay friendly. While conservatives enjoy making absurd slippery slope arguments in their feeble attempts to discredit same-sex couples, their arguments are wrapped in emotion rather than logic.

To illustrate the flawed logic of the conservative’s arguments, the slippery slope fallacy can be applied with equal silliness to straight marriages. If a man is permitted to have one wife what is to stop him from having two or even three wives? While that argument may seem patently silly, it is parallel to the argument conservatives are making against same-sex marriages. Well, almost parallel. The truth is a man with one wife is one wife closer to having multiple wives than a man who has no wives and a husband is to having multiple wives.

If conservatives want to argue that gay marriage should not be legal, they have every right to make their case. However, if the best they can come up with is the faulty argument that allowing gay marriage opens the door to polygamy then they might as well keep their mouths shut. If that is the only objection they can muster, it fails basic logic and they have no case.

If you’re ready to read more from the unbossed and unbought Politicus team, sign up for our newsletter here!

36 Replies to “No Conservatives, Legalizing Gay Marriage Doesn’t Mean Polygamy Is Next”

  1. They all need to be institutionalized! The boogeyman is always around the corner! The only thing they don’t fear are male, heterosexual WASP, who are the very people causing problems for the rest of us! Give it a rest already! If THEIR Court does decide polygamy should be legalized, they should rejoice! They can marry the mistresses they have all been keeping!

  2. The truth is that polygamous households in the past remained at all wieldy because plural marriages were available to only one sex (generally male, though certain Himalayan societies were polyandrous). To allow plural marriage to only one sex under our Constitution as it stands is a denial of equal protection; to allow both creates borderless groupings that cannot, for purposes of legal protections or benefits, be called “families”. One or the other concept would have to give way for polygamous marriages to be recognized by our law.

  3. Conservatives sure have very dirty minds. They’re obsessed with controlling women’s vaginas, fantasizing multiple sex partners including animals, asking for video of young women (on birth control)having sex,defend pedophile sexual molesters. These cons are perverts. Every one of them.

  4. DUMBASS As long as you and the inbred among you stupid people receive government benefits from being married then all should have the same benefit. Its in the Constitution. Oh wait your dumbass was homeschooled and never read our government document

  5. What’s the problem with multiple marriage as long as it’s fair for all the parties involved. 4 men 3 women want to join as a marriage fine, just make sure it is run on sound business methods.

    The Usual sort of polygamy rich men bagging the eligible women can cause problem for to poor saps but what can you do?

  6. If all parties are of age and chose that kind of marriage when of age (yes, Warren Jeff’s, I’m talking to you), then I don’t have a problem with it.

    I do want to be a mouse in the corner of the Utah State Legislature if polygamy ever is legalized, mind you.

  7. That seem like a natural progression. With stupid judges and politicians who can’t differential right and wrong, except for allowing “love” then why not. But this will take some years fighting like in Civil Rights and Gay Rights. It will all come to pass in another 50 years.

  8. If I may add to that list of yours: Rape, they desire rape of women.

    he basic legal definition of forcible penetration with a foreign object is:

    Committing an act of sexual penetration with another person,
    Where that penetration is accomplished using a foreign or unknown object,
    Without the other person’s consent,
    Through the use of force, violence, duress, menace, fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury, or a threat to retaliate.2

    http://www.shouselaw.com/forcible-acts.html

    Which is not in the least bit different from the Republican Requirement to demand a Vaginal Ultrasound before an abortion.

    By their actions, ye shall know them.

  9. I could care less about gay marriage. It does not effect me at all. Let people marry who they want I also am not opposed to polygamy. Does not effect me. As long as the tax payers are not paying for the children to support.I am a social liberal but a fiscal conservative. I am more concerned about the 18 trillion dollar debt that is out of controll. A president that is doing nothing to fix it. Isis, Iran, radical Islam, Russian imperialism are a much bigger problem.

  10. Actually, it is the Conservative Republicans that are running both the house and the senate that are holding up legislation that would help the economy, and lower the debt because more people would be working, earning money and spending said earned $$ that in effect would lower the deficit.

  11. Why does polygamy have to be practiced in it’s “historical” manner?

    Using that as an argument against it is invalid. “Historically” marriages between a man and woman were always male dominant, which they no longer are.

    So to say that polygamy remain illegal because of some way it was once practiced is not a valid argument at all.

    I do not see anyway you can now keep polygamy illegal, otherwise bisexuals would need to plan on sex outside their marriage in order to continue being bisexuals……..

    Or, are their gay friends now going to demand that a bisexual woman enter into a lesbian marriage or a heterosexual marriage…… to marry!

    Who is now telling who, who they can marry? Let’s make it easier for everyone and just call it multi-sex marriage.

    There are a lot of people who are currently involved in relationships with more then one person, so who are the new bigots telling them they can not marry and enjoy all the same benefits gays fought for?

  12. There is absolutely no reason that plural marriage has to follow any past model.

    If that is the only argument against it then YOU have no real argument!

    The past model for same marriage was that it was illegal – obviously no one supported same sex marriage by point to the historical model for it!

    Why does plural marriage need to be any different? If it is made legal there is absolutely no reason it has to follow any past model……..

    And there are lots of people who are in loving relationships with more then one person, who also want all the legal protections that gays demanded…..

    Anyone denying them that will become no different then anyone who denied marriage to gays.

  13. The argument FOR polygamy was bound to be the next item. But the law has just been amended to be “one person with one-person” not to include multiples. If they want to change things so that multiples of any variation can conjugate together, then it makes more sense to simply strip the whole ‘marriage’ thing out of the law altogether, and leave everyone as a single entity, to live the way they feel is ‘normal’.
    The result would be that all churches could resume their ‘marriage’ rules to suit themselves, and everyone is happy.
    We would all refer to our ‘partner/partners’ and
    we would all stop ‘giving a hoot’ whether anyone is married to anyone except in religious terms, which is where it all started anyway !
    It would simplify the tax code also !

  14. Of course it opens the door to polygamous marriages. Why not? Don’t the polygamous have the same right to marriage under the newly discovered Constitutional right to marry as anyone else?

  15. the scotus said there is a constitutional right to marry. Where does it say in the constitution that the right is limited to 2 people?

  16. Please see comments on why this would not work, supra, unless marriage as a legal construct did not exist at all.

  17. The slippery slope argument is valid. It was not many years ago (10-12 maybe) when homosexuals only wanted civil unions..they insisted they did not care about marriage. Civil unions was considered the mainstream position. Back then, if you did not support civil unions, you were a hater. Last year, if you said you supported civil unions, but not homosexual marriage, you were a hater. See how quickly things change. Once you change the basic definition of marriage (it just was) others will follow who want in on the game.

  18. Dumbass if your church don’t want to marry gays then they can still do that but marriage is a government institution and unless you and the rest of the bigots will give up your government benefits that to pertain to marriage you should STFU

  19. I see you assholes got your talking points and are running with them. Can you idiots even think without someone telling you what to say? Dumbass

  20. Actually at this point no amount of increase in tax revenue short of making everyone little better than peasants would help our deficit, it REQUIRES our government to cut its outrageous overspending habits and balance the budget for once.

  21. Bisexual merely means that they are sexually attracted to both genders, it doesn’t require them to have multiple sex partners. Just because you don’t happen to be banging a certain gender at a given point in time doesn’t mean your no longer attracted to that gender.

  22. Incestual marriage is not allowed because of the severe defects that are often present in any offspring produced that prevent it from living any sort of normal life. You CAN have sex with your close relatives (yes even your son/daughter if they are over 18) but if you get one of them pregnant you both get jail time and lose the child.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.