I have a new argument in mind when someone claims, “If you legalize gay marriage, you’ll have to let people marry their dog or a child or their sister or a whole group of people.”
I just want the right to marry a man.
Not a dog — no one has that right.
Not a child — no one has that right
Not a close relative or a whole group of people — no one has that right.
I just want the right to marry a man — and half the population already has that right. I just want to extend it to the entire population. So that men and women are equal under the law. That’s completely different from those other examples.
I like this because I can say it quickly and because it gets to a key indisputable distinguishing fact: No one can marry a dog, but some people can already marry a man.
I’ve written about slippery slope arguments before, but I’m always looking for rebuttals and that are simple and short. We have to remember that many undecided voters simply don’t care much about marriage equality, don’t think about it all that much, and will cast their ballot based on sound bites.
I can be long-winded, so I’ll never lack for lengthy arguments. My personal challenge is to be brief. In fact, based on what I wrote above, I could shorten it to:
No one can marry a dog, but some people can already marry a man. This just gives men and women the same rights.
On the other hand repetition does help drive a point home. Gut reactions, anyone?
I’ll be out canvassing for marriage equality today, and if I have a chance to use this, I’ll let you know how it goes
If someone gave that argument to me, I’d have to say, “I’ve seen your wife, you already have the right to marry a dog”.
Sorry I couldn’t resist.
This comment is not to suggest a rebuttal to the slippery slope argument. It’s just to say I’ve just found your blog (through boremetotears.com), watched your videos, cried during most of the videos and would like to say that although I live a thousand miles away (Canada) you’ve got my and my husband’s emotional support and we’re rooting for gay marriage to become a reality on the entire planet.
I wish I’d thought of this one sooner. I already have the right to marry a man, and there’s no inherent difference between my genitalia and men’s that merits a law allowing me to marry a man but not a man to marry a man.
I love this argument. Short, sweet, and to the point. Awesome!
Good argument, actually. A lot of people use the polygamy, incest, beastiality argument, and although I think it’s ridiculous, I haven’t ever had an argument I thought countered it effectively.
This argument, I think, does that. With gay marriage, we’re not asking to be able to perform an action that was previously illegal, unlike in the case of PIB.
Do you realize that in all the older versions of the Bible they used the term “sodomites”. The newer versions of the Bible changed sodomites to mean homosexual. When actually the Religious definition of Sodomites was anyone practicing “Ritualistic Homosexuality”. In the Roman times men would rape other men to show their dominance over them. THAT was ritualistic homosexuality, NOT two men loving eachother.
You can read the entire article here;
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/sodom.htm
It’s interesting what you can learn online;
http://www.biblegateway.com/topical/topical_searchresults.php?searchtype=all&search=homosexuality&resultspp=25&source=1
The problem is that words can be twisted no matter what. If you wanted to marry a child, you could say “I just want the right to marry a human being, as some people already have.”
If you wanted to marry your married sister, you could say “I just wanted the right to marry Susan, which Joe has”. You should have the same rights as Joe, right?
I like the longer, repetitive one.
I just found your website (from the Traditional Values Coalition youtube video).
Good Luck to you in your work for marriage equality!!
I’m proud to say that we just got our marriage license on monday and we are getting married in June!
I hope that you, too, will soon be able to share in the insanity of planning your wedding.
Best wishes!
“If you wanted to marry a child, you could say “I just want the right to marry a human being, as some people already have.”
Interesting point Rona, but if someone pulled that on me, I’d answer, “No, you want to marry a human being that NO ONE currently has the right to marry. That certainly would be a big change. But that’s not what I’m asking for.”
In fact, that might be the most succinct version of the argument yet.
That’s a good one! I didn’t even think of that.
I like how you’ve flipped the argument to focus on the object. It gets slightly confusing though when you say “half the population has that right.” It’s not clear that you’re referring to a roughly 50/50 split of male/female. If you flip the ordering and lead with men and women being equal under the law, your argument may flow better. Or, you could lead with, “I want equal rights. Men and women are equal under the law and right now only women can marry men. That’s not right…”
“If you wanted to marry a child, you could say “I just want the right to marry a human being, as some people already have.”
Actually, people DO already have the right to marry a minor as long as that minor has parental consent, so I don’t see the point people are trying to make when they use that argument.
Many countries have gay marriage. Show me one example where it’s led to these other, unrelated types of marriage. No one advocating gay marriage is talking about marrying goats or children. The only ones spending time thinking and talking about it are self-identified moral conservatives.