Comments on: Polygamy: Roadblocks on the Slippery Slope

By: Carol

Carol — Sat, 02 May 2009 23:34:28 +0000

Ronna, you pulled out a bit of a straw man with Glenn. There’s a BIG difference between being against someone’s rights and not addressing that person’s rights. He says “I don’t see why I need to address it,” as in, “I don’t see why I need to make arguments for or against it.” That is NOT what the straight community feels about gay marriage; in fact, that is the OPPOSITE if it. If the straight community really felt no “need to address it at all,” we would not have had Prop 8 because they wouldn’t have gotten out of their houses to go vote because voting is ADDRESSING it. If anything, the straight community SHOULD feel “no need to address it.” Gay marriage has nothing to do with them; therefore, they should just let gay marriage happen as it does.

And to your statement, “If you won’t fight for the rights of others, why should anyone fight for yours?” I want to ask you, do YOU fight for everyone’s rights? I’m sure there are very few people who fight for the rights disabled, religious freedom, immigrants, freedom of speech, the poor, ethnic minorities, women, sexual minorities, AND the elderly. Are you saying that people shouldn’t support the NAACP just because they don’t actively donate to Asian American organizations? Are you saying that you donate to every charity that you know exists?

Also, Drew was just stating a fundamental difference between the issue of gay marriage and the issue of polygamy.

By: Rona

Rona — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:35:10 +0000

I find it disturbing that the same group of people complaining that they do not have equal rights is so quick to judge another group struggling with a similar issue. One of the statements in this blog is “As a gay man I have no interest in polygamy and don’t see why I need to address it at all.”
Think about it. That is EXACTLY how the straight community feels about gay marriage. A bit of a double standard, isn’t it? If you won’t fight for the rights of others, why should anyone fight for yours?
Another statement was “polygamy is actually quite irrational.”
I thought we were saying gay marriage is about love? Why should a marriage be disqualified because some people think it doesn’t make sense?

By: Drew Tatusko

Drew Tatusko — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 02:28:59 +0000

It is clear that this is a slippery slope assertion that opponents make. It has, as you well know, no basis in fact. Moreover, there are clear sociological reasons why same gender coupling is better for an industrialized society and even a well populized world. Unless you have high infant portality or need children to maintain the family property (in agrarian societies children are as much commodities as they are offspring to nurture), polygamy is actually quite irrational.

I actually posted on this very issue a while back here if you are interested:

http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2009/03/09/why-polygamy-is-not-an-outcome-of-smae-gender-lovepolygamy-is-not-an-outcome-of-same-gender-love/

By: amaxaxy

amaxaxy — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 11:05:27 +0000

mm. thanks.

By: Glenn Ingersoll

Glenn Ingersoll — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 22:22:16 +0000

Even on liberal blogs it’s common for gay marriage discussions to include talk about polygamy. I started challenging such talk — if polygamy needs to be discussed, I say, please discuss it in a thread devoted to polygamy and its problems or benefits. As a gay man I have no interest in polygamy and don’t see why I need to address it at all. One simple change to marriage (one of the autonomous persons taking out the marital contract would no longer be required to be a different sex from the other) does not open the door to every other possible change, nor should it.

The other thing I do is tell people, If slippery slope is the only argument you have, you have no argument at all. … That one really makes people fuss.