Thursday, July 18, 2013

The Slippery Slope to Marrying Spider Monkeys

The slippery slope is a logical fallacy.

You know, it's the one your parents always used on went something like this:

"If you stay up late at night, next thing you know you'll be hanging out with the BAD kids.  And you're going to start drinking Mountain Dew.  Soon it'll be Skol Vodka with the Mountain Dew, and then you're going to do drugs, like that poor boy I heard about on the news.  They said he was popping Sally's or Polly's or Stacey's  like those rappers.  You're gonna be hanging around with this Chief Keef and drinking robitussin...and eventually be turning tricks in Gary, Indiana for a pimp with a fake gold tooth named Raul. DON'T EXPECT ME TO BAIL YOU OUT THEN!"

DirecTV has a multimillion dollar advertising campaign based on such a rationale.

It's the most frustrating method of argument because it strings together causal relationships faster than you can object, and generally it's someone spitting mad launching them at you.  While foaming at the mouth. 

Slippery slope is also a frequently used conservative argument against initiatives for gay marriage.  Some of the things you hear are flat out retarded.  Like "oh if you can marry another man today, then maybe I can marry household cleaning products tomorrow.  I NOW PRONOUNCE YOU MAN AND 60 INCH FLATSCREEN TV WITH DELUXE MLB PACKAGE." (Actually, that sounds pretty  good).  

Gay rights activists seem to believe a expansion of state recognized marriage provisions will stop only with same-gender couples.  However, there are others who are using the slippery slope argument to justify marriage for other groups (and I mean large groups) of people.  I found this in a rather popular Chicago blog earlier today.  This is totally whack. In fact, reason number 5 is basically "Because I get to bang a lot of chicks."

So ladies, do you really feel like sharing your man with 7 or 8 other women?  Having to sleep by yourself while your husband is cuddling your other, other wife?  How about being the bride, the maid of honor and the freaking flower girl at the same time?

Gentlemen, do you really honestly think you can handle the emotional needs and relationship time required for 4 or 5 or 6 women?  And a job?

Kids will be stuck sharing one father between three or four families.  Although my father wasn't perfect, I couldn't imagine having 1/4 or 1/5 of a Dad.  Yes, some people grow up with none.  My heart goes out to you.   But, plenty of research supports that children with a present father are better off in life.  Having to share one with 3 other families is a cruel thing to do to a child.  And that's where this line of thought is wrong: once again we're justifying what we want by our own desire, and ignoring the health of the following generation.  Here is another article, this time in blogs for the economist, using the slippery slope fallacy to move from homosexuality to polygamy.

So where does it stop?  Is there a place to restrict marriage?  Heterosexual monogamy?  Is it any monogamy?  Polygamy?  Homosexual polygamy?  Pan sexual polygamy?  Can I marry a cousin (wait, Jerry Lee Lewis already did that)? Animals?  Blow up dolls?

You tell me where you draw the line.  But if the only justification of marriage choices is sexual preference- then there is no logical hard line as to where marrying something becomes wrong.

I really am curious as to what you think should constitute a legal marriage.  Your thoughts are welcome.


  1. I don't see any logical problem with allowing polygamy to be recognized. However it does open up some legal loopholes, for example a man could try marrying 9 illegals just to give them citizenship. What's more, per the legalization of gay marriage, some of those spouses could be males. There would have to be some serious oversight to close and monitor these loopholes.

    1. You could literally marry your whole company for tax benefits. It's the A MADHOUSE, A MADHOUSE.

  2. I'm not convinced that the sphere of civil government should be licensing marriages at all.

    In other matters of law that somehow intersect the area of marriage the civil government should only acknowledge a marriage between a man and a woman. (For example, if a man dies and does not have a will, if there is evidence of his marriage (written, testimonies, etc.) then the court should acknowledge that the property now belongs to the wife. If, on the other hand, a man says "that man was my spouse" the court should NOT uphold any claim to property).

    So... The civil government's involvement is not in telling people who can or cannot get married in a direct sense, but when it comes to property, who takes care of the children after death, etc., the civil government should only work with God's definition of marriage in Genesis.

    Noah Webster's definition of marriage is excellent (,marriage)

    Here it is:

    "The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children."

  3. I think you don't understand that fallacies have a "point" too... they are irrational and emotional... but sometimes your "feelings" are irrational and emotional... as long as you acknowledge the irrationality of this it then becomes a tool to help communicate more "real talky"...