Since writing this post about how Christians are accused of resorting to the slippery slope fallacy when arguing against homosexuality, I’ve wanted to post some examples about what actual slippery slopes look like. I finally got the gumption to seek out a certain ad campaign that made a meme out of slippery slope arguments, which turned out to be by DirectTV.
Just as a reminder, the Fallacy Files defines the slippery slope in this way:
If A happens, then by a gradual series of small steps through B, C,…, X, Y, eventually Z will happen, too.
Z should not happen.
Therefore, A should not happen, either.
The Fallacy Files also has this to say about the slippery slope:
This type of argument is by no means invariably fallacious, but the strength of the argument is inversely proportional to the number of steps between A and Z, and directly proportional to the causal strength of the connections between adjacent steps. If there are many intervening steps, and the causal connections between them are weak, or even unknown, then the resulting argument will be very weak, if not downright fallacious.
As you can see, the commercials lampoon slippery slope arguments by having many steps with weak causal connections between them, making them “very weak, if not downright fallacious.”
On the other hand, the case for polygamy – which Christians are mocked as appealing to the slippery slope for even bringing up – sits on entirely the same ground as that of “gay marriage,” as proven by the favorable decision granted to the Brown family of Utah (of Sister Wives fame). Their argument “relied primarily on the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down the Texas law banning sodomy, which was celebrated by gay rights advocates.”
All this is just to say: do not be cowed into silence by the slippery slope accusation. Know your fallacies, and be ready to explain to others why this argument is not a fallacious slippery slope.
http://issuesetc.org/
The Chi Files 
I think you misunderstand what happened in Utah. They were not, as seems to be popularly believed, granted any sort of marriage right. The ruling only applied to their right to live together…something not banned in most places and only a token gesture in Utah.
eyeontheuniverse: I understand that the ruling effectively decriminalized polygamy (in all but the strictest sense of obtaining multiple marriage licenses), just as the Texas ruling decriminalized sodomy, but did not establish gay marriage in Texas, yes. I think my point stands that the logic applied to the one must necessarily be applied to the other (as the judge did in this case, citing the Texas decision). So too must the gay marriage logic now being accepted in ever more states also apply to polygamy.
Polygamy, by definition, refers to marriage. The state never regulated spiritual/religious marriages and has made no change regarding legal marriages. This ruling has nothing at all to do with polygamy.
Putting aside the Utah case which was not about marriage, there are some very big differences between same-sex marriage and polygamy as legal institutions. Same-sex marriage extends existing structures and laws to additional persons, and the only real changes needed are gender/sex references on a few forms.
Polygamy, as it would be instituted in the United States, would mean simultaneous polyandry and polygyny, something very rare in the world. This would mean that a man could be married to multiple women who were also married to multiple men (or women). Additionally, most countries allowing polygamy limit the number of spouses, so it is never really a free for all. If you set it up this way hundreds of thousands of people could be married in interconnected webs.
Marriage in the United States has numerous legal implications and benefits. Allowing someone to bring one person into the country for marriage has a very small impact as this occurs rarely and the numbers only went up a few percent allowing same sex marriage. With unlimited polygamy a person could marry an entire country…even with evidence of validity a couple of hundred.
There are tax, property, custody implications as well that would all have to be dealt with before set up polygamy as a legal institution. And in an egalitarian country approvals would be required for all activities by all parties…who might, in fact, want to marry persons utterly unconnected to others in the network.
This isn’t to say that such a system could never occur, but it is far more complex than most people realize. What we would be looking at is something much more difficult that the polygyny allowed in Islamic countries and the legalities would take decades to work out. It simply isn’t going to happen any time in the foreseeable future.
eyeontheuniverse: Hear what I’m saying: Just as in the case of gay relations in the Lawrence v. Texas case, polygamy went from being outlawed/criminalized, to simply not being recognized by government. I’m not saying it puts polygamy on the books and starts issuing marriage licenses for a man’s multiple wives, and neither did the Texas decision mean marriage licenses for gay partners. However, it does have to do with polygamy, particularly insofar as it establishes a precedent, and everyone from the plaintiffs’ attorney to the news media recognizes that.
As to the rest of what you wrote… Dude, “gay marriage” has its own logistics issues. Procreation and child custody, just for starters. I mean, “the only real changes needed are gender/sex references on a few forms”? Give me a break. Yes, there are logistical challenges to polygamy too, and more’s the reason to keep it from being legally recognized. But the reality is, as long as the argument for gay marriage is “I should be allowed to marry whatever consenting adult person I choose,” this logic applies equally to polygamous (and other) situations.
a) not a dude
b) when most people in the US say “I should be able to marry whatever consenting adult I choose” they are thinking of a single person. If you included everything imaginable the sentence would go on forever. Most people also think there should be restrictions for consent with mental illness and that you shouldn’t be allowed to marry purely for the purpose of providing immigration status. No one is going to include every exception in their sentence.
c) procreation is hardly a unique challenge to same sex marriage. many heterosexual couples cannot, or do not want to marry. Are you proposing woman after menopause, for example, should not be allowed to marry?
d) There are no new issues raised regarding child custody that do not already exist in numerous opposite sex marriages.
Hi eyeontheuniverse!
A couple things:
1.In point c) you reference a minority group of heterosexual couples that have reproductive problems, but in point b) you do not acknowledge that there is a minority of people who would like adult incestuous relationships or polygamous relationships. It seems to me, then, that you are concerned about minority groups. What makes LGBT* folk different from other minorities that wish for the same freedom of marriage that some now enjoy? I would like to see an argument against polygamy (besides the perception of it being unlikely) and incestuous adult relationships, if you don’t mind. 🙂
2. As I have been told, exceptions make bad law. What is the goal of marriage, to you? For many heterosexual couples, it is to raise children to be good, productive citizens. I do not mean to say that procreation is the only thing marriage is for, but I think it is one of the major things, especially speaking legally.
3. In response to d) In a lesbian relationship, if children are desired, one must get sperm. Often times, the child that this would produce has no legal right to know the origins of their genetic or biological information. Although this can also happen in heterosexual couples, it happens with much less frequency! Also, if a male homosexual couple decides they would like to find a surrogate, the same things apply. The child is not legally entitled to know that part of their DNA or biological makeup. This sums up more of my concerns on the redefinition of parenthood by the state.
I do not see as many concerns with child custody as I do with the situation of the child in the years to come either after adoption or after fertility treatment or arrangements have been made. To me, the concern should really be about the child rather than the legality involved in custody, but it is a concern insofar as it affects the child. For example, there are also concerns that involve children over the amount of lifetime partners the biologically gay or lesbian parent has. The more partners of the parent that child is exposed to, especially in shorter periods of time, the more detrimental to their school performance, mental health, and their perceived stability and safety. This is not the only thing that affects children in the households, but this is something that happens (changing partners) with much more frequency than in heterosexual couples. The stability statistics can be accessed here: http://www.familystructurestudies.com/outcomes/ and then clicking on the “family safety”,”suicide”,”therapy”, “depression” and “education”. There is also statistical findings that children in gay and lesbian families have more delinquent behaviors such as smoking, arrests, and non-minor offenses compared to intact heterosexual families.
eyeontheuniverse:
A) Figure of speech.
B) That’s irrelevant and arbitrary and serves to further prove my original point. Why merely 2? Why not 3 or 4? Because there are 2 sexes, and because procreation requires exactly 1 of each. Once you overturn the idea that marriage is an institution between the minimum amount of persons required for child bearing, and moreover an institution created and defined by God as the joining of one of each sex, man and woman, what non-arbitrary reason is there for numerical limitations? For that matter, what, in your view, would be wrong with a marriage to someone who is too mentally ill to consent?
C) You cite a classic case of the exception which proves the rule. Whereas a heterosexual situation where children are functionally impossible would be considered abnormal, it is definitional to homosexual relationships that they have a 100% inability to produce life under any circumstances.
D) Untrue. One example of this is that even in the case of a donor/surrogate, the child’s custody (in the case of a homosexual situation) is shared by 2 “fathers” or 2 “mothers”, as markedly opposed to 1 of each, thus depriving the child of one or the other at the very outset.