PDA

View Full Version : The End of Divorce? Growing Numbers of People Marrying Inanimate Objects



FlaGator
04-14-2009, 04:52 PM
I believe wilbur was making fun of the slippery slope argument when it comes to homosexual marriage. While this article is not exactly on point, it does make one wonder what that hell is wrong with people.


Eija-Riitta Berliner-Mauer is married to the Berlin Wall. Like any couple, they’ve had their ups and downs, but over the years, they’ve been able to meet each other’s spiritual and emotional needs. “We even made it through the terrible disaster of 9 November 1989, when my husband was subjected to frenzied attacks by a mob. But we are still as much in love as the day we met,” Berliner-Mauer said last year.

Berliner-Mauer (the German name for the Berlin Wall, which she has taken as her last name) has since defined her love under the term “objectum sexual,” or OS—in other words, a person who falls in love with inanimate objects. As an animist, she, along with a growing group of others, believe that inanimate objects are sentient, intelligent beings.


Read the rest (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2009/04/13/the-end-of-divorce-growing-numbers-of-people-marrying-inanimate-objects/)

FeebMaster
04-14-2009, 05:10 PM
Can they file their taxes jointly?

AlmostThere
04-14-2009, 06:15 PM
This thread leads to so many off-color comments it hard, if not impossible, to pick just one. :D

Odysseus
04-14-2009, 08:12 PM
As an animist, she, along with a growing group of others, believe that inanimate objects are sentient, intelligent beings.
And compared to her, it's hard to argue that they aren't. :D

wilbur
04-14-2009, 08:39 PM
I believe wilbur was making fun of the slippery slope argument when it comes to homosexual marriage. While this article is not exactly on point, it does make one wonder what that hell is wrong with people.


Making fun? No, just pointing out that its quite ridiculous. There are valid uses of slippery slopes, but not when comparing gay marriage to pedophilia or marriage to inanimate objects.



Read the rest (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2009/04/13/the-end-of-divorce-growing-numbers-of-people-marrying-inanimate-objects/)

The Eiffel tower is at least somewhat phallic... you can see almost barely see a somewhat sensical psychological disorder there... but the Berlin wall? Weird!

FlaGator
04-14-2009, 09:46 PM
Making fun? No, just pointing out that its quite ridiculous. There are valid uses of slippery slopes, but not when comparing gay marriage to pedophilia or marriage to inanimate objects.



The Eiffel tower is at least somewhat phallic... you can see almost barely see a somewhat sensical psychological disorder there... but the Berlin wall? Weird!

But the attempts are being made. You can make the arguement (which you have) that the legal system will never allow a person to marry a goat, but 30 years ago if you would have asked any one they would have told you the legal system would never allow 2 men to marry.

SarasotaRepub
04-14-2009, 10:09 PM
So...it's ok now to be married to your work???:confused::D

FlaGator
04-14-2009, 10:57 PM
So...it's ok now to be married to your work???:confused::D

Yes but you must be a mormon if you have a conventual wife too.

Gingersnap
04-14-2009, 11:04 PM
This is why I advocate domestic partnerships. They are little different from an LLC with provisions and they skip all the tedious sexual entanglements.

It's obvious that once same-sex "marriage" is enacted that there little or no argument barring group marriage or incest for consenting adults. Monuments and appliances won't be far behind. Let's just take the sex angle out of it altogether for all the non-religious people. It will be less sticky.

FlaGator
04-15-2009, 12:26 AM
This is why I advocate domestic partnerships. They are little different from an LLC with provisions and they skip all the tedious sexual entanglements.

It's obvious that once same-sex "marriage" is enacted that there little or no argument barring group marriage or incest for consenting adults. Monuments and appliances won't be far behind. Let's just take the sex angle out of it altogether for all the non-religious people. It will be less sticky.

I wonder if wilbur will point out to you as he has pointed out to me that this will never happen. The slippery slope idea is just silly when it comes to the long term ramifications of same-sex marriages :rolleyes:

wilbur
04-15-2009, 02:40 AM
I wonder if wilbur will point out to you as he has pointed out to me that this will never happen. The slippery slope idea is just silly when it comes to the long term ramifications of same-sex marriages :rolleyes:

A slippery slope is a fallacy that gets paraded about when a person has no solid case for their position... such as yours here, in this case.

How about listing the top reasons you can imagine as to why we should not to recognize marriages or partnerships with inanimate objects... what does that list look like?

FlaGator
04-15-2009, 07:04 AM
A slippery slope is a fallacy that gets paraded about when a person has no solid case for their position... such as yours here, in this case.

How about listing the top reasons you can imagine as to why we should not to recognize marriages or partnerships with inanimate objects... what does that list look like?

Are telling me that you support marriage to inanimate objects? If so perhaps first you should list the reasons why it should be allowed. None of your usual conjecture that you pass off as facts. Hard evidence that such relationships would benefit the individual and society.

If you don't support the marriage of people to inanimate objects then how about instead of dealing in theoreticals we deal in actual events and I produce evidence of the slide down the slippery slope. I'll post links to news articles (which I've done before) referencing people who wish to marry non human lifeforms and object. One piece of evidence is the article itself.

Normally I don't by in to the slippery slope argument but in the case I have to because evidence of it is starting to occur now.

SarasotaRepub
04-15-2009, 07:16 AM
A slippery slope is a fallacy that gets paraded about when a person has no solid case for their position... such as yours here, in this case.

How about listing the top reasons you can imagine as to why we should not to recognize marriages or partnerships with inanimate objects... what does that list look like?


1.) It's fucking stupid and anyone who buys into it is fucking stupid too.

FlaGator
04-15-2009, 08:19 AM
1.) It's fucking stupid and anyone who buys into it is fucking stupid too.

I can't believe that wilbur is going to defend marriage to inanimate objects in order to make a point about the differences between heterophobe marriages and the slippery slope marriages he claims won't happen. I think I see where his is going with this but it only confirms my belief that Mrs. Smith has finally succeeded in her neferious plot to drive him insane.

linda22003
04-15-2009, 08:31 AM
There are likely many women in conventional marriages who would describe their husbands as inanimate objects, especially in the evenings in the LaZBoy, with the remote.

wilbur
04-15-2009, 10:01 AM
I can't believe that wilbur is going to defend marriage to inanimate objects in order to make a point about the differences between heterophobe marriages and the slippery slope marriages he claims won't happen


Unless you plan on relying on an endless cascade of possible marriage permutations that we would be powerless to stop if another is allowed, you actually need to pick one and justify why its bad.

Odysseus
04-15-2009, 10:25 AM
This is why I advocate domestic partnerships. They are little different from an LLC with provisions and they skip all the tedious sexual entanglements.

It's obvious that once same-sex "marriage" is enacted that there little or no argument barring group marriage or incest for consenting adults. Monuments and appliances won't be far behind. Let's just take the sex angle out of it altogether for all the non-religious people. It will be less sticky.
Polygamy is already making inroads in Europe, thanks to Sharia law. It's only a matter of time before it comes here as well. I suspect that some Hollywood star is going to convert when he realizes that he can give his ongoing threesome, foursome or whatever, legal status.

A slippery slope is a fallacy that gets paraded about when a person has no solid case for their position... such as yours here, in this case.
Hardly. Once a precedent is established in law, it must be followed through to its logical conclusions (or, in the case of the Ninth Circuit, illogical conclusions). The estabilshment of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment has given rise to numerous rulings that the enacters never foresaw, including Title IX, which has resulted in the elimination of male sports teams in the interests of "fairness." Slippery slopes happen because precedents have implications beyond the initial decision.

BTW, it's extremely disingenuious for liberals to deny the validity of slippery slope arguments when one of the major tenets of the progressives is that each decision towards "progress" sets the stage for the next milestone. Take, for example, the gay activists' desired endstate, which is the end of heterosexuality as the dominant norm of the culture. Each step towards that goal has facilitated the next step and created momentum towards it. When gay activists demanded (and got) equal considerations for domestic partnerships in terms of health benefits, hospital visitations, etc., those who stated that the next step would be gay marriage were ridiculed. Now we're at gay marriage. Slippery slope arguments aren't invalid if the slope is visible and you can see the bottom from where you are.

How about listing the top reasons you can imagine as to why we should not to recognize marriages or partnerships with inanimate objects... what does that list look like?
Sure:
Inanimate objects cannot express consent. Consequently, unless you are the owner of the object in question, anyone can lay claim to its affections. Who gets to decide who marries the Washington Monument, for example (Don't laugh, there are a lot of women who find it attractive, and size matters, no matter what women say to the contrary). If there is no means of deciding who has a claim to a public monument, then we end up either denying the right to marry the object or accept the premise that multiple people can marry it. The choice is then between no marriage to inanimate objects, or poligamy.

Even if property rights are not an issue (in the event that you wish to marry something that you already hold title to), does someone have to divorce an inanimate object before marrying again? Remember, no consent from the pet rock is possible, so it clearly cannot be an issue. That means that marriage, once entered into, can be unilaterally disolved. If that applies to marriages between people (and once the precedent is established, it eventually will), you end up with marriages that can be destroyed at will by only one partner. For an idea of what that looks like, take a look at Islamic divorces, where a man can simply publicly repeat that he is divorced three times and it's a done deal. The result of that will be families that collapse at the first disagreement. We'll end up with marriages that have no more meaning than casual hookups, with a complete collapse of familial responsibility, which, BTW, was one of the major arguments against no-fault divorce, one of the first steps on the slippery slope to where we are now. Precedents matter.

There are likely many women in conventional marriages who would describe their husbands as inanimate objects, especially in the evenings in the LaZBoy, with the remote.
Mrs. O, is that you? :eek:

Gingersnap
04-15-2009, 10:28 AM
Unless you plan on relying on an endless cascade of possible marriage permutations that we would be powerless to stop if another is allowed, you actually need to pick one and justify why its bad.

Recognizing a relationship with an inanimate object as being socially and legally on par with traditional marriage is bad because it degrades the institution as a whole and makes the institution less desirable to normal people. It opens a precedent of making human relationships subject to the law that would normally govern property. It allows for arguments that would inevitably eventually propose voluntary slavery (among consenting adults).

While I'm perfectly aware of the Libertarian argument for voluntary slavery, I have no desire to live in a nation that would recognize it.

linda22003
04-15-2009, 10:32 AM
Perspective has to be maintained. In terms of inanimate objects, I had a deeply meaningful relationship with a double-ribbed smoked pork chop a couple of years ago at the Six Penn restaurant in Pittsburgh. It was fabulous while it lasted, and when it was over I just wanted to sit next to it for awhile, but ultimately I knew it couldn't last forever.

I still think about it sometimes, though. :o

Gingersnap
04-15-2009, 11:24 AM
Perspective has to be maintained. In terms of inanimate objects, I had a deeply meaningful relationship with a double-ribbed smoked pork chop a couple of years ago at the Six Penn restaurant in Pittsburgh. It was fabulous while it lasted, and when it was over I just wanted to sit next to it for awhile, but ultimately I knew it couldn't last forever.

I still think about it sometimes, though. :o

You're such a slut, Linda. :D

wilbur
04-15-2009, 12:16 PM
BTW, it's extremely disingenuious for liberals to deny the validity of slippery slope arguments when one of the major tenets of the progressives is that each decision towards "progress" sets the stage for the next milestone.

A slippery slope is always fallacious reasoning... it doesn't always mean its conclusions arent true, but the conclusion was arrived at improperly.



Sure:
Inanimate objects cannot express consent. Consequently, unless you are the owner of the object in question, anyone can lay claim to its affections. Who gets to decide who marries the Washington Monument, for example (Don't laugh, there are a lot of women who find it attractive, and size matters, no matter what women say to the contrary). If there is no means of deciding who has a claim to a public monument, then we end up either denying the right to marry the object or accept the premise that multiple people can marry it. The choice is then between no marriage to inanimate objects, or poligamy.

Even if property rights are not an issue (in the event that you wish to marry something that you already hold title to), does someone have to divorce an inanimate object before marrying again? Remember, no consent from the pet rock is possible, so it clearly cannot be an issue. That means that marriage, once entered into, can be unilaterally disolved. If that applies to marriages between people (and once the precedent is established, it eventually will), you end up with marriages that can be destroyed at will by only one partner. For an idea of what that looks like, take a look at Islamic divorces, where a man can simply publicly repeat that he is divorced three times and it's a done deal. The result of that will be families that collapse at the first disagreement. We'll end up with marriages that have no more meaning than casual hookups, with a complete collapse of familial responsibility, which, BTW, was one of the major arguments against no-fault divorce, one of the first steps on the slippery slope to where we are now. Precedents matter.


Good, I can work with this.

You have highlighted several good reasons why marriage between humans and objects is at best a non-sensical proposition. Property issues.. the fact that contracts are meaningless unless made between entities that are sentient and self-aware... heck, it might even raise strange issues in criminal cases.. would we charge someone for kidnapping for stealing an iPod that was someone's spouse?

We certainly can't stop people from having little ceremonies and declaring they have an intimate relationship with some object, but it certainly makes no sense to recognize it legally. One might say it makes about as much sense as creating a legal framework that allows one to loan money to themselves.

Now that we have a basic outline of the objections that pose seemingly insurmountable problems for proponents of object-marriage, we should take a look at the alleged slippery slope.

If the slippery slopers are to be believed, we should be able to plainly see how same-sex marriage will directly weaken these core objections to object-marriage that you and I have raised. If allowing X will remove our ability to object to Y, then the core objections to Y must be directly circumvented by X. In other, words, same-sex marriage needs to directly answer answer or provide a way around all (or at least the most important) of your core objections to object-marriage. It should be obvious to everyone, that it doesn't. But unless it does, our ability to oppose object-marriage has not been diminished.

Allowing same-sex marriage provides no possible answer to disputes that may arrise between two people who both want a monogamous marriage with the Washington Monument. Same-sex marriage provides no justification for a unilateral dissolution of all marriage, nor any other objection you have raised in regards to object marriage.

Object marriage is still just as incoherent and unworkable and will be just as easily opposed whether we allow same-sex marriage or not.

Hence, the fallacy of the slippery slope. This holds true for pedophilia marriage as well. Recognizing marriage between two of the same-sex in no way provides justification for disregarding all contractual laws and restrictions regarding minors, not to mention child rape laws. In other words, the slippery slope argument against same-sex marriage is simply BS... and there's no way around it.

Next.

FlaGator
04-15-2009, 01:12 PM
Hence, the fallacy of the slippery slope. This holds true for pedophilia marriage as well. Recognizing marriage between two of the same-sex in no way provides justification for disregarding all contractual laws and restrictions regarding minors, not to mention child rape laws. In other words, the slippery slope argument against same-sex marriage is simply BS... and there's no way around it.

Next.

So at some point, let's say in 5 years, some 40 year old makes makes the argument in a state court that their civil rights and the rights of a 12 year old child are being violated because the two are not allowed to marry and have a sexual relationship. Now let's say the judge agrees with them and grants their petition to marry, you are saying that lies out side the scope of the slippery slope argument?

linda22003
04-15-2009, 01:16 PM
You're such a slut, Linda. :D

Why, just because I've had lots of other pork chops in my life? This one was really special. Ask PoliCon, he probably knows the restaurant.

wilbur
04-15-2009, 01:27 PM
So at some point, let's say in 5 years, some 40 year old makes makes the argument in a state court that their civil rights and the rights of a 12 year old child are being violated because the two are not allowed to marry and have a sexual relationship. Now let's say the judge agrees with them and grants their petition to marry, you are saying that lies out side the scope of the slippery slope argument?

Whats to stop someone from doing that now? Lack of same-sex marriage? Don't think so.

Nothing about same-sex marriage would force a judge to rethink all the laws and regulations regarding statutory rape and child abuse.

FlaGator
04-15-2009, 01:35 PM
Whats to stop someone from doing that now? Lack of same-sex marriage? Don't think so.

If they use the same argument and the thought was put in their head or enboldened them because of the attempts at legalizing same sex marriages then there is an ideological cause and effect established. We have seen similar legal manuevering where hate crimes are concerned. Originally there were no hate crimes then because of the attacks upon blacks by white surpremists lead to the creation of hate crime laws. After that evey minority or fringe group wished to have the same additional protections as the African-Americans enjoyed.

wilbur
04-15-2009, 01:50 PM
If they use the same argument and the thought was put in their head or enboldened them because of the attempts at legalizing same sex marriages then there is an ideological cause and effect established.

So what if they are emboldened? A temporary jolt in courage doesn't make their arguments any more sound, or legally possible.. nor does it mean we have to give them any more credence than we did yesterday. There are no legal avenues, nor philosophical avenues, that are opened up as a result of same-sex marriage that could cause a judge to re-think and repeal all our child abuse laws, child rape laws, and our ethics and morals regarding the treatment of minors. None.



We have seen similar legal manuevering where hate crimes are concerned. Originally there were no hate crimes then because of the attacks upon blacks by white surpremists lead to the creation of hate crime laws. After that evey minority or fringe group wished to have the same additional protections as the African-Americans enjoyed.

White supremacists persecute any minority. Even whites who are homosexual. I think hate-crime laws are stupid, but there isn't a significant gulf between hate-crime laws applied to African-Americans and other minorities like there is between same-sex marriage, object-marriage, and pedophilia. Not even close. Apples and toasters.

FlaGator
04-15-2009, 02:34 PM
So what if they are emboldened? A temporary jolt in courage doesn't make their arguments any more sound, or legally possible.. nor does it mean we have to give them any more credence than we did yesterday. There are no legal avenues, nor philosophical avenues, that are opened up as a result of same-sex marriage that could cause a judge to re-think and repeal all our child abuse laws, child rape laws, and our ethics and morals regarding the treatment of minors. None.



White supremacists persecute any minority. Even whites who are homosexual. I think hate-crime laws are stupid, but there isn't a significant gulf between hate-crime laws applied to African-Americans and other minorities like there is between same-sex marriage, object-marriage, and pedophilia. Not even close. Apples and toasters.

OK then lets take hate crime laws as a stand alone since you don't want to take the broad view and see that they represent exactly the same.

Anyways, one group was seeking civil rights that it felt it deserved and then received them. Then other groups began seeking the same rights that didn't exist before the first group established them for itself. Is this not a text book case of the slippery slope argument. You said you don't like them and I don't care for them either so we agree at this point. At the time when the first hate crime laws were inacted I sure someone pointed out that if you created this new set of civil rights then others would claim them too. In short made the slippery slope argument and in this case it was a valid logical conclusion.

wilbur
04-15-2009, 04:38 PM
OK then lets take hate crime laws as a stand alone since you don't want to take the broad view and see that they represent exactly the same.

Anyways, one group was seeking civil rights that it felt it deserved and then received them. Then other groups began seeking the same rights that didn't exist before the first group established them for itself. Is this not a text book case of the slippery slope argument. You said you don't like them and I don't care for them either so we agree at this point.


Actually, hate crime laws in various states and federally were always intended to be applicable to any group (religion, race, gender, etc), not just African Americans... so its hard to see what you intend to accomplish here. Not to mention, there are no special civil rights created because of hate crime laws, except maybe some extra compensatory or punitive damages awarded in court cases... thats it. Hate crimes are mostly about punishment, and discouraging the ideologies behind the hate crimes... not 'receiving civil rights'.



At the time when the first hate crime laws were inacted I sure someone pointed out that if you created this new set of civil rights then others would claim them too. In short made the slippery slope argument and in this case it was a valid logical conclusion.

Quotes, or it didn't happen. In fact, lets see the evidence that hate crime laws were initially intended to curb discrimination against blacks only, and that applying hate crime laws to crimes against other peoples (ie, say crimes with an anti-semitic character) is improper use, in light of the original intent of the laws.

Not to mention, all the good arguments against hate-crime laws are not slippery slope arguments. There are real problematic issues with the core philosophies behind hate crime legislation.

In either case, its still a losing proposition here to try and argue that because there was a valid slippery slope situation regarding hate crimes laws (allegedly), that the same must be true for same-sex marriage.

AlmostThere
04-15-2009, 05:29 PM
There are likely many women in conventional marriages who would describe their husbands as inanimate objects, especially in the evenings in the LaZBoy, with the remote.

Only if there's a fridge within arm's reach and a porta-potty built into the recliner. And how many of us besides me have that, huh? :D

MrsSmith
04-15-2009, 08:34 PM
A slippery slope is always fallacious reasoning... it doesn't always mean its conclusions arent true, but the conclusion was arrived at improperly.


:rolleyes:

Slippery slope...in the 50's, married people were portrayed on TV as sleeping in separate beds.

One TV show began to show a married couple in a double bed...always completely covered, of course.

Then they began to show married couples less covered.

Then they showed unmarried couples actually kissing.

...
...
...

Now we have the equivalent of the '50's XXX porn on television, available to children of all ages.

The simple fact is that the slippery slope actually happens. Society "progresses" in the wrong direction, one step at a time, until the "unthinkable" becomes the norm.

Your knowledge of recent history seems to be as lacking as your knowledge of theology.

FlaGator
04-15-2009, 08:41 PM
Actually, hate crime laws in various states and federally were always intended to be applicable to any group (religion, race, gender, etc), not just African Americans... so its hard to see what you intend to accomplish here. Not to mention, there are no special civil rights created because of hate crime laws, except maybe some extra compensatory or punitive damages awarded in court cases... thats it. Hate crimes are mostly about punishment, and discouraging the ideologies behind the hate crimes... not 'receiving civil rights'.



Quotes, or it didn't happen. In fact, lets see the evidence that hate crime laws were initially intended to curb discrimination against blacks only, and that applying hate crime laws to crimes against other peoples (ie, say crimes with an anti-semitic character) is improper use, in light of the original intent of the laws.

Not to mention, all the good arguments against hate-crime laws are not slippery slope arguments. There are real problematic issues with the core philosophies behind hate crime legislation.

In either case, its still a losing proposition here to try and argue that because there was a valid slippery slope situation regarding hate crimes laws (allegedly), that the same must be true for same-sex marriage.

You did just like I thought you'd do. Deny, deny, deny because you are unable to admit that something you believe to be true is in fact in error. When given an example of a valid slippery slope arguemnt you can't admit that you point falls apart so you deny the example as being valid. The hate crime laws are the perfect example of the argument and your point is now invalid. Whether you see it or not; whether you can admit it or not you have been proved wrong and every one who reads this thread knows it. Don't believe me... ask them.

wilbur
04-15-2009, 11:09 PM
:rolleyes:

Slippery slope...in the 50's, married people were portrayed on TV as sleeping in separate beds.

One TV show began to show a married couple in a double bed...always completely covered, of course.

Then they began to show married couples less covered.

Then they showed unmarried couples actually kissing.

...
...
...

Now we have the equivalent of the '50's XXX porn on television, available to children of all ages.

The simple fact is that the slippery slope actually happens. Society "progresses" in the wrong direction, one step at a time, until the "unthinkable" becomes the norm.

Your knowledge of recent history seems to be as lacking as your knowledge of theology.

You simply dont grasp what a slippery slope is:



The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.

FlaGator
04-16-2009, 07:21 AM
You simply dont grasp what a slippery slope is:

Perhaps you are the one who doesn't grasp what a slippery slope is? It would seem that you don't since you view of it differs from everyone elses.

wilbur
04-16-2009, 09:22 AM
You did just like I thought you'd do. Deny, deny, deny because you are unable to admit that something you believe to be true is in fact in error. When given an example of a valid slippery slope arguemnt you can't admit that you point falls apart so you deny the example as being valid.
The hate crime laws are the perfect example of the argument and your point is now invalid.
Whether you see it or not; whether you can admit it or not you have been proved wrong and every one who reads this thread knows it. Don't believe me... ask them.


Your facts regarding hate crimes are simply false in every way. Hate crime legislation WAS never designed strictly to combat only black discrimination. They were designed to apply to any crime that had extreme discriminatory intent towards any group that has a designated protected status (sex, religion, nationality, race, etc). You can appeal to the crowd all you like, the facts agree with me here.

Even if you were correct, its also fallacious to try and draw a parallel between hate crimes and the same-sex marriage legislation arguments you are trying to make. It might make some sense for your slippery slope fallacies against same-sex marriage if you could show that hate crime status has been, or will eventually be invoked for the "persecution of inanimate objects" and that inanimate objects get protected status under the law. Show me someone getting charged with a hate crime for committing a crime with "Anti-iPod-ism" as a motivation and I might concede a minor point to you. But lo and behold... hate crimes still only apply to people.

Your posts are starting to get crazier than MrsSmith's.

Odysseus
04-16-2009, 11:50 AM
A slippery slope is always fallacious reasoning... it doesn't always mean its conclusions arent true, but the conclusion was arrived at improperly.

Not at all. A slippery slope argument is valid when it identifies a precedent and extrapolates that precedent to its logical conclusion. Here is an obvious example: The Supreme Court once ruled that while congress does not have the right to take certain actions on its own, it does have the right to pass laws that support our treaty obligations, regardless of their constitutionality. The issue was an international wildlife treaty that prevented hunting of certain migratory birds. Congress had previously tried to ban the hunts with legislation and the law was declared unconstitutional. After the US became a signatory to the treaty, congress enacted an almost identical law, which the Supreme Court approved, because it was not the law of the land, but rather, compliance with an international treaty obligation. The precedent established was that the congress could agree to international norms that would invalidate the Constitution. The slippery slope was that the federal government could negotiate away our rights through treaties. The example used at the time was an international gun control treaty that could invalidate the 2nd Amendment. Last week, during his European apology fest, Obama subordinated the US economy to a G20 financial supervisory board through an international agreement. Had congress voted to take control of the US economy, it would have been successfully challenged at the Supreme Court, but by allowing others to create a binding treaty and ratifying it, the feds have circumvented the Constitution and destroyed centuries of free market priniciples in one stroke. Those who predicted this were accused of a slippery slope argument, but they appear to have been prescient.



Good, I can work with this.
You have highlighted several good reasons why marriage between humans and objects is at best a non-sensical proposition. Property issues.. the fact that contracts are meaningless unless made between entities that are sentient and self-aware... heck, it might even raise strange issues in criminal cases.. would we charge someone for kidnapping for stealing an iPod that was someone's spouse?
You miss an important distinction. Consent in a legal context requires more than sentience and self awareness. A child cannot consent to a contract, regardless of their IQ, because he/she is under age and the law has always recognized that limit. If inanimate objects cannot give consent, neither can children, and thus children cannot marry of their own accord. If, however, only one member of the marriage must consent, then inanimate object marriage establishes a precedent by which child marriage can be advanced. True, parental objections are a matter of law, but what of those children who lack parents? Once they are subject to the precedent, the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment applies.


If the slippery slopers are to be believed, we should be able to plainly see how same-sex marriage will directly weaken these core objections to object-marriage that you and I have raised. If allowing X will remove our ability to object to Y, then the core objections to Y must be directly circumvented by X. In other, words, same-sex marriage needs to directly answer answer or provide a way around all (or at least the most important) of your core objections to object-marriage. It should be obvious to everyone, that it doesn't. But unless it does, our ability to oppose object-marriage has not been diminished.

Allowing same-sex marriage provides no possible answer to disputes that may arrise between two people who both want a monogamous marriage with the Washington Monument. Same-sex marriage provides no justification for a unilateral dissolution of all marriage, nor any other objection you have raised in regards to object marriage.

Object marriage is still just as incoherent and unworkable and will be just as easily opposed whether we allow same-sex marriage or not...

Hence, the fallacy of the slippery slope. This holds true for pedophilia marriage as well. Recognizing marriage between two of the same-sex in no way provides justification for disregarding all contractual laws and restrictions regarding minors, not to mention child rape laws. In other words, the slippery slope argument against same-sex marriage is simply BS... and there's no way around it.

You have made a fallacy. In order for same-sex marriage to lead to object marriage, you assume that the core objections to it must also apply to every aspect of every other type of marriage that will come down the pike. You are viewing X and Y, but you are failing to see the rest of the alphabet. The correct analysis is: If A is true, then B is very likely true. If B is true, then C is very likely true. If C is true, then D is true, and if D is true, then you can make the case for E... Eventually, A leads to Y, not because it is a direct cause, but because the precedent established by A leads to B, which leads to C, etc. In the case of gay marriage, the precedent is that marriage is no longer between one man and one woman and that the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment requires that this be extended to those who wish to marry within the same sex. Since marriage is no longer defined as one man and one woman, we have done two things; First, we have accepted that the traditional definition of marriage is no longer valid (freeing the activists to begin redefining marriage to suit their agendas) and we have established that everyone has the right to demand that their particular form of marriage be recognized and sanctioned by the state. This is not a frivolous point. Precedent defines law to a greater degree than the original intent of the legislators. This set of precedents leads to arguments that marriage can be between multiple consenting adults. The Equal Protection clause will be used to support this, since the religious prohibitions on polygamy are strictly Judeo-Christian. Moslems, pagans, animists and various other groups will be able to argue that this discriminates against their tribal/religious practices and traditions. We have seen this applied in Europe, where the recognition of Sharia law has resulted in de facto recognition of polygamous marriages. Welcome to step B. In addition, Islam permits marriage by minors as young as nine years old. Consent is required only on the part of the parents. Again, religious tradition becomes enshrined in law by precedent. We have gone from A to B to C. Having established that consent is not an issue, nor is age an impediment, we now have pedophilia protected by law so long as it is part of marriage. Of course, what the married claim as a right cannot be denied to the unmarried (that 14th Amendment again), so now we see that pedophilia becomes permitted outside of marriage. NAMBLA's mainstreaming becomes step D. Also, keep in mind that in Arab tribal cultures, a form of endogamy exists in which first cousins marry. The acceptance of Sharia brings us to minors married without consent as well as the acceptance of far closer familial relations within marriage than ever before accepted, and it takes very little in the way of argument for siblings to demand the same rights as cousins. Let's call the breaking of this incest taboo step E. Since marriage is now open to any sentients, we can bring PETA to the table to argue that animals are capable of complex emotional commitments and that they should have the same rights as people. The elimination of a requirement for the expression of consent and the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman leads to bestiality. Welcome to step F. Step E is the animists demanding the same rights for objects, based on their religious principles that those objects have souls.

Here we have seven degrees of separation from gay marriage to inanimate object marriage, not because gay marriage and inanimate object marriage share the same principles, but because the precedent established by gay marriage undermines one of the key definitions of marriage and opens the gate to further redefinitions which arise from the logical fallacies of the first decision. Combined with other established precedents, the institution becomes further redefined until ultimately, marriage becomes a meaningless gesture.

FlaGator
04-16-2009, 09:38 PM
Your facts regarding hate crimes are simply false in every way. Hate crime legislation WAS never designed strictly to combat only black discrimination. They were designed to apply to any crime that had extreme discriminatory intent towards any group that has a designated protected status (sex, religion, nationality, race, etc). You can appeal to the crowd all you like, the facts agree with me here.

Even if you were correct, its also fallacious to try and draw a parallel between hate crimes and the same-sex marriage legislation arguments you are trying to make. It might make some sense for your slippery slope fallacies against same-sex marriage if you could show that hate crime status has been, or will eventually be invoked for the "persecution of inanimate objects" and that inanimate objects get protected status under the law. Show me someone getting charged with a hate crime for committing a crime with "Anti-iPod-ism" as a motivation and I might concede a minor point to you. But lo and behold... hate crimes still only apply to people.

Your posts are starting to get crazier than MrsSmith's.

There you go, rewriting the history of things, converting facts to fit your definition of something. If hate crime laws weren't originally designed for a particular group then why have later groups petitioned the government to be included? Why are homosexual's asking for hate crime laws for themselves because they are covered by current hate crime legislation?

You keep going back to the inanimate object reference after I decoupled for you to so that we could discuss your representation of the concept of a slippery slope. Let it go, it is only your attempt at diverting discussion from an argument that you are failing to prove you point. Now you are inferring that I am crazy which is another attempt to change focus from the topic at hand because your are not proving your point. It is easier I guess to question someones sanity than face the fact that you may be in error.

You are the only one who is holding this contrived view of the slippery slope argument. By contrived I mean you have made it so mailable that it allows you to change it to fit any situation and deny that a slippery slope exists. Fortunately no one here is buying what you are selling, least of all me. Your view is wrong and now as in all things you can not let it go because you can not admit that you may have an erroneous view. Just because you found a definition in Wikipedia that appeals to you doesn't make the definition is right.

The following document may clear things up for you.

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/slippery.htm

Condensed down in reader's digest form this states that the slippery slope argument fails if one states that the outcome of a choice will definitely lead to an unwanted outcome that logically follows the original cause. It is not a fallacy if the slippery slope argument is used to project possible outcomes based on a logical cause and effect process. The final outcome of a series of events dictates whether the slippery slope argument was valid or not.

What I gather from you is that at the start you assume that the slippery slope argument is wrong and any thing that follows, whether it makes the case for slippery slope argument or not is not proof of the validity of the argument. I'm stating that the outcome determines the validity of the argument.

Odysseus
04-17-2009, 09:55 AM
Condensed down in reader's digest form this states that the slippery slope argument falls if one states that the outcome of a choice will definitely lead to an unwanted outcome that logically follows the original cause. It is not a fallacy if the slippery slope argument is used to project possible outcomes based on a logical cause and effect process. The final outcome of a series of events dictates whether the slippery slope argument was valid or not.

What I gather from you is that at the start you assume that the slippery slope argument is wrong and any thing that follows, whether it makes the case for slippery slope argument or not is not proof of the validity of the argument. I'm stating that the outcome determines the validity of the argument.

The whole concept of progressive politics assumes an upward slippery slope, and that any attack on their program is a step downwards. What's funny is that Progressives believe that mankind is advancing towards a state of greater enlightenment and equality and that their duty is to guide us there. This, BTW, is why they refues to accept any limit on any abortions, no matter how odious, because it is perceived as part of a plot to outlaw all abortions, or why they will work for incremental gun control laws, with the understanding that their final goal is an outright ban. Their basic assumption is that opening up what had previously been the preserves of privilege to everyone, such as redefining marriage to include anyone who wants it, will make it non-discriminatory to all in the long run. Progressives love slippery slopes, so long as the momentum is going their way.

FlaGator
04-17-2009, 10:04 AM
The whole concept of progressive politics assumes an upward slippery slope, and that any attack on their program is a step downwards. What's funny is that Progressives believe that mankind is advancing towards a state of greater enlightenment and equality and that their duty is to guide us there. This, BTW, is why they refues to accept any limit on any abortions, no matter how odious, because it is perceived as part of a plot to outlaw all abortions, or why they will work for incremental gun control laws, with the understanding that their final goal is an outright ban. Their basic assumption is that opening up what had previously been the preserves of privilege to everyone, such as redefining marriage to include anyone who wants it, will make it non-discriminatory to all in the long run. Progressives love slippery slopes, so long as the momentum is going their way.

It's hard to convince them that not all progress is good. If one is progression to the edge of a cliff it is good to stop progressing and start looking for another route.

Lemmings being lemmings however... do what comes naturally.

Odysseus
04-17-2009, 10:36 AM
It's hard to convince them that not all progress is good. If one is progression to the edge of a cliff it is good to stop progressing and start looking for another route.

Lemmings being lemmings however... do what comes naturally.

That's why Obama promised hope and change, not experience and improvement. :D

wilbur
04-17-2009, 02:25 PM
To Ody and FlaGator, on slippery slopes:

Once you've enumerated direct cause and effect, (ie, you've connected the dots), its no longer a slippery slope... its soundly and prudently considering all the possible consequences. But this whole corollary argument is stupid... if you want to use a different definition of slippery slope, fine who cares, have at it, it doesn't add anything to your other arguments.

I have shown that the arguments so far have been formal slippery slope fallacies. Several posts ago, I already granted that slippery slope reasoning can result in a correctly predicted outcome (even if poor reasoning was used to reach it).




You miss an important distinction. Consent in a legal context requires more than sentience and self awareness. A child cannot consent to a contract, regardless of their IQ, because he/she is under age and the law has always recognized that limit. If inanimate objects cannot give consent, neither can children, and thus children cannot marry of their own accord. If, however, only one member of the marriage must consent, then inanimate object marriage establishes a precedent by which child marriage can be advanced. True, parental objections are a matter of law, but what of those children who lack parents? Once they are subject to the precedent, the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment applies.


First, we arent talking about a shift from animist marriage to pedophilia.. we're talking about same-sex marriage to animist marriage.

Second, it does not follow that if the legal status of some inanimate-object is elevated to a degree nearer to human beings, that a precedent is created that allows fundamental rights to be taken away from children. This is quite a puzzling tac for you to take when you say:

"If inanimate objects cannot give consent, neither can children, and thus children cannot marry of their own accord".

It makes it sound as if you think the philosophical underpinnings of the fundamental rights of minors flow from the legal status of inanimate every-day objects. But this is obviously faulty, and so are your conclusions that follow from it.



You have made a fallacy. In order for same-sex marriage to lead to object marriage, you assume that the core objections to it must also apply to every aspect of every other type of marriage that will come down the pike. You are viewing X and Y, but you are failing to see the rest of the alphabet. The correct analysis is: If A is true, then B is very likely true. If B is true, then C is very likely true. If C is true, then D is true, and if D is true, then you can make the case for E... Eventually, A leads to Y, not because it is a direct cause, but because the precedent established by A leads to B, which leads to C, etc.


Well now all we need to do is apply the same technique that we used before when analyzing the alleged same-sex marriage to animist marriage connection. We begin by listing all the insurmountable objections to each case, and then question how the previous case could remove those obstacles, if at all. I'll deal with most of them all at once, because they are all the same for the most part, until you try and tie in bestiality and animist marriage at the end.

In most of of your proposed steps, you cite the 14th amendment as the wedge that will be used to bring about further changes to marriage. Yet, in almost every single successive step, you talk about forms of marriage that cannot exist without gross violations of fundamental rights. Fundamental rights that are enshrined under mountains and mountains of legal precedent, including the 14th amendment itself. Same-sex marriage cannot even begin to set the stage for weakening these rights. To claim same-sex marriage can erode those rights in such a way is to claim you jumped to the moon from a trampoline. Precedent behind these rights goes light years beyond what could be possibly be affected, even in worse worst case, by redefining marriage to include same-sex partnerships.

The only wild-card in that whole lot is polygamy. I'll grant you, polygamy is the hardest out of all the examples, but this is precisely because it actually has such a long history all over the world (including strong roots in Judeo-Christian traditions). You also seem to forget that those who have fought hardest for polygamy in this country (for over a century), have been doing so on the grounds of religious freedom... Christian religious freedom. The objections and the counter-arguments are wide and varied, but the strongest objections to polygamy have always been about human trafficking, underage marriages, rights violations of women, and extreme burdens placed on state welfare systems.

So the strongest arguments about polygamy really come back to fundamental rights too. The only thing that gives polygamists an argument is the fact that not all polygamist relationships would have some of those negatives. Whether polygamy results in gross fundamental rights violations can at least be debated... but not so for other forms of marriage that you claim are on the same slope. Same-sex marriage provides no means around the fundamental rights issues surrounding polygamy and most definitely not the iron-clad fundamental rights violations inherent in the other forms of marriage you mention.

So at this point you really have to explain how the equal protection clause can be used to strip minors of their most protected fundamental rights by citing religious freedom, in a way never before seen or allowed in this country. But hey... why stop there, why not just come out and say same-sex marriage leads to slavery? You know you want to. I'm sure if we let your imagination run with it farther, it can be tied to terrorism in some way too.

Even our tolerance for religious freedom in this country cannot stretch beyond the boundaries of fundamental rights. See laws against genital mutilation for some recent precedent in that regard.



Since marriage is now open to any sentience, we can bring PETA to the table to argue that animals are capable of complex emotional commitments and that they should have the same rights as people. The elimination of a requirement for the expression of consent and the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman leads to bestiality. Welcome to step F. Step E is the animists demanding the same rights for objects, based on their religious principles that those objects have souls.


Since we cannot get to this point, period.. this is moot anyways... but if its argued that animals are capable of complex emotional commitments, it seems that would imply some capacity to express consent.. your illusory connection to animist marriage is broken.



Here we have seven degrees of separation from gay marriage to inanimate object marriage, not because gay marriage and inanimate object marriage share the same principles, but because the precedent established by gay marriage undermines one of the key definitions of marriage and opens the gate to further redefinitions which arise from the logical fallacies of the first decision. Combined with other established precedents, the institution becomes further redefined until ultimately, marriage becomes a meaningless gesture.


Your entire pathway is simply one gigantic compound slippery slope.. there is no reasonable logical way to get from each point to each point, legally or philosophically, much less from A to E.

You get an A for effort, though, on the weaving of that intricate little optical illusion.

In the end, these slippery slope tactics are necessary for same-sex marriage opponents because it is impossible to cite any compelling negatives resulting from same-sex marriage. Ironically, if there's anything that can be said to clear such a path down that slippery slope, it would be overzealous appeasements made for the sake of religious practice.. a favorite cause for most same-sex marriage opponents (when it comes to the one true religion, that is).

To put the final nail in the coffin... several nations have had same sex marriage for over a decade, so we actually have means to corroborate these slippery slope claims. They arent playing out.

FlaGator
04-17-2009, 03:37 PM
I used a definition supplied by UCLA Law, you used on supplied by Wikipedia...:eek:

wilbur
04-17-2009, 04:03 PM
I used a definition supplied by UCLA Law, you used on supplied by Wikipedia...:eek:

Your fixation on the irrelevant does not salvage anything about your arguments.. and I have not attempted to hastily dismiss any argument presented here based solely on its classification as a slippery slope... I have supported all my positions.

What do you hope to accomplish by belaboring on about definitions of slippery slopes? You cannot salvage your arguments regarding either hate crimes or same-sex marriage by doing so.

FlaGator
04-17-2009, 04:25 PM
Your fixation on the irrelevant does not salvage anything about your arguments.. and I have not attempted to hastily dismiss any argument presented here based solely on its classification as a slippery slope... I have supported all my positions.

What do you hope to accomplish by belaboring on about definitions of slippery slopes? You cannot salvage your arguments regarding either hate crimes or same-sex marriage by doing so.

It amuses me to see you put so much in to an answer that not many at this site will accept. I agree with you up to a point put you stated that the slippery slope argument in and of itself is a fallacy and I just wanted to point out that it is not true. Legally it is a valid arguement. In regard to same sex marriage... I do see your point and I'll even concede it to you and publicly state that you are correct and I was wrong. But you seem to be so fearful of being wrong that you go to great lengths to prove a point when other than me you won't change anyones mind.

Believe it or not, I do respect your opinion on things outside of Christianity and that is because you don't understand it as well as you would have some believe.

Peace,
Gary

Odysseus
04-17-2009, 05:21 PM
To Ody and FlaGator, on slippery slopes:

First, we arent talking about a shift from animist marriage to pedophilia.. we're talking about same-sex marriage to animist marriage.
No, you're narrowing the field. The slope is the declining value and sanctity of marriage through redefinition. Same-sex marriage is one step on that continuum. As I pointed out later in my post, the erosion of traditional concepts of marriage creates precedents that encompass inanimate marriage and which can lead to other forms of "marriage" which are extremely destructive.


Second, it does not follow that if the legal status of some inanimate-object is elevated to a degree nearer to human beings, that a precedent is created that allows fundamental rights to be taken away from children. This is quite a puzzling tac for you to take when you say:

"If inanimate objects cannot give consent, neither can children, and thus children cannot marry of their own accord".

It makes it sound as if you think the philosophical underpinnings of the fundamental rights of minors flow from the legal status of inanimate every-day objects. But this is obviously faulty, and so are your conclusions that follow from it.

No, my contention is that once we accept the idea that consent is not a requirement for marriage, then marriage can and will encompass people (and things) which cannot give consent. The rights of minors in western culture are part and parcel of natural law. They have basic rights to life and, to a lesser degree, liberty (within the context of their dependence on their parents), but in some cultures, children are considered the property of their parents, and thus, their consent is not necessary for arranged marriages. Many of these cultures are, in fact, animist, although many are found throughout the Moslem world. The critical factor, however, is that in each of these cultures, there is a tribal/clan dynamic rather than a culture of individual rights. When these concepts invade the west, we will find ourselves forced to accomodate practices which strike us as bizarre.


In most of of your proposed steps, you cite the 14th amendment as the wedge that will be used to bring about further changes to marriage. Yet, in almost every single successive step, you talk about forms of marriage that cannot exist without gross violations of fundamental rights. Fundamental rights that are enshrined under mountains and mountains of legal precedent, including the 14th amendment itself. Same-sex marriage cannot even begin to set the stage for weakening these rights. To claim same-sex marriage can erode those rights in such a way is to claim you jumped to the moon from a trampoline. Precedent behind these rights goes light years beyond what could be possibly be affected, even in worse worst case, by redefining marriage to include same-sex partnerships.
And yet, same-sex marriage cannot exist without overturning mountains and mountains of legal precedent, including state constitutions, legal codes and traditions. If the advocates of same-sex marriage can invalidate those constitutions, codes and traditions, why can't the advocates of object marriage, child marriage or polygamists?


The only wild-card in that whole lot is polygamy. I'll grant you, polygamy is the hardest out of all the examples, but this is precisely because it actually has such a long history all over the world (including strong roots in Judeo-Christian traditions). You also seem to forget that those who have fought hardest for polygamy in this country (for over a century), have been doing so on the grounds of religious freedom... Christian religious freedom. The objections and the counter-arguments are wide and varied, but the strongest objections to polygamy have always been about human trafficking, underage marriages, rights violations of women, and extreme burdens placed on state welfare systems.
On the contrary, I am very much aware of the religious arguments for polygamy in Judaism and Christianity, but Judaism banned polygamy in the 11th century after Rabbenu Gershom's synod and Christianity has banned polygamy since the days of St. Augustine. Only one Christian sect has practiced polygamy in the last century, the LDS, and they've forbidden the practice. Globally, Hindus and Confucians practiced forms of polygamy into this century, but India and most other Asian nations have banned it, except those in which Sharia law is applied. The only major religious group that advocates polygamy today is Islam, although it is also common in sub-Saharan Africa.


So at this point you really have to explain how the equal protection clause can be used to strip minors of their most protected fundamental rights by citing religious freedom, in a way never before seen or allowed in this country.
The equal protection clause is constantly being interpreted in ways never before seen or allowed in this country, the most obvious example being the novel argument that it justifies same-sex marriage. Once you accept the premise that marriage is a "right," it will be used as a wedge to advance group rights, rather than individual rights, it can be used to demand that those who have a religious commandment to take multiple wives be allowed to do so, or at least that their marriages from overseas be recognized here (this, BTW, is Britain's official position on the subject), since those marriages are just as valid in the eyes of Allah as Christian or Jewish marriages are in the eyes of God. Thus, polygamous practices from Asia and Africa will eventually be accepted and recognized out of a desire to accord the religious practices of those peoples the same protection as those accorded to Christians and Jews.

But hey... why stop there, why not just come out and say same-sex marriage leads to slavery? You know you want to. I'm sure if we let your imagination run with it farther, it can be tied to terrorism in some way too.
You've clearly never been to Kabul on a Thursday night. :D
Once again, you confuse cause with effect. Same-sex marriage isn't the cause of the collapse of marriage, it's a symptom of it, but one which accelerates the collapse. By redefining marriage away from traditional norms, we lose sight of what marriage is and isn't. Consequently, we end up with all sorts of variants which may work individually, for a while, but which ultimately destroy the basic security of the institution. For example, same-sex marriages, like secular polygamous marriages and arranged marriages, treat marriage strictly as a contractual obligation, to be terminated when the partners find it unsatisfying to their needs. This ignores the most vulnerable parties to the casual dissolution of marriages, children, who are utterly dependent on their parents. Rather than treating marriage as a means to form stable families whose main purpose is to provide the necessary conditions to raise healthy, emotionally stable children, marriage becomes as casual as dating, which becomes a series of hookups. The lack of stability and structure makes raising children much more difficult, while exposing them to dangers not normally found in traditional marriages.
In fact, the erosion of marriage norms, of which same-sex marriage is a symptom, does lead to chattel slavery, or wouldn't you consider a forced marriage involving a minor to be a form of sexual slavery?


To put the final nail in the coffin... several nations have had same sex marriage for over a decade, so we actually have means to corroborate these slippery slope claims. They arent playing out.
Want to bet? The nations that have adopted full same-sex marriage are:

Belgium
Canada
Netherlands
Norway
South Africa
Spain
Sweden

South Africa has a huge polygamous population. Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Sweden have de facto polygamy in their Moslem enclaves and recognize those marriages in their welfare and legal systems. In addition, these countries also have serious problems with arranged marriages involving child brides in those same quarters. The exception, so far, is Canada, but their legalization of same-sex marriage is extremely recent and the demographic fallout has yet to be observed. Amsterdam has a massive human trafficking problem, as does Norway and Belgium. Sexual crimes such as rape are epidemic in South Africa. Again, this is not a causal relationship between same-sex marriage and polygamy or underage marriage, but evidence that the same dissolution of traditional marriage mores that permits same-sex marriage also creates a more permissive attitude towards polygamy, underage marriage and the objectification and sexual abuse of all people.

In short, you've put the final nail in the coffin, but you did it from the inside.