The Slippery Slope of Same-Sex Marriage: 'Robot Love' Next?

It used to be that a man and a woman got married and had children.  They became parents, and the children called the man father and called the woman mother.  Same-sex marriage will bring an end to all that.

The slippery slope conservatives warned about if same-sex marriage became nationwide will get more grease as time goes by.  With more grease comes more confusion.  Eventually, we will slide into a pool where words no longer mean what they used to mean.  This will be a sign the end of all marriage is upon us.

The end of marriage is how the writers of the blog Agenda Europe see it.  "[G]ay 'marriage' is neither about gays nor about equality. The real purpose is the deconstruction, and indeed the destruction, of marriage and family as basic social institutions. In other words, the aim is to destroy society as we know it."

Consider the confusing news from North Dakota, Utah, Florida, and the Artificial Intelligence community.

"North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem filed a legal opinion … confirming that the state does not recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, allowing a man married to another man to come to North Dakota and marry a woman without divorcing his husband."

Adding to the confusion in North Dakota is a recent ruling in Utah about polygamy.  "Fueling debates over marriage and religious freedom, a federal judge has declared that Utah laws criminalizing polygamy are unconstitutional, ruling on a case involving the Brown family from TLC's reality series 'Sister Wives.'"

William Baude suggests that polygamous marriage is next.  "Social conservatives who argued for marriage solely between one man and one woman have long warned that allowing gay marriage would ultimately lead to allowing polygamy[.]"

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's majority opinion in Obergefell did not focus primarily on the issue of sexual orientation. Instead, its main focus was on a "fundamental right to marry…That right was about autonomy and fulfillment, about child rearing and the social order. By those lights, groups of adults who have profound polyamorous attachments and wish to build families and join the community have a strong claim to a right to marry.

Writing for Breitbart News, Ken Klukowski reflects upon the Utah court decision.  "It's nothing short of Orwellian to say that it's morally right and praiseworthy to redefine marriage to include everything, from homosexuality, to ... one man with four wives and seventeen children, to ten adults in joint bisexual relationships with unclear lines of custody[.] ... It is instead a recipe for social chaos and the abolition of any firm definition of the word 'family[.]'"

But don't let legal and social confusion stop anyone.  Same-sex marriage may open the door to marriages with animals as well.  According to the New York Times, "Mr. Wise filed papers … in State Supreme Court in Fulton County, N.Y., demanding that courts in New York recognize Tommy [a chimpanzee] as a legal person, with a right to liberty[.]"  If a man wants to marry a male chimp, then why not?

"Animals are people, too," read a sign at a recent demonstration to ban big game hunting.  Soon, when animals are called people, you will be able to marry a chimpanzee or your dog.  If you oppose this, you will be accused of not racism, but speciesism.

Marriage with a chimp or a dog seems far-fetched, you say?  Twenty-five years ago, same-sex marriage was a far out idea.  Now it is upon us.  Beyond that comes word that we ought to be able to marry robots.

Years ago we thought that when Mayer Hawthorne sang "Robot Love," he was just kidding around with a catchy tune.  Little did we know.  "I'm a lover / With robot veins / Pumping Valvoline / To my robot brain / Switch me on / See the glowing light / I'm programmable / I can go all night."

Someday, if the GLBTR(robot) community has its way, as Gary Marchant, writing in Slate, claims, "[r]obot-human marriages might be next on the list. Probably not soon, admittedly, but it nevertheless will be an inevitable part of our future." The slippery slope will become the silicon slope.

After robot love, what's next?  When marriage with robots arrives, we may conclude that marriage itself is an archaic, analog idea.  Let's abolish marriage once and for all.  The state will take over the functions of the family.  Children will belong to the state then.  The real aim of the same-sex marriage movement will have been accomplished.

But wait; there is more.

"Why are they questioning me because I'm not biologically tied?" she asked.  That's Cathy Pareto's question.  She and her "wife" have filed a lawsuit against the state of Florida because it will not put the names of two women as parents on a child's birth certificate.

After using a sperm donor, Cathy Pareto gave birth to twins.  "The LGBT group Equality Florida says the lawsuit challenges Florida's refusal to issue accurate birth certificates listing both spouses as parents of their children."

We can only imagine what will happen to these twins with two mothers.  "[S]uch children often experience significantly higher levels of … being arrested, using marijuana, being depressed, having a learning disability or other psychological or developmental problem—and are less likely to graduate from high school. As adults, they are more likely to be unemployed, receive public assistance and to have an extramarital affair."

In spite of Cathy, the future of traditional marriage may not be lost.  SCOTUS could reverse itself, as it did in 1954 with Brown v. Board of Education, where the court repudiated the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1895.  That repudiation took about 50 years.  In the meantime, 50 years of same-sex marriage can create almost two generations of social confusion.  Fifty years may also allow us to import boatloads of sex-bots from Japan.

Let's hope this reversal of same-sex marriage happens soon, before we are cursed with more confusion and grease is added to the gears of robot love.  The song was bad enough.

It used to be that a man and a woman got married and had children.  They became parents, and the children called the man father and called the woman mother.  Same-sex marriage will bring an end to all that.

The slippery slope conservatives warned about if same-sex marriage became nationwide will get more grease as time goes by.  With more grease comes more confusion.  Eventually, we will slide into a pool where words no longer mean what they used to mean.  This will be a sign the end of all marriage is upon us.

The end of marriage is how the writers of the blog Agenda Europe see it.  "[G]ay 'marriage' is neither about gays nor about equality. The real purpose is the deconstruction, and indeed the destruction, of marriage and family as basic social institutions. In other words, the aim is to destroy society as we know it."

Consider the confusing news from North Dakota, Utah, Florida, and the Artificial Intelligence community.

"North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem filed a legal opinion … confirming that the state does not recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, allowing a man married to another man to come to North Dakota and marry a woman without divorcing his husband."

Adding to the confusion in North Dakota is a recent ruling in Utah about polygamy.  "Fueling debates over marriage and religious freedom, a federal judge has declared that Utah laws criminalizing polygamy are unconstitutional, ruling on a case involving the Brown family from TLC's reality series 'Sister Wives.'"

William Baude suggests that polygamous marriage is next.  "Social conservatives who argued for marriage solely between one man and one woman have long warned that allowing gay marriage would ultimately lead to allowing polygamy[.]"

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's majority opinion in Obergefell did not focus primarily on the issue of sexual orientation. Instead, its main focus was on a "fundamental right to marry…That right was about autonomy and fulfillment, about child rearing and the social order. By those lights, groups of adults who have profound polyamorous attachments and wish to build families and join the community have a strong claim to a right to marry.

Writing for Breitbart News, Ken Klukowski reflects upon the Utah court decision.  "It's nothing short of Orwellian to say that it's morally right and praiseworthy to redefine marriage to include everything, from homosexuality, to ... one man with four wives and seventeen children, to ten adults in joint bisexual relationships with unclear lines of custody[.] ... It is instead a recipe for social chaos and the abolition of any firm definition of the word 'family[.]'"

But don't let legal and social confusion stop anyone.  Same-sex marriage may open the door to marriages with animals as well.  According to the New York Times, "Mr. Wise filed papers … in State Supreme Court in Fulton County, N.Y., demanding that courts in New York recognize Tommy [a chimpanzee] as a legal person, with a right to liberty[.]"  If a man wants to marry a male chimp, then why not?

"Animals are people, too," read a sign at a recent demonstration to ban big game hunting.  Soon, when animals are called people, you will be able to marry a chimpanzee or your dog.  If you oppose this, you will be accused of not racism, but speciesism.

Marriage with a chimp or a dog seems far-fetched, you say?  Twenty-five years ago, same-sex marriage was a far out idea.  Now it is upon us.  Beyond that comes word that we ought to be able to marry robots.

Years ago we thought that when Mayer Hawthorne sang "Robot Love," he was just kidding around with a catchy tune.  Little did we know.  "I'm a lover / With robot veins / Pumping Valvoline / To my robot brain / Switch me on / See the glowing light / I'm programmable / I can go all night."

Someday, if the GLBTR(robot) community has its way, as Gary Marchant, writing in Slate, claims, "[r]obot-human marriages might be next on the list. Probably not soon, admittedly, but it nevertheless will be an inevitable part of our future." The slippery slope will become the silicon slope.

After robot love, what's next?  When marriage with robots arrives, we may conclude that marriage itself is an archaic, analog idea.  Let's abolish marriage once and for all.  The state will take over the functions of the family.  Children will belong to the state then.  The real aim of the same-sex marriage movement will have been accomplished.

But wait; there is more.

"Why are they questioning me because I'm not biologically tied?" she asked.  That's Cathy Pareto's question.  She and her "wife" have filed a lawsuit against the state of Florida because it will not put the names of two women as parents on a child's birth certificate.

After using a sperm donor, Cathy Pareto gave birth to twins.  "The LGBT group Equality Florida says the lawsuit challenges Florida's refusal to issue accurate birth certificates listing both spouses as parents of their children."

We can only imagine what will happen to these twins with two mothers.  "[S]uch children often experience significantly higher levels of … being arrested, using marijuana, being depressed, having a learning disability or other psychological or developmental problem—and are less likely to graduate from high school. As adults, they are more likely to be unemployed, receive public assistance and to have an extramarital affair."

In spite of Cathy, the future of traditional marriage may not be lost.  SCOTUS could reverse itself, as it did in 1954 with Brown v. Board of Education, where the court repudiated the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1895.  That repudiation took about 50 years.  In the meantime, 50 years of same-sex marriage can create almost two generations of social confusion.  Fifty years may also allow us to import boatloads of sex-bots from Japan.

Let's hope this reversal of same-sex marriage happens soon, before we are cursed with more confusion and grease is added to the gears of robot love.  The song was bad enough.