Stan’s piece on slippery slopes reminded me of the distinction between a slippery slope and a cliff.
When debating the oxymoronic “same sex marriage” (SSM) topic one of the typical secular arguments I use is that the same arguments could be used to justify polygamy, incestuous relationships, bestiality, etc. The reason is that the pro-SSM arguments are typically that the parties are loving and committed and that the government should therefore recognize and affirm these relationships – even though by nature and design they don’t produce the next generation and they can never provide a mother and father to a child.
The other side often responds that these are “slippery slope” arguments, defined as:
A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, without showing a causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies. A popular example of the slippery slope fallacy is, “If we legalize marijuana, the next thing you know we’ll legalize heroin, LSD, and crack cocaine.” This slippery slope is a form of non sequitur, because no reason has been provided for why legalization of one thing leads to legalization of another. Tobacco and alcohol are currently legal, and yet other drugs have somehow remained illegal.
However, as the link notes, the slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy. In the case of SSM, it is clear from the reasoning that it would apply to these other cases. That is why I consider it a cliff instead of a slope. Once SSM is legislated the same reasoning is immediately available to other groups.
The same thing occurs with the inevitability of SSM impacting religious freedoms and the child abuse of teaching 5 yr. olds how “natural” LGBTQX behavior is.
What is ironic is that the SSM proponents claim (or is it feign?) revulsion at polygamy, incestuous marriages, bestiality, and necrophilia. Yet who are they to pull up the moral drawbridge? Until recently almost all of society viewed GLBT behavior as immoral, and many still do. Why is the pro-SSM crowd so judgmental of other preferences and “orientations?” I would think that polygamists would have a much stronger case for governmental recognition and affirmation than gays, because at least they can provide a mother and a father to a child.
Here’s an overview of same-sex unions.