Like Button

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Analyzing a Logical Fallacy

You're familiar with the slippery slope argument, right? Here's how it goes. "If you let A happen, B will surely follow." It is typically referred to as a logical fallacy because, well, B might not happen. But in reality, it is only a logical fallacy if B does not happen. That is, if B actually does follow A, the argument was not faulty.

So then we read this article from The Australian about how polyamorists are trying to get in on the "gay marriage" bandwagon and get their own "marriage equity". The headline reads, "Same-sex marriage campaigners distance themselves from polyamorists' demands". "Gay marriage" advocates, you see, do not favor the marriage of multiple people, just their own marriage. But the opening paragraph of the story was really what stung the most.
The main lobby group promoting gay marriage yesterday distanced itself from polyamorists demanding to be included in the proposed reforms, saying marriage involving more than two people would undermine a traditional institution.
"Undermine a traditional institution"??? But ... isn't that the goal? Isn't that a given when the aim is to remove the longstanding, traditional definition of marriage and replace it with something other than "man and woman"? How is it different? And on what basis does "the main lobby group promoting gay marriage" argue against "marriage involving more than two people" if their basic argument is "marriage equity"? Oh, don't say it! "A traditional institution"??!!

How odd, then, to see those who would undermine the traditional institution of marriage opposing others who would seek "marriage equity" by being concerned about the traditional institution of marriage. The irony is really thick here.

The slippery slope argument is not a fallacy if it actually happens. It is actually happening.


Craig said...

I love "marriage equity for all, except..."

David said...

And they accuse Christians of being hypocritical. This tells me that they don't actually want "marriage equity". They want what someone else has on their terms. Personally, if I were for "marriage equity", I'd have to support polyamorists just to be consistent. Wait, didn't you post a topic on being consistent in an argument? :)

Stan said...

They don't want "marriage equity" (as Craig's "except" indicates and they do understand that marriage has a traditional definition which they choose to ignore. Yeah, consistency is not the strong suit, is it?

Craig said...

The reason why they recognize marriage as a traditional definition, is that it gives legitimacy when it is used for other arrangements.

Stan said...

Legitimacy is what they are seeking.

Vaughn Ohlman said...

I agree with your logic, here. Now, in the case of Sodomy it is rather late to talk of a 'slippery slope'. With Sodomite marriage we are already at the bottom of the slope, plunged headfirst into the quicksand. It doesn't get lower than that!

David said...

I've said the same thing for a long time Vaughn. The acceptance of homosexuality as normal and good by a society is the final sign that that society has reached its peak of immorality, and the fall of that society is not far behind. And premillennialists have wondered for so long why there is no mention of the US in end time prophecy.