"That's a slippery slope argument," they said. "That's a logical fallacy." As I have always liked to answer, it's only a logical fallacy if it doesn't happen. If it happens, it's an entirely rational argument.
The New York Times published an article on December 14th about a federal judge in Utah who struck down parts of Utah's anti-polygamy laws. The New York Times article links the "bolstered rights of same-sex couples" to this new judicial inroad. Prohibiting polygamy, the judge said, is a violation of the First Amendment (if you're a Mormon and believe in polygamy) and a violation of constitutional due process.
"If you radically redefine marriage so that it includes same-sex couples," we argued, "then you will open the door for polygamy, polyamory, and any sort of 'marriage' the public would like to indulge." Welcome to the headlines.
The judge cited Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 that struck down prohibitions of sodomy and the "unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private place" -- the unconstitutional but absolutely certain right to privacy. (By "unconstitutional" I mean that you won't find it in the Constitution; you will only find it by implication.) And it was none other than Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia who warned that we were at the doorstep of legalizing "bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity."
Slippery slope argument? Well, yes ... yes it is. But it's not a fallacy if it happens. And it's happening.
2 comments:
I always submitted that it wasn't a slope, it was a cliff. All the bad arguments for fake "same-sex marriage" would also support polygamy, pedophilia and more. And it is happening as predicted. We went over the cliff and are on the way down.
As it turns out, our concerns that this would open the door to new definitions of "marriage" were shortsighted. The world of psychology is now working to "normalize" pedophiles to "minor attracted persons" who are obviously "born that way" and, as such, ought to be entitled to all the rights and privileges that homosexuals enjoy. Those rights and privileges include the nullification of the religious freedoms of those who get in their way. The latest bill in front of Congress would make discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or identity illegal and Christian organizations would be held liable for failing to hire them.
It just doesn't stop. Who knew that our "slippery slope" argument was so limited?
Post a Comment