We said it would happen. Some of you assured us it wouldn't. You were so sure it was a "slippery slope" argument. We said it was the logical conclusion. One person sued for a license to marry an animal and another for a license to marry his laptop. You can't make this stuff up. As I've said before, it's not a slippery slope argument if it actually happens.
Politics as Usual
On the political front, I recently saw a quote from John Calvin.
When God wants to judge a nation, He gives them wicked rulers.Or maybe you'd prefer the more biblical version.
When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan. (Prov 29:2)Welcome to the 2016 Presidential Election.
Trumping the GOP
Over and over stories are coming out about Republicans declaring their support for Hillary. They're not just pulling support from Trump; they're throwing it behind Hillary. In the case of Meg Whitman, she actually said, "I have decided to support Hillary Rodham Clinton. It is clear to me that Secretary Clinton’s temperament, global experience and commitment to America's bedrock national values make her the far better choice in 2016 for President of the United States." Really? "Commitment to America's bedrock national values"?
I warned before that one of the serious dangers of Donald Trump is that he held the potential to explode the Republican party. That is, he has the capability of completely derailing anything remotely like a "platform", a "shared position", a "commitment to America's bedrock national values". Republicans no longer know what those are, apparently. Welcome to the end.
Going on in this destruction of anything remotely "Republican" or conservative, when Ted Cruz told Republicans to "vote your conscience", he got booed ... for starters. The vitriol that followed was amazing with prominent Republicans assuring America that Cruz had just ended his career. Because, you see, it is an anti-Republican, anti-conservative position to vote your conscience. Wait ... what? Of course, the anger from Republicans toward Cruz was over the fact that he did not declare his support of the Republican nominee for president. Bad! Bad senator! So why is it when Trump refuses to support Republicans running for office who actually did endorse him, no one particularly cares? This is what happens when you Trump the GOP.
More on Voting
I'm still having difficulty in deciding the course to take on voting this year. It came home to me the other day. This election cycle with its particular choice of candidates is like I'm being told, "You can shoot your wife or you can shoot your mother. No matter what, one of them will be shot. So choose." If I participate in electing Hillary -- placing my vote for her -- or in electing Trump -- marking his name on my ballot -- I believe I will be complicit in the evil they will perpetrate. I believe that the evil either will try to produce is far beyond what we've seen thus far. I cannot vote for a candidate who favors killing babies on demand (and having the government pay for it). Nor can I add my name to the list of people who asked Donald Trump to be our president. Which will I shoot? Neither. Will there be consequences? Without a doubt. I just don't want to be one who supported them. "But if you don't vote for Donald, you're voting for Hillary!" Not true. 1) A failure to vote for one is not a vote for the other. 2) Most states are not "battleground states". The outcome is known. If you live in one of those where the outcome is a given, your vote for or against the candidate you oppose will not change that. 3) I need to vote my conscience and leave the outcome to God. I recognize that others -- people whom I love and respect -- are not as limited in that as I am. But I can do nothing else.
Update on Slippery Slope
And then there's this. Dr. Stephen Kershnar has written a philosophical analysis of pedophilia. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition already recognizes pedophilia as a sexual orientation. Now (as expected ... slippery slope and all that) Dr. Kershnar is arguing that it is a "natural function", causes no harm to a "willing" child or the adult participant, and ought to be normalized as protected sexual orientation and moral behavior. Thus we can see that morality premised on the "harm factor" and sexual relations premised on "consent" don't work. Again, it's not a slippery slope fallacy if it happens.