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.
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 virtually 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, since they can provide a mother and a father to a child.
Here’s an overview of same-sex unions.
Filed under: Politics, Sexuality | Tagged: gay, GLBT, God, religion, same-sex marriage
“I would think that polygamists would have a much stronger case for governmental recognition and affirmation than gays, since they can provide a mother and a father to a child.”
Not to mention the historical precedent for and acceptance of polygamous marriages is much greater. If you would have asked someone 50 years ago which they were more likely to see in their lifetime legalized polygamy or legalized same sex unions I bet the overwhelming majority would have said polygamy.
I think the best argument against for the slippery slop is to recognize that what is being advocated is a sin, and we never simply are satisfied with “one” type of sin. It always leads to more deviant sin in the end (Romans 1:18ff). I know that is a theological argument, but alas, I think that God does have something to say regarding the slippery slope.
Blessings
Why do so many “churches” disbelieve so much of the Bible? Did they just up and stop believeing all of it one day? Or did Satan start with a little bit here and a little bit there? It went like this: First, he gets people to believe that “Well, maybe there is something to this ‘Evolution.’” Then, since they don’t believe in the literal six-day creation, they can now throw out the whole Garden of Eden account, and now sin did not come by man. And since sin did not come by man, then they can write off the fact that sin leads to death, since sin is simply “bad judgment.” And since we don’t have to believe that part of the Bible, now we can look for other things we don’t have to believe because they interfere with our enjoyment of sin.
Also, consider how Mormonism grew. It started out with this little Book of Mormon (which, incidentally, contains NONE of the major doctrines of the LDS system). Then you accept that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, he gets a new revelation here and a new revelation there. And now you have this worldwide religion that is leading millions of people to Hell every day. Did all those doctrines pop up at the beginning? No. They were introduced by little and little.
This is the same tactic Satan is using to get “churches” to accept same-sex “marriage.” He has gotten these gatherings so far away from the truth that they now think homosexuality isn’t such a big thing. Did it happen all of a sudden? No. Little by little crept in the doctrines of demons. So to those who wonder why so many of us are so concerned about sound doctrine, that’s the answer. ‘Cause Satan is greasing the hill every day. If you let a little bit of error in, eventually you get the mess the Episcopal communion is in, or the PCUSA.
First, for Timothy,
Was that a typo, or did you mean to say slippery “slop”? It’s not inapropriate in this discussion.
Next,
There already is a movement of polygamists pushing for the same considerations homosexuals are now getting. These are not the types of polygamists that seem to be highlighted in news stories, like cultists, but otherwise normal-type people who believe in the practice. I saw a brief interview of some women, I think they wer Mormons, on a news program about a year ago. They ARE using the same arguments as SSM.
Also, and this is more on the disgusting side, at a film festival in the last year or so, perhaps Sundance, there was a somewhat acclaimed documentary advocating bestiality. Such a film would never have been made even five years ago. No one would have dared. Yet it gets entered in a festival and the sophisticates allow it.
I believe that the push down the slope had begun with the “sexual revolution” of the ’60’s and the drive for SSM is just another manifestation or symptom of it. The revolution led to SSM activism and soon polygamy will take its turn should SSM gain more traction.
The double standard is strong here. I agree with your post. It is a cliff we as a society will fall over if SSM is legalized. It is not about bigotry, but about differences. We are a society now that does not want any differences anywhere, or anything that may exclude anyone, even for valid reasons.
It is a sad commentary.
kw
It is a slippery slope, and these people are likely to drag us all down it. The good news is, if you are a Christian, there is someone waiting to catch you at the bottom.
KW,
“We are a society now that does not want any differences anywhere, or anything that may exclude anyone, even for valid reasons.”
I’m not sure I understand where you’re going with this sentence. I don’t think our society has a problem with differences, per se. It’s simply that some differences are not helpful or can be harmful for society. Yet you then go on to say tha we don’t like to exclude, which would contradict the first part of the sentence. So I ask you, “Huh?”
I think I actually meant “slope” but slop would apply too.
My pastor, Dr Erwin Lutzer, wrote a magnificent book, “The Truth About Same Sex Marriage”…. you might want to get a copy and read it.
[...] people try to deny the slippery slope argument, which is sometimes, but not always, a logical fallacy. But things like this are exactly what [...]
Hello!
Very Interesting post! Thank you for such interesting resource!
PS: Sorry for my bad english, I’v just started to learn this language
See you!
Your, Raiul Baztepo