A slippery slope or a cliff?

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.

A secular case against “same-sex marriage”

Roxeanne asked socially conservative bloggers to write a non-religious case against same-sex marriage.  I’ll make a few points here, but the good news is that the Wintery Knight did a more thorough and masterful job in A secular case against gay marriage.  I highly encourage you to read and bookmark it.  The case against oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” is not that hard to make, but sadly too many conservatives don’t prepare themselves and fall prey to soundbites.  It is their fault that places like New York voted this in.

First, my basic points.  These are not complicated, folks.

1. By nature and design, one man / one woman unions produce the next generation.  That is why the government is involved in these relationships.  Just because some marriages don’t produce children doesn’t mean that the government doesn’t have an interest in encouraging the relationships that by nature and design do produce children.

2. Only one man / one woman unions can provide a mother and a father to a child, the ideal for any child.  This should be self-evident to any observer.

3.  “Marriage” was a word created to describe these unions.  LGBTQX people have a right to live as they choose, but they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for society.  Please note: These people are welcome to get “married” in any number of apostate churches.  They can set up house and live together.  We are just saying that the government has no reason to affirm or regulate these relationships.

4. Saying that “marriage” applies to gays and lesbians isn’t a little different than the real definition of “a union of  a man and a woman,” it is the opposite.  It is saying that marriage is not just the union of a man and a woman, it is the union of anything we want it to be.

5. The arguments used to justify “same-sex marriage” support polygamy as well.  It isn’t a slippery slope argument, it is a cliff argument, where all the reasoning is already in place to justify other perversions of marriage.

6. “Same-sex marriage” has already impacted religious freedoms and will continue to do so.  This isn’t a religious argument per se, in that it isn’t saying “The Bible says ____,” but it is an argument about how government recognition of these unions pits the government against religions.

This is very important.  As noted here, the bill specifically says that “marriage is a fundamental human right,” but then goes on to give exemptions to religious organizations for having to recognize that right.  But how can that be?  What religion could have its views trump other fundamental human rights and justify, say, slavery in the U.S.?

Prediction: The law will stand but the religious exemption will get cut out.  The people who held out for the exemption behaved foolishly and naively.

7. These unions are bad for kids in many ways.  They inevitably result in 4-5 year olds being told how “normal” these relationships are.  They lead to adoption agencies closing rather than have to place children with gay or lesbian couples (that is premeditated child abuse).

8. Common sound bites about hospital visitation, estate taxes, etc. can be dealt with without undermining marriage.  For example, estate taxes are ghoulish.  You do not want the government to profit when you die!  So abolish them for everyone.

9. Don’t let them get away with sloppy slogans about “rights.”  They have the same rights as everyone else: To marry someone of the opposite sex.  I’m not trying to be cute here, I’m just pointing out that if they don’t want to exercise that right we don’t have to make up a new one for them.

10. Don’t let them get away with sloppy slogans about loving whomever they want.  Again, no one is saying they can’t love anyone they like.  Sadly, sound bites like that are repeated ad nauseum by people who should know better.We’re the ones staying out of their relationships.  They are the ones asking for government affirmation.

11. Don’t let them get away with comparisons to interracial marriages.  Skin color is moral neutral.  Sexual behavior is not.

Summary: While LGBTQX people are free to have these relationships, we are merely saying the government has no need to affirm or validate them.

—–

Aside from the secular arguments, if anyone wants to know what God says about marriage and these relationships, it is very clear.  He invented marriage.  Any church that disagrees with this isn’t a church, it is an organization trying to destroy the real church (that is, those who authentically follow Jesus).  They are actually doing you a favor in being so obvious.  Churches that promote same-sex unions are merely wolves in sheep’s clothing who took off the sheep’s clothing.  Hey, maybe they were getting too warm or something.

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

—–

Now, a few tidbits from Wintery’s piece (again, read it all!).  There are sources for all of this.   Emphasis added.

Claim: about 58% of traditional marriages last longer than 20 years.

Claim: about 5% of same-sex unions last longer than 20 years.

Claim: 85% of married women and 75.5% of married men report being faithful to their spouses. For homosexual males, the number is 4.5%

Look at the rates of violence in these relationships!  If these were anything other than politically correct relationships the media would be all over this.  I’d wager that these are a far bigger problem than “hate crimes.”

Rates of intimate partner violence

Intimate Partner Violence

Any advocates of SSM should be required to read these links:

Here are a few more examples of this infringement on civil society and business:

Consider the health problems it causes, such as 40+ times higher rates of HIV and syphilis for gay men.  Again, if this was any other group it would be non-stop news.   But it doesn’t fit with the mainstream media messaging.

Students who report being gay or bisexual are more likely than heterosexual students to engage in unhealthy risk behaviors such as tobacco use, alcohol and other drug use, sexual risk behaviors, suicidal behaviors, and violence, according to a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Note that the previous facts were about students, yet the schools go overboard encouraging this behavior in kids.

The study reported: “the prevalence among gay or lesbian students was higher than the prevalence among heterosexual students for a median of 63.8% of all the risk behaviors measured, and the prevalence among bisexual students was higher than the prevalence among heterosexual students for a median of 76.0% of all the risk behaviors measured.”

But they are “born that way,” right?

The footnotes she mentions are in the original article. That article also debunks the “gay gene” myth using identical twin studies, which show that only 10-11% of identical twins have the same sexual orientation.

What?!  You mean Lady Gaga was wrong?!

Roundup

Attention young people who campaigned and voted for Obama: Don’t look surprised when employers don’t want to hire you because you’re unemployed.

Hey, I thought no one would be impacted by oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” — Homosexual Activists Target Jim Walder, Illinois B & B Owner, for Denying ‘Civil Unions’ Ceremony.  This is a typical tactic for them: Target Christians to sue then scare others into falling in line.

From the flying pigs department: Hey, I sort of agreed with false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie on the topic of Democrat Fred PhelpsU.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor Of Westboro Baptist Church Right To Protest.  It was fun watching one false teacher attack another.

Phelps & Co. are awful, but restricting religious speech — even for those with teachings as false and despicable as Phelps and Currie — is dangerous and unconstitutional.

Chuck forgot to mention that Phelps is a Democrat, though.  Would have have missed that little point if Phelps was a Republican?

Hey, I thought the homosexual rights leading to pedophile rights argument was supposed to be a slippery slope fallacy?  Apparently not.

Sadly, this isn’t too surprising when homosexuality is deemed moral because it’s natural.

“Pedophilia is another “sexual orientation,” comparable to heterosexuality or homosexuality, according to expert testimony recently presented to the Canadian Parliament.” (http://online.worldmag.com/2011/03/04/pedophilia-as-a-sexual-orientation/)

It does demonstrate that the logical slippery slope argument that other sexual orientations will be reconsidered morally is not a fallacy, but true. When an argument supporting homosexuality is accepted, it can’t artificially be withdrawn when it makes logical sense to apply it elsewhere.

I found the pro-homosexuality arguments to more like cliffs than slippery slopes. Once you buy their fallacious reasoning you’ve gone off the cliff. On the way down you realize the other creepy things you’ve justified.

Yea!  Former Planned Parenthood Golden Gate affiliate closing all 5 clinics in Bay Area – Hey, maybe if they hadn’t spent 750k fighting parental notification bills they could have stayed open.  BTW, anyone who thinks parents shouldn’t know when their kids are going have a physically and psychologically dangerous operation to kill their grandkids needs a moral compass tune-up.  I knew one person who opposed parental notification because the kids might get hurt by the parents, but that logic would lead schools to never send report cards home, among other things.

Hey, I thought no one would be impacted by oxymoronic “same-sex marriage,” Part II: Homosexual and bisexual indoctrination in elementary school. I think I showed this a couple years back.  It is a good item to save for those claiming the LGBTQ lobby isn’t trying to indoctrinate kids as young as kindergarten.  This is so repulsive.  One of the underlying fallacies is that you have to do things like this to stop bullying.  But of course you can stop bullying without affirming destructive behaviors in those being bullied.  The guy giving the “hiding my shin” soccer example and pretending that sexual preferences are like physical body parts was ridiculous.