This would probably better as a seperate thread, but is there any argument or political position that is not a slippery slope? It strikes me that, no matter how an extreme an argument, there is always the possibility of a more extreme one.
For instance, I can turn the gay marriage argument around, and say that it’s a slippery slope from the people who support only same-sex civil unions, and that sliding down that slope will inevitably lead to anti-gay position comparable to Jerry Falwell’s. Sliding farther, society conforms to the beliefs of Fred Phelps, and from there it’s only a short distance to people who actually murder us on the streets.
Of course, that argument would be silly, because human beings are conscious creatures, capable of drawing lines and making distinctions. People of any class and any level of education discuss and debate the issues to the best of their ability, and draw their own conclusions, and in a functioning democracy make these opinions felt to their elected officials.
This is how all positions along “the slope” are staked out. It has nothing to do with slippage. If people are becoming more open-minded about homosexuality, it’s because beliefs in individuality and equality have been eroding religious bigotry for a good three centuries now.
So far, gay marriages have been performed all over the world and I don’t see flames shooting out of anyone’s eyes. Those who are against it are ignoramuses and bigots.
I know. I made a similar point already, too. But subtlety and humour seems lost on some people, so I thought I’d try repeating it with a more direct approach, at least until the people making the slippery slope argument acknowledge it and deal with it.
Not that this is a valid argument against gay marriage, but I do think that legalizing gay marriage would indeed increase insurance rates.
After all, there is not as much societal pressure on gays to marry as there is for heterosexuals. Or if there is, there is no MORE pressure, and one can fully see how insurance companies would believe there to be less societal pressure.
Now, without that social pressure, one reason for an already committed couple to get married would be to receive benefits. Who are the people more likely to want to get benefits? Ones with spouses that are more prone to disease. So, the ones who really needed the insurance would be more likely to get hitched in a prompt fashion, skewing the expected payout from the insurance companies and thus raising rates.
We apparently have lost that ability long ago. The question (as pertaining to the question in the quote, not in the OP) is - do we further lose that ability everytime we rewrite something that formerly was based on something that moral people took for granted as being a common sense moral fact?
Hey!..Ain’t nothing wrong with a little human sacrifice, okay? It keeps the Sun moving across the sky, doesn’t it?
So I think we should all take a deep breath before we condemn or criticize one of the most important things for keeping us all alive on the planet…
Lady Justice is blind for a reason. Everything has to be spoon-fed to her, she starts with no prejudices. No “common sense moral facts” are in her vocabulary. Start from square one and define exactly what is wrong and why. If the why goes away then the wrong does as well. If there is some other “why” that applies, then you have to feed her that info. She’s both incapable and disinterested in seeking facts that aren’t brought to her for weighing in her scales. This is probably a good thing because her sword would cause a lot of damage if she went blundering around trying to feel everything out about a situation before she placed it in her scales for judgement.
This board isn’t about beating people up, it’s about fighting ignorance. Saying that “I personally do not agree with same sex marriages” is something that people can discuss here, give perspective from multiple sides of the issue, and let everyone who reads the thread decide for himself. Hopefully, hearing from real live breathing homosexuals can help clear away a lot of stereotypes and at the very least, show that not everybody thinks or acts the same way.
That webpage is really just more of the closed-minded contempt and self-righteousness that you’d find from somebody just yelling “Gods Hates Fags.” He frequently mentions polygamy and pedophilia, and knocks it out of the park with a mention of NAMBLA, to make sure that his readers and listeners will be frightened out of thinking for themselves.
It’s possible that someone attending your church, or hearing him speak at some other event, or reading that website, might just know a gay or lesbian person in real life or on television. Or have seen a loving homosexual couple. And they might be starting to think, “You know, those people seem to be clearly in love. And they’re not all that different from anyone else.” The best way to stop thoughts like that is guilt by association – stick the idea in people’s heads that homosexuality is just one step away from pedophilia, beastiality, or anything else that people understand is clearly wrong. If you’re defending one, you’re defending all the rest.
And of course, he tries to disguise the whole thing in terms of Christian love and tolerance. In a fit of self-righteous back-pedaling, he writes
In other words, “love the sinner, hate the sin.” He doesn’t oppose homosexuals, he just opposes homosexual behavior. What could be more compassionate than that? I’m not a bad person, I just want to do bad things. I’m completely free to live the rest of my life in celibacy, alone, loveless, and free of human physical contact. Or I could ruin the lives of two people by pursuing a Proper Marriage with a woman, ensuring a cold, awkward, uncomfortable life of completely free of passion for the both of us. But at least he gives me options, right?
The irony that seems to be lost on so many people is this: gay marriage is one of the most conservative platforms there is. It’s not about sex, so trying to bring in pedophilia isn’t just offensive, it’s irrelevant. Gays aren’t asking for permission to have sex with each other; they’re already doing that. They’re asking for official governmental and societal recognition that they have formed a stable, lasting, committed, loving relationship. It does absolutely nothing to erode the “institution of marriage.” If anything, it reinforces it! It says that marriage is so important to us, that we demand to be given the right to participate in it.
I honestly don’t understand how anyone can be opposed to that.
