The Slippery Slope


Just by the way, I’ve heard a number of people wondering melodramatically where it will all end, as in “If we let gay people get married, what next?” Is gay rights some kind of slippery slope leading down into who knows what?

Well, it just might be, and if you’re wondering where all this will lead to, I’ll tell you where it will all end. Taken to their logical conclusions, gay rights and marriage equality will ultimately lead us to two realizations. One, there’s nothing inherently corrupt or harmful in sexual pleasure and satisfaction in and of themselves. And two, as long as two people aren’t harming anyone (see Point #1), it’s none of our business. If we start down the slippery slope of not meddling in other people’s business and not harassing them over the harmless ways in which they live their lives, then ultimately we can look forward to landing ourselves at the “bottom of the pit,” in a land of personal liberty, dignity, and fulfillment.

If anyone finds such things horrifying and unbearable, they may now begin to cultivate their angst.

Comments

  1. Randomfactor says

    There is indeed a slippery slope to these things.

    And the churches and their dogma are trying to pull us back down it to prevent our climbing upwards into the light.

  2. PatrickG says

    The slippery slope isn’t slippery enough. More lubrication required.
    (Sorry, couldn’t resist!)

  3. Robert, not Bob says

    There are two slopes they’re worried about, one imaginary, one quite real. That frustrating insistence on grouping homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality I think comes from the reason they think these things are wrong: they’re all forbidden deviant practices. The other slippery slope is a demonstration that strict Christians are losing control of society. Which some of us might applaud.

  4. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    Yes! Well said and the end of this slope can’t come soon enough!

    Of course momentum has been building ever stronger and the pace quickening for decades now.

    But so many still suffer, because we haven’t hit bottom (sorry) yet!

  5. says

    as long as two people aren’t harming anyone

    Three, why stop at two people?

    Otherwise, it’s when opponents bring up dogs that they’ve fallen off the slope completely. As long as they stick to discussing people, they’d probably have a point. (And usually I respond with a “So what?”)

    • Martin, heading for geezerhood says

      @Leo Buzalsky #5:

      Yes agreed; there’s nothing wrong with consensual polyamory. It’s also quite easy to set up a legal framework for the creation of permanent/long term multiple partnerships. However difficulties arise during the dissolution (partial or complete) of a multiple partnership…who gets what property? Who gets custody of minor children? Who pays what in child support/alimoney?

  6. thebookofdave says

    Slippery slope is only the concern of those interested in avoiding logical fallacies. For some, slippery slope is an irresistably effective propaganda technique. And for me, slippery slope is just good clean fun. And soon to be supporting evidence of Poe’s Law.

  7. oldoligarch says

    D.D.”One, there’s nothing inherently corrupt or harmful in sexual pleasure and satisfaction in and of themselves.

    Do you believe this is true for all sexual activity involving consenting adults?

    D.D. “And two, as long as two people aren’t harming anyone (see Point #1), it’s none of our business.”

    Do you believe society has a right to regulate marriage at all,when involving consenting adults?

    • Deacon Duncan says

      In order to be a society that is fair, just, and wholesome, a society must pursue policies that protect the weak from exploitation by the strong. To the extent that there are people who seek to exploit marriage in order to oppress, harass, abuse, extort, or otherwise mistreat people, society has the right to set policies that protect people from this kind of mistreatment. That means society has the right, and in fact the responsibility, to impose regulations that prevent one group of citizens from denying marriage to other groups. So yes, society has the right to require that gay marriage receive the same protections as any other form of marriage.

      As for your first question, yes, as I said, sexual pleasure and satisfaction are not inherently corrupt or harmful in and of themselves. If such pleasures are tied to behaviors that are harmful, such as rape, then it is the harmful behavior, and not the pleasure, that is corrupt and harmful. I know I’m belaboring the obvious, but it seems some people have trouble keeping that clear in their minds, and are prone to falsely accuse certain behaviors of being bad when they are merely different.

  8. says

    You’re deluding yourself. Worship of one’s own ‘wisdom’ does not make it any more true. Either does intellectualizing, rationalizing or justifying. Just because there is a short term sensation of ‘pleasure’ in an act does not mean it’s not harmful. Nor are these practices confined to the privacy of one’s bedroom. Seems like this page is just devoted to sexual degeneracy of any kind. Similar to the drug culture, the current deviate sexual culture is merely a coping mechanism for one’s identity confusion, lack of proper role modeling or healthy self image and self loathing.

    • Deacon Duncan says

      Hi Don, thanks for stopping by. You are right that intellectualizing, rationalizing, and justifying, do not make something true. Truth comes from material reality, and not from ancient stories and superstitions. If we set aside the worship of what our forebears declared to be “wisdom,” and take reality at face value, we find that these irrational prejudices against gays are just that: irrational, and prejudiced. It’s one of the more obvious demonstrations of the fact that ancient “prophets” drew their inspiration, not from any divine spirit, but from the meaner muses of bigotry, xenophobia, and self-righteousness. I think it is poetic justice that their disciples ended up worshiping a Trinitarian deity that is, by definition, an eternal same-sex union of three male Persons.

  9. Thomas Hobbes says

    You can tell that the slippery slope is a fallacy because the slope doesn’t start with gay marriage. It starts with marriage.

  10. AJ Castellitto says

    “Truth comes from material reality, and not from ancient stories and superstitions.”

    Read the first part you wrote (prior to the common & personal prejudice) and it sounds like you are head over heals bought into scientism…. Kinda limits your acceptance of reality if you ask me bro

    • Deacon Duncan says

      Not if you understand the terms I am using. A lot of people have the mistaken idea that “material reality” means “only those things which are made of atoms,” but that’s obviously not the case since space and time are also part of material reality, and neither of them are made of atoms. Material reality, in this context, refers to that which exists in and of itself, independently of our perceptions, beliefs, and/or preferences about it. It is reality as opposed to falsehood, reality as opposed to error, reality as opposed to fiction. So when I say that “truth comes from material reality,” what I’m saying is that if you want to know what truth is, then you need to measure your concept of “truth” against the infallible standard of material reality itself. Truth is self-consistent because reality is self-consistent. A falsehood, by definition, is that which is not consistent with reality. So truth comes from material reality, and not from ancient fictions or superstitions.

      And by the way, did you notice that “scientism” is a prejudicial term designed to make scientists sound like people whose conclusions are religious in nature and thus not trustworthy? It’s a psychological trick to encourage people to reject reality-based evidence without even looking at it. If we want to know what the truth is, we need to look at the evidence itself in the context of material reality. If we instead turn to snide insinuations about the people presenting the evidence, as a ploy to distract attention from the evidence, then it’s not a good time to draw anyone’s attention to the question of who has a limited acceptance of reality.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>