Posted on 05/25/2004 1:48:02 PM PDT by L.N. Smithee
These comments drew howls from gay-rights advocates, most of whom, we suspect, were objecting to the implication that homosexuality was comparable to practices like incest and bestiality, which most everyone still agrees are deviant. But Lithwick thinks the slippery-slope argument itself is fundamentally flawed: "The problem with the slippery slope argument is that it depends on inexact, and sometimes hysterical, comparisons," she writes. Also: "Slippery slopes are only metaphors. They are not intrinsic principles of law."
Yet the way American constitutional law works, slippery slopes are almost inevitable--a point that is more easily understood if we think of same-sex marriage as coming at the end of such a slope rather than the beginning.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
To all the "gay marriage" advocates who laugh at that speculation, I say, "If you think that can't possibly happen, then promise me that if it ever does, you will denounce such an institutionalized intolerance, and will stand in opposition to it."
People who ridicule the slippery slope argument do so because they fail to understand that going from 'point A' to 'point Z' is a hell of a lot more unlikely than going from 'point A' to 'point B.'
| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda |
|
|
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
|
|
| Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues" |
Interesting observation. I had been thinking of the "slippery slope" as involving more and more combinations that are unacceptable to anybody in their right mind, to the point that "marriage" is rendered a meaningless concept. However, it is very possible that this will be used to attack Christians and Jews who refuse to slide down the slope.
I challenge gay activists to argue where and why the slippery slope ends. Why are polygamists not 'entitled' to the same 'equal protection' as you?
Equal protection and due process, according to the liberal perverts, excuse every kind of sexual behavior any person might choose to do. What I don't get is how they can say with a straight face that we cannot clutter up the Constitution with Amendments dealing with marriage, yet they can find Amendments dealing with whatever new "right" that happen to want at any given moment in history. Who is cluttering up the constitution?
I totally agree with the slippery slope idea. I remember in the early 70's when I was in college and the abortion debate going full bore. The pro-life arguments often included the slippery slope argument. Most abortion proponents were advocating abortion in the first trimester.
Now we are debating partial birth abortion. The "slippery slope" arguments turns out to be totally acurate in retrospect.
This always comes to my mind when people put down the slippery slope argument. I think many people are using the slippery slope as a strategic tool -- they are counting on it. My $.02.
Unfortunately, the WSJ's vision is nearsighted.
Gay marriage is NOT the end of the slippery slope.
The legal rape of children is what is at the bottom of that slope.
I do not think that is accurate statement.
Lawrence v Texas was not decided citing the 14th amendment (equal protection clause) as the constitutional basis for overturning sodomy laws enacted in the several states but it was the 9th amendment that was cited as the constitutional basis for the decision.
Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
How can it be argued that we the people do not have the retained right to have a sexual relationship with the adult of our choice, consentually, without interference from the state?
Isn't that what free people do?
Is all sexual behavior moral? No.
Is morality and moral behavior so fragile that without sanction by the state, massive amounts of the people would begin to act in an immoral manner and all morality will fall by the wayside?
If that is true, than churches and religions are virtually useless.
Yes, it takes moral people to live peacefully in a constitutional republic. But the state is not responsible for the people to be moral.
Oh, but consider what will happen in the schools and to the children.
Books will no longer be able to picture marriage as just between a man an woman. Teachers will be forced to teach positively about homosexual marriage.
What will Christian teachers have to do. My wife has already stated that she will have to quit before teaching that homosexual behavior is acceptable.
Churches alone cannot maintain the moral fabric of a nation. Homosexual marriage is one of the most heinous aberrations that can be foisted upon society.
We must fight it with all our might.
Homosexual Agenda Ping - back on the job, I'm gone for a few hours and look what happens!
I'll read them all later tonight -
Open for comments!
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist
Actually, I've read some sound arguments suggesting that the tax and welfare systems would both be much more effective at achieving their claimed objectives if the personal tax exemption and welfare means testing were both eliminated and replaced with a fixed personal credit. If someone earns enough that their taxes exceed the credit, they pay the difference to the government; otherwise the government pays the difference to the individual.
Having a welfare system that punishes people for employment and thrift is not likely to encourage people to work or save money. By contrast, if someone on welfare knows that every $1 he earns will mean he has $0.75 more in his pocket, and every $1 he saves will mean he has $1 more in his pocket, such a person is apt to decide he likes being able to put more money in his pocket.
Those who oppose ammending the Constitution do so because they know that without an Ammendment, they can eventually get a Supreme Court decision that establishes Constitutional protection. The Supreme Court is not supposed to create law, however. That is the role of the Legislative Branch, not Judicial.
While I agree that in the moral sense, this is indeed a slope that is part of a whole mountain range of slopes. Even down to your handle...what is the point of implying that you are physically appealing? (That is not an attack...I just cannot imagine Martha Washington choosing a handle like Gorjus...it is a sign of the times)
But I think legally there is a specific point at which the slope starts. Yes, the redefinition of marriage is part of a bigger picture, both legally and morally, but it is also somthing very narrow and specific. We had a man and woman definition defined by our judeo-christian religious heritage. We have abondoned that...for what? Our religious roots no longer provide the line...what does now? And I think that is a question that those removing the old line have to answer. A quick survey will show that on a global basis polygamy is far more accepted than homosexuality (think Muslim world), why aren't polygamists entitled to the same 'equal protection' as gays?
What's this "at one point" noise. They are still immoral.
Think that's wrong? How many people feel that divorce is immoral any more? How many people boycott movie stars who brazenly celebrate a promiscuous lifestyle, or cohabitation, or having children without marriage?
To the best of my ability, I do.
Disagree strongly. It is one function of government to assure a moral citizenry. EVERY law we have is designed to enforce moral behavior
Murder is illegal because it is immoral. Theft is illegal because it is immoral. Rape is illegal because it is immoral.
When the government (as a part of the society) stops enforcing morality the society falls. Soon we'll see rape legalized because there's no reason for it not to be. If the immoral behavior known as homosexuality is now legal why should any other immoral behavior be illegal? And why should the government try to enforce that morality?
Without government enforcment of morality you have chaos and anarchy. Truly a liberal's wet dream
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.