SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: Don't Discount the "Slippery Slope"

Opinion Journal "Best of the Web" ("Slippery Slate") ^ | May 21, 2004 | James Taranto

[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.

[Imagine]

I Love my Airedale Terrier.

[Gorjus]

were at one point considered as immoral as homosexuality.

What's this "at one point" noise. They are still immoral.

I should have said, 'considered by the majority in our society as immoral . . ' of course. On the scale I use (the Bible) they are indeed and always will be immoral.

[dan1123]

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?

We have laws against theft. If not for the consequences of the law, theft would probably be rampant. Just because the law prevents a rampant behavior does not mean the behavior should be made legal.

[L.N. Smithee]

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.

Really. Tell me, tahiti; what, in your opinion, are churches and religions for?

[Gorjus]

what is the point of implying that you are physically appealing?

Actually, it's a lot more convoluted than that. I set up this account for my wife - and I do indeed consider her physically appealing. She posts sometimes, but I started posting using her 'handle' just for convenience. Now, looking back, it's clear I've posted more than she has - yet if I changed to a more correct screen name, I'd face the 'joined on 5/26/04' attack. And frankly, regardless of the screen name, I'm not ashamed of what I've posted and don't see any need to disclaim it.

All of which is yet another example of a 'slippery slope.'

Oh, by the way, I would not claim that I am physically appealing - not even to my blushing bride. Thankfully she's not all that worried about the way I look.

[blanknoone]

It is one function of government to assure a moral citizenry. EVERY law we have is designed to enforce moral behavior

I disagree strongly. The purpose of government is not to enforce moral behavior. The purpose of government is to protect the rights of citizens. All of the examples you cited are violations of rights (and also immoral). But that is why things like...say coveting your neighbors wife (and I'm talking in the mental, not physical way) is immoral, but not illegal....thinking about someone is not a violation of their rights. It is not the government's role to use their monopoly on force to compel morality, nor even punish immorality. It is its purpose to protect citizens' rights. Those areas partially overlap (the examples you cited) but are NOT the same.

[tahiti]

"It is one function of government to assure a moral citizenry. EVERY law we have is designed to enforce moral behavior"

Where morality is present, laws are unnecessary. Without morality, laws are unenforceable.

[shagbark]

Add me on that boycott list...
Here's what I would like to know. What is going to happen when one of those male/male couples wed in Massachusetts shows up in your community wanting to adopt a young boy?

[John O]

(sorry for the late reply. Missed your comment somehow)

The purpose of government is not to enforce moral behavior. The purpose of government is to protect the rights of citizens. All of the examples you cited are violations of rights (and also immoral). But that is why things like...say coveting your neighbors wife (and I'm talking in the mental, not physical way) is immoral, but not illegal....thinking about someone is not a violation of their rights.

But is thought actually immoral? thought eventually leads to action if dwelled upon but what if that thought is just a passing temptation. An example of governments role in enforcing morality is the ban on child pornography. Since viewers of child pornography have been shown to eventually act out their fantasies at a high enough rate per capita to be a risk the entire class of pornography is banned. Almost worldwide. Government enforcing morality to protect the rights of citizens. As every just law does

It is not the government's role to use their monopoly on force to compel morality, nor even punish immorality. It is its purpose to protect citizens' rights. Those areas partially overlap (the examples you cited) but are NOT the same.

Without morality there are no rights. (or at least no defendable rights). Without a moral code everything decays to "might makes right". Government enforces the moral code. The only problem is when we let the immoral run the government. Then we end up with gay marriage etc

[John O]

Where morality is present, laws are unnecessary. Without morality, laws are unenforceable.

And without societal enforcement of the moral code, morality decays to anarchy.

Look at the 60s. Previous to that we enforced the moral code. Promiscuous women were ridiculed. Sodomites were shunned. Out of wedlock births were rightfully called bastards and the mother (and father if known) were ostracised. Divorce was mostly unheard of. Then we had the sexual revolution and stopped enforcing the code.

Now most in this country have no sexual morals whatever. If it feels good do it (or him or her or the child or dog or sheep whatever). Divorce is running out of control due to no-fault divorce laws. out of wedlock births are routine. We've sown the wind by not enforcing morality and we are reaping the whirlwind in illegitimate children, crime, STDs and the collapse of society.

Normally the way society enforces the moral code is through the law. It is government's function to enforce morality

Now can we recover from our lapse in the 60's? These morals may already be dead unless a major event happens. We failed to enforce the moral code and now we have to live with the consequences.

[John O]

What is going to happen when one of those male/male couples wed in Massachusetts shows up in your community wanting to adopt a young boy?

Fortunately I live in a pretty Christian small town. However there are still children in other towns that need to be protected.

Part of my heart says that the 'couple' should be executed before they infect anyone else. The other part says that they should be prevented from adopting but that they still have value as human beings and need to be reached.

God is greater than I so I merely pray: "God, save them and change them, but if they refuse to be changed, kill them before they drag others into hell with them".

[blanknoone]

Child pornography is illegal because those children's rights have been violated, not because people who view it will 'eventually' become pedophiles. You missed the distinction I made between criminal and immoral. Criminal things are immoral, but immoral things are not necessarily criminal. You keep trying to blur that distinction. Just laws are only to protect the rights of others, not to enforce all of morality.

Thought can absolutely be immoral. It cannot be criminal. A thought cannot violate someone else's rights.

Without morality there are no rights. (or at least no defendable rights). Without a moral code everything decays to "might makes right". Government enforces the moral code. The only problem is when we let the immoral run the government. Then we end up with gay marriage etc

I would say that philisophically rights actually precede morality, but that is not an arguement worth having. I assume from your post that you are religious and derive your morality from your religion. And you want to use the power of government to enforce the whole of that morality on others, including those that do not share your religion. I have a big problem with that. Where violations of rights occur, government protection is appropriate. Where their is no violation of rights, Laissez faire.

Without a moral code

Note that you require a single moral code. There can be no cooperation with those whom you agree about major issues (violations of others' rights) but disagree about individual morality questions.

[John O]

Child pornography is illegal because those children's rights have been violated, not because people who view it will 'eventually' become pedophiles.

The "childrens rights have been violated" According to whose moral code? In some places this may be established and accepted behavior. But our government enforces our moral code and according to our moral code child pornography is bad.

Criminal things are immoral, but immoral things are not necessarily criminal. You keep trying to blur that distinction. Just laws are only to protect the rights of others, not to enforce all of morality.

I didn't try to blur anything. Law enforces morality. Every law enforces some moral precept. Now that precept may be illogical or even immoral according to another moral code but every law enforces morality.

Thought can absolutely be immoral.

You miss the distinction between habitual pattern of thought and simple one time temptation. One is no problem, the other is serious trouble on the horizon

I would say that philisophically rights actually precede morality, but that is not an arguement worth having.

Whether they do or not is really immaterial. If you have rights and morality and I have bigger guns and no morality you don't have rights. Only morality keeps things from decaying to "might makes right"

I assume from your post that you are religious and derive your morality from your religion.... Where violations of rights occur, government protection is appropriate. Where their is no violation of rights, Laissez faire.

I am a Christian. I tend to be somewhat libertarian in my regard of rights. The question is whose morality decides when those rights are violated and how far do you go to see the affects.

As an example. If sodomites kept their behavior to themselves, stricly private in their own abodes, if they never tried to recruit or influence anyone else, then I'd have no problem with them. However, by being public about it they corrupt our society and destroy our future and the future of our children. I now have to worry about the safety of my children from sexual perverts. They violate my rights of liberty and pursuit of happiness by attacking my way of life. (increased medical costs, increased crime and a host of other negative impacts associated with sodmite behavior)

Note that you require a single moral code.

There's only one that really works to bring the greatest freedom to all people.

There can be no cooperation with those whom you agree about major issues (violations of others' rights) but disagree about individual morality questions.

There is no individual morality question that does not affect greater society. Every breach of morals violates someone's rights.

[blanknoone]

You are an aspiring Christian supposedly libertarian dictator. Brief answers: Child's pornagraphy is wrong according to our agreed societal morals, not necessarily any particular groups. As I said, law enforces SOME morality, not all. For example, coveting your neighbor's wife is immoral, but not illegal. As I pointed out, and you ignored, all (appropriately) illegal acts are immoral, not all immoral acts is illegal. Illegal is a smaller circle inside a larger circle of immoral. You use them interchangably. Regarding habitual patterns etc, yes I miss your point. Please enlighten me because I didn't even see you make one. Acts can violate rights, thoughts cannot. About your supposedly bigger guns, that potentially enables you to violate my rights, but it does not remove my rights. I'd say your take on gays is quite distorted, but I doubt it is even worth discussing a specific case until your more fundamental errors in principle are dealt with. Your 'only one' is hopelessly arrogant. Even among those who derive their morality from Chrisitianity there are wide differences, for example, the Episcopals being far more accepting of homosexuality than you. Every breach of morality does not violate someone's rights. The circles are different sizes. For example, murder is both immoral and illegal, because the victims rights are violated. Scoping out your neighbors wife is immoral, but her rights were not violated by your thought.