The Gay “Marriage” Slippery Slope

One common logical fallacy is that of the slippery slope. It goes something like this, “If we allow X, then Y, which is much worse, is soon to follow. This will be followed by Z, which is even worse.” While this is a logical fallacy (in part because you assume a worst-case scenario in predicting the future), on occasion it does represent the actual order of events in real life.

Here’s an example of a slippery slope. In 2000 the Vermont legislature approved civil unions for same-sex couples. While some were content with the law, others kept hoping it led to a new definition of marriage. They wanted to be fully “married” and not just “unionized.” They were honest about the slippery slope – they never denied it exists, although many downplay the significance of redefining marriage (civil unions are just a small step away).

In one news article back in 2000, we read: “‘All of the horrible things that opponents say will happen are not going to happen,’ adds David Smith, a spokesman for The Human Rights Campaign, the largest gay rights group in America. ‘Hopefully, by example, many parts of the country and many people will become more comfortable with the idea.'” This reminds me of Alexander Pope’s immortal quote: “Vice is a monster of so frightful mein, as, to be hated needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace.” That’s what same-sex “marriage” advocates want. They want the public to be familiar with the idea of gay “marriage” then we will eventually embrace it fully.

Here’s a similar quote in a New York Times article: “Gay rights advocates say they are eager to show that the sky will not fall. ‘Same-sex couples will be forming civil unions and the state’s not going to fall apart,” said Beth Robinson, a lead lawyer in the case that prompted the civil unions law. ”It’s just going to be better, and that’s going to be the most helpful part of this dialogue. Because the longer we go with the law in effect, the more incredible the claims of our opponents will be exposed as being.” Yet, proponents of same-sex “marriage” have no problem trying to force acceptance of their immorality on society as a whole.

Now the Vermont senate just approved gay “marriage”; it is expected that the bill will pass through the house without a hitch. The governor may veto the bill though – he supports traditional marriage. However, it is likely that the legislative branch could override the veto. This case of the legislative branch trying to redefine marriage is different from what has been done in other states – the legislative branch, for once, is actually making the law; it’s not a court ruling legislating from the bench.

However, a caption from the article about the issue is a little misleading though: “Vermont could become the first state to legalize same-sex marriage without prompting from courts.” Even though the courts were not involved directly, they were in the 2000 legalization of same-sex civil unions. Back then the state supreme court forced the legislature to pass something on the matter; instead of gay “marriage” they allowed civil unions. So, it really was court action that lead to the recent passed bill allowing same-sex “marriages”.

We just need to hope that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) stands so other states (and the federal government) are not forced to recognize same-sex “marriages” (or even civil unions). We also need to deliberate very carefully about same-sex civil unions because a slippery slope really does exist in this case. As a nation, we’ve slid from view marriages as sacred institutions for raising children, to viewing them as little more than legal arrangements then to not really valuing them other than as self-serving ways to enhance personal satisfaction (hence all the divorces when people feel justly or unjustly victimized), then to inconveniences (and we certainly can’t have any inconviencing children!), and lastly to any relationship between any two (or more, in some cases) people, regardless of gender. The majority of people in the U.S. still believe that marriage should be just between a man and a woman but the times, they are a’changin’, as Bob Dylan sings. This change is not progress; it’s immoral.

2 thoughts on “The Gay “Marriage” Slippery Slope”

  1. You’ll need to be careful if you enter into the pro-marriage debate. There are a lot of fairly aggressive and bitter same sex marriage advocates out there who will soon vilify you for your beliefs.

    Slippery slope? No, just observation from personal experience.

    Thanks for the information in this post.

  2. The CNN article is incorrect anyway. CA was the first to pass marriage legislation, which was vetoed just as it will be in VT. They’ll make history if they can override the veto.

    In any event, you assume that same-gender marriage IS the catastrophe that people usually point to when they wring their hands and talk about “gay marriage and the slippery slope.” But that’s never the case, and I think you know it.

    For one thing, we’ve always been open about the fact that we will not accept anything less than equality, and that domestic partnerships are an interim deal (unless of course you’re willing to give up state marriage altogether, in which case we can have civil unions for all, and leave marriage to the religions). So gay marriage is at the top of the slope, not at the bottom.

    But more importantly, your analysis is based on a faulty premise. Nobody ever says, “You can’t allow domestic partnerships because one thing will lead to another and suddenly you’ll have same-sex marriage, and that is the worst possible thing that can happen.” That’s virtually never the slippery-slope argument that is made, and I think it’s intellectually dishonest to suggest that it is.

    If you’re going to analyze the slippery-slope argument honestly, you need to address the fact that the real argument tossed around in public debate, particularly when there are marriage initiatives on the ballot, is that allowing same-gender marriage will lead to incest (legal in 26 states, ironically), bestiality, pedophilia, and ultimately, men marrying their pet goats. That is the slippery-slope argument that is made in the marriage debate, by everybody from housewives to federal-level politicians. Until you can show me an example of a state legislature having a serious debate over whether an animal has standing to sign a marriage license, you cannot possibly make a serious assertion that the alleged “gay marriage slippery slope” has played out.

    May God bless you with gay children to teach you what you will never learn on your own.

Leave a Reply

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