“In a game-changer for the legal fight over same-sex marriage that gives credence to opponents’ ‘slippery slope’ arguments, a federal judge has now ruled that the legal reasoning for same-sex marriage means that laws against polygamy are likewise unconstitutional.” – Ken Klukowski
You know when something is glaringly obvious, but no one sees it? After reading this article by Ken Klukowski, it’s nice to know that someone outside of my immediate family understands the concept of a slippery slope. The slippery slope argument has been dismissed by many as a fallacious style of argumentation, but there are many instances where it proves to be true. For instance, marriage.
For thousands of years, marriage has been defined. That’s it. There has been one definition for marriage for so long that changing it seemed ludicrous. But along came the activists—mostly comprised of Democrats who couldn’t care less about marriage, or gays, but rather desire votes. These activists changed the way marriage is defined–at least in several states. They continue to push for the advancement of gay marriage in all 50 states.
This push by the activists brought some to argue that by opening marriage up to more than just one man and one woman, there could be potential for a flood of further revisions. Every single Liberal then unanimously yelled, “You’re crazy! That’s apples and oranges!”—their favorite phrase when they have nothing legitimate to say.
Let’s discuss these apples and oranges, shall we? How could any sane person believe that following the legalization of gay marriage, the trail would end? That suddenly, after gay marriage was legal, everyone would be happy, and the world would be made of marshmallows? That not a single person—let alone a probable coalition of many—would demand something more? No sane person believes that, only Liberals do.
If you are ever in doubt as to whether or not an issue is part of a slippery slope, simply ask yourself one question: If this, then why not that? If your answer to that question is based in the subjectivity of society’s self-devised morality, then it’s probably a slippery slope issue.
Without a standard for morality—such as a scripture of some sort (hint)—issues of morality are ambiguous and, moreover, in a constant state of fluctuation. That moving, living morality fluctuates depending on the feelings and wants of its given society. When moral standards are based solely on personal feelings, there will eventually arise a need for consensus. Because 300 million people have many feelings, consensus takes time. As we know, however, time is a moral decay. Once enough time has passed, and enough people flow to one side of an issue, a consensus is formed, leading to new developments. This is how subjective morality works, and it’s why the slippery slope argument validates itself over time.
The legalization of polygamy is the next step following gay marriage. Regardless of your feelings about that, logic tells us it is true. It seems like apples and oranges may not be so different after all.