CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

Did Someone Say “Slippery Slope”?

May 13, 2013

The push for homosexual marriage of necessity will not stop there – it will open the door to all sorts of other sexualities to be legalised and normalised. A Pandora’s Box has in fact already been opened, and a real slippery slope is now in play.

But let me immediately stop here and say this: I have had people tell me I can’t use the slippery slope argument, that it is not sound philosophically or logically. Let me reply in this fashion: at this point I am not at all interested in mere philosophy or theory – I am interested in reality. And the reality is this: the slippery slope is already occurring right before our very eyes.

Every day we see more examples of it occurring. So those who take umbrage at my use of the term can feel free to just think of something else when they see it – maybe such terms as:
-the domino effect
-the knock-on effect
-the open door effect
-the ripple effect

I am happy to use any one of these terms if you prefer. But the slope is certainly here, and it is certainly slippery. So in terms of logical fallacies, we can agree that x may not of necessity always lead to y. But as I say, I am not interested in just theoretical mental exercises here, but what in fact is actually happening.

The ripple effect of homosexual marriage is now fully evident for anyone with eyes – and without ideological blinders – to see. There are four main areas we can clearly see the knock-on effect taking place here: polyamory (group love/marriage); paedophilia; bestiality; incest.

I have been documenting all four cases for years now. It seems each week we find more clear examples of the slippery slope in action in these areas. Let me again return to polyamory. As I have already documented in my recent book, Strained Relations, the push for group love and group marriage is now moving along in top gear.

There are countless groups which are now deadly serious in their calls for the complete recognition and legalisation of group marriage. And they are all riding on the coat-tails of the homosexual marriage activists. One recent example of this is so blatantly in your face, and sadly so honest about what is being promoted here, that it is worth dealing with at length.

A few weeks ago writer for the Slate makes an unashamed case for polygamy and polyamory. Jillian Keenan’s piece is entitled “Legalize Polygamy! No. I am not kidding” and begins as follows:

“Recently, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council reintroduced a tired refrain: Legalized gay marriage could lead to other legal forms of marriage disaster, such as polygamy. Rick Santorum, Bill O’Reilly, and other social conservatives have made similar claims. It’s hardly a new prediction—we’ve been hearing it for years. Gay marriage is a slippery slope! A gateway drug! If we legalize it, then what’s next? Legalized polygamy?

“We can only hope. Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.”

She looks at a number of objections to polygamy and then ends her piece this way:

“Finally, prohibiting polygamy on ‘feminist’ grounds—that these marriages are inherently degrading to the women involved – is misguided. The case for polygamy is, in fact, a feminist one and shows women the respect we deserve. Here’s the thing: As women, we really can make our own choices. We just might choose things people don’t like. If a woman wants to marry a man, that’s great. If she wants to marry another woman, that’s great too. If she wants to marry a hipster, well—I suppose that’s the price of freedom. And if she wants to marry a man with three other wives, that’s her damn choice.

“We have a tendency to dismiss or marginalize people we don’t understand. We see women in polygamous marriages and assume they are victims. ‘They grew up in an unhealthy environment,’ we say. ‘They didn’t really choose polygamy; they were just born into it.’ Without question, that is sometimes true. But it’s also true of many (too many) monogamous marriages. Plenty of women, polygamous or otherwise, are born into unhealthy environments that they repeat later in life. There’s no difference.

“All marriages deserve access to the support and resources they need to build happy, healthy lives, regardless of how many partners are involved. Arguments about whether a woman’s consensual sexual and romantic choices are ‘healthy’ should have no bearing on the legal process. And while polygamy remains illegal, women who choose this lifestyle don’t have access to the protections and benefits that legal marriage provides.

“As a feminist, it’s easy and intuitive to support women who choose education, independence, and careers. It’s not as intuitive to support women who choose values and lifestyles that seem outdated or even sexist, but those women deserve our respect just as much as any others. It’s condescending, not supportive, to minimize them as mere ‘victims’ without considering the possibility that some of them have simply made a different choice.

“The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less ‘correct’ than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.”

There we have it again: “the definition of marriage is plastic;” “marriage equality;” and “we’re not done yet”. And where have we heard all this before? Oh yeah, this is the very thing the homosexual activists have been saying for decades now. No wonder it so nicely flows off the tongue of other sexual anarchists. The groundwork has already been well and truly laid.

But the nice thing is here we have another case of the other side nicely spilling the beans. Forget what I have to say about this, or any others who might be dismissed as fear-mongers from the “religious right”. Indeed, there is no question that she has absolutely nothing to do with our side.

She is a card-carrying secular lefty whacko when it comes to all things sexual. Simply consult an earlier piece she had on Slate about “paraphilic disorders”. The very fact that many of you will need to run to your dictionaries for this one tells you this gal is a longstanding resident of moonbattery lane.

And she did not write about this as some disinterested outside observer. Nope, she is one of them, as she confesses in her opening paragraph: “The American Psychiatric Association has decided that people with kinky sexual interests (which—let’s just get this out of the way—includes me) don’t necessarily have mental disorders.”

Thus we can certainly rule out the claim that she is writing on behalf of the Vatican, the Republican Party, or the Moral Majority. She is writing as a paid up member of the radical left. So stop shooting the messenger already. I am merely passing on what she has said about homosexuality and the next obvious steps.

It’s all out of the horse’s mouth – I’ve just passed it along. And it sure sounds like a slippery slope to me.

www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2013/03/sexual_kinks_in_the_dsm_v_paraphilic_disorders_describe_unhappy_kinksters.html

[1299 words]

9 Responses to Did Someone Say “Slippery Slope”?

  • Dear Bill,
    I pray that God will give me the words to convince those at my church (and beyond), that we are facing the very likely demise of our freedoms as christians. We must change our priorities and acknowledge the gravity of the hour; it’s not “business as usual”! We have been taking our freedoms for granted, oblivious to God-hating totalitarianism lurking just out of sight. The numerous strategies of the evil one are coalescing into a vile juggernaut. Only Christ can lead his army into the right defensive / offensive response. It really is time for action.
    Paul Reid, Berwick (Australia)

  • Yes quite right Paul

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • As was said elsewhere about Peter Singer; morals are awful but her logic is impeccable. There is no moral or metaphysical reason why marriage once defined away from any natural law basis should be confined to any exclusive parties whether in gender or number.

    Damien Spillane

  • Dear Bill,
    While I agree with you, I would point out that the “slippery slope” didn’t start yesterday (or even the day before).
    We began on the reckless road to (sexual) anarchy when some bright spark decided that contraception was a good idea (“Wots wrong with that?” I hear evangelicals grunt as they scratch their heads). Contraception separates sex from procreation; sex then starts to become “recreational”; and once recreational, any flavour will do…
    This is one issue that our Catholic friends have got absolutely right. Any evangelical subscribing to the pagan myth that “we have the right to use artificial means to control our fertility” is a useful idiot paving the way for anarchy — it just takes a few generations, but sow the wind and we WILL reap the whirlwind.
    Well, we have, haven’t we? And it’s a long way back…
    Alex Alexander

  • Do I hear whispers of the Radical Left affirming Shariah law’s assertion of the legitimacy of polygamy under certain prescribed conditions?… As it says in Stairway to Heaven, “It makes you wonder…”…

    John Wigg

  • Romans 1:32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

    Tolerence? Militantcy? Why are we so weak not to speak up, maybe we don`t know the word, or am embarrassed of what it says.

    Johannes Archer

  • Hi Bill,
    Haven’t been on line with you for some time. Its good to see you’re still putting forward some good clear and logical arguments contained within the scope of watching the Culture.

    We see through scripture the direction of a world that rejects the truth of God, as J. Archer referenced above in Romans 1. Indeed many passages logically demonstrate the “slippery slope” you speak of as that being the natural consequence of. The ‘Slippery Slope’ as you note is the very principal spoken of in the Bible, i.e. There are consequences to sin!

    In rejecting the God who has made himself so evident that, and also recognised in that, they potentially find themselves to further and further depravity.

    Some do not go further than a given point, others go all the way to the reprobate mind understood to be the state of Jillian Keenan in the article you had quoted.

    Though not unredeemable till death, her ideas and the inability of the blind to consider consequence, leads many down the path to eternal damnation.

    But what are we to do? As Christians and ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, knowing to what state the world is wilfully sliding headlong, what is the charge of the Christian? What is our call in a world where light is counted for darkness and darkness for light, where good is evil and evil is good?

    How, if at all, does it differ from the time the apostle Paul wrote his Gospel to the Romans?

    Warm regards,
    Edi Giudetti

  • I know it is a bit after your original posting, Bill, but I came across this article where one of our celebrities is at least being true to a worldview. Writer-director Nick Cassavetes is quoted as saying.. “Love who you want. Isn’t that what we say? Gay marriage — love who you want? If it’s your brother or sister, it’s super weird, but if you look at it, you’re not hurting anybody except every single person who freaks out because you’re in love with one another.” The article is entitled, “Hollywood star embraces incest”

    I have included the link if it is appropriate.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2012/09/12/hollywood_star_embraces_incest

    Lee Avery

Leave a Reply