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.