Thanks for the Memory to Naked Villainy.
There was a time when I thoroughly bought into a way of thinking that utterly rejected the idea of a "Slippery Slope". I held the view that each and every decision was made on its own merit and had no causal relationship to any prior or subsequent decision. But I was wrong. I've seen the slippery slope at work far too many times to cling to that ill-informed belief.
Especially when it comes to moral, ethical, and legal issues. Once an allowance is made for any type of activity, it becomes easier, more acceptable, and more likely that we will make allowances for other activities of that type. A shift in degree is always a much easier obstacle to hurdle than one of type.
Case in point, the definition of Marriage. My own religious, moral, ethical, and political views regarding Same Sex Marriage are not well known, as I've never bothered to expound upon them. However, I will say this much: As I listen to the arguments in support of Same Sex Marriage, I have for some time made the observation that the defense of SSM can also be applied to Polygamy, Polyandry, Polyamory, or any number of domestic arrangements. Or to be more precise, the most commonly used and accepted arguments against limiting Marriage to heterosexual monogamy are just as valid as arguments against limiting Marriage to monogamy AT ALL.
And now I've been proven correct. The Netherlands, one of the countries on the cutting edge of Same Sex Marriage, has just permitted its first polygamous civil union.
Anyone who has really given this issue any thought can't be all that suprised. And I'll make a further prediction. Eventually, you'll see a concentrated effort to bring the same thing to the United States. And it won't just be bigamy. Eventually it will be two men marrying three women, two women marrying for men, two men marrying each other and a woman. Because really, if they all "love" each other, what's to keep them all from marrying each other?
I'll go one step further in my prediction. As these pressures are applied to redefine how many people can be married to each other at once, we'll start to see pressures to redefine how old they must be. the pressure's already there to accept sexual activity by younger and younger children. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is on record as supporting an age of consent of 12. And it won't be much of a leap for people to argue that if you're old enough to bed, you're old enough to wed.
The slippery slope exists. But at some point, very soon, it will cease to be a slope, and become a cliff. Let's all hope and pray we dig our pitons in before we get there.
There was a time when I thoroughly bought into a way of thinking that utterly rejected the idea of a "Slippery Slope". I held the view that each and every decision was made on its own merit and had no causal relationship to any prior or subsequent decision. But I was wrong. I've seen the slippery slope at work far too many times to cling to that ill-informed belief.
Especially when it comes to moral, ethical, and legal issues. Once an allowance is made for any type of activity, it becomes easier, more acceptable, and more likely that we will make allowances for other activities of that type. A shift in degree is always a much easier obstacle to hurdle than one of type.
Case in point, the definition of Marriage. My own religious, moral, ethical, and political views regarding Same Sex Marriage are not well known, as I've never bothered to expound upon them. However, I will say this much: As I listen to the arguments in support of Same Sex Marriage, I have for some time made the observation that the defense of SSM can also be applied to Polygamy, Polyandry, Polyamory, or any number of domestic arrangements. Or to be more precise, the most commonly used and accepted arguments against limiting Marriage to heterosexual monogamy are just as valid as arguments against limiting Marriage to monogamy AT ALL.
And now I've been proven correct. The Netherlands, one of the countries on the cutting edge of Same Sex Marriage, has just permitted its first polygamous civil union.
Anyone who has really given this issue any thought can't be all that suprised. And I'll make a further prediction. Eventually, you'll see a concentrated effort to bring the same thing to the United States. And it won't just be bigamy. Eventually it will be two men marrying three women, two women marrying for men, two men marrying each other and a woman. Because really, if they all "love" each other, what's to keep them all from marrying each other?
I'll go one step further in my prediction. As these pressures are applied to redefine how many people can be married to each other at once, we'll start to see pressures to redefine how old they must be. the pressure's already there to accept sexual activity by younger and younger children. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is on record as supporting an age of consent of 12. And it won't be much of a leap for people to argue that if you're old enough to bed, you're old enough to wed.
The slippery slope exists. But at some point, very soon, it will cease to be a slope, and become a cliff. Let's all hope and pray we dig our pitons in before we get there.
No comments:
Post a Comment