May 14, 2012
-
The Slippery Slope, and Why You’re a Moron For Using It
Now that Obama has announced his personal support for gay marriage (and Romney, after a very awkward pause, came out against it), the standard idiotic reasons for why gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed have been dusted off and marched around Fox News once again, namely the slippery slope fallacy. If you’re not familiar with the slippery slope fallacy, it goes basically like this:
Wee!We can’t allow A to happen, because once we let A happen, it will lead to B, C and D! I have no problem with A, per se, but if B, C or D happens everything’s over!
OK, class, can you spot the problem here? If you can’t, see me after class.
The issue here is that we have no problem with issue A. Issue A, as far as the person using the slippery slope, seems to be just fine. But we need to ban issue A because we’re afraid of issues B, C and D. The obvious question here is why we don’t just ban B, C and D and let A be free to do whatever it is A does?
This argument is most often used when arguing about gay marriage. The argument tends to be “If we let the gays marry, then what can we marry next? Multiple wives? Children? Box turtles?” (For more information about fucking, if not marrying, turtles, goats and dogs, please consult with @PrisonerxOfxLove, who is apparently very well-studied in bestiality based upon his comments). I really hope you see the problem in the argument here. If your problem is with people marrying multiple wives, or children, or box turtles, than make it illegal to have multiple wives, child brides, or box turtle partners. If your problem isn’t with gay marriage, then there’s no goddamned reason to ban gay marriage! How is this not obvious to everyone?
If we had listened to the slippery slope argument decades ago, think of how successful the argument against interracial marriage would be? “We can’t let blacks and whites intermarry, because if we let that happen then the homos will be able to marry!” The slippery slope allows people to scare others into falling into beliefs they aren’t sure about. If gay marriage makes you uncomfortable and uncertain, then let us make up your mind by associating it with child rape and bestiality!
Reading the more intelligent arguments against gay marriage we’re encouraged to ask questions beyond the scope of just gay marriage. Should insurance companies be obliged to provide coverage to multiple partners? Do employers have to provide benefits to second or third wives? At what age can someone consent to marriage? If underage people have children, who is obliged to care for them? All valid questions. And all completely irrelevant to the topic of gay marriage.
If you don’t approve of gay marriage, argue against gay marriage. If you’re arguing against gay marriage because you’re against man-on-giraffe relationships, you’re a fucking idiot.
Comments (70)
I can’t stand it when people are against man giraffe sex. A giraffe needs love too.
I know this isn’t the point of this blog post, but I really want to get a slip and slide this summer. Really. Did you read the blog I posted about gay marriage? Because you should…I’m so awesome, everyone should read my writing…no, not really. but seriously, you should read it.
I LOL’ed when I read the beastiality/Curtis remark. Haha.
I never understood how this was an effective argument against gay marriage. I suppose it’s a way for people to “seem” tolerant when they’re really not being that at all. Besides, it doesn’t surprise me, it also allows them to skirt the issue without really have to address any relevant sort of argument about the idea itself. Which is typical. It’s a circle logic clusterfuck.
i believe the arguments against interracial marriage also involved the “natural” progression to sex with animals. i seriously hope Murdoch is brought to justice over the scandal he’s been involved in and FOX shuts down.
I’m all for plural marriage, even plural gay marriage. But I gotta draw the line at box turtles.
The problem with slippery slope arguments is that they’re almost always poorly and lazily put together. Almost never is the analysis of how A will necessarily cause B, and B will necessarily cause C. Merely saying that B and C follow A, is much easier than demonstrating them so.
And particularily, in the case of same-sex marriage, we can empirically show how the slippery slope argument fails: For nearly a decade a number of American states and foreign nations have legalized same-sex marriage, and in those places, none of the slippery slope concenquences have come to be.
Rec’d via comment share.
This always bothered me when I was a brainwashed zombie…but I was told to sit down and shut up, because: greater men than I interpreted the Bible/I am a woman so WTF do I know/the Bible is infallible. Somehow I sat and took it for YEARS. I was invested. I used these same arguments, despite having taken a course in Logic. (I was quieter and tried not to make waves, so I don’t remember having any huge issues with anyone)
Jesus would’ve been a liberal, so what the hell are these conservatives doing? (Note: I identify as a conservative as well, but I can see the faults in my own party…and OH BOY. The Geezer Old Party scares me sometimes)
way i see it, after a marriage lasting 18 years and still going (im white and shes Asian by the way)… marriage has times where its damn awful difficult and even down right hard at others sooo… why should i want someone to miss out on all that just cause they is rather happy and in fact gay? marriage aint just a simple walk in the park and yet love truly seems to bind two together enough to make it work. Anyone who believes marriage is a gateway to heaven and a cake walk as well heh well i gots a bridge to sell ya. ya mights know its name? Brooklyn?
why should I care what a religion has to say or a government as well? if two have the love and stones enough to make it work, then more power to them, and it doesn’t matter what gender they are. if they do it for fraudulent reasons, well there are enough laws about that so.. but gender?
giraffe sex??? sighs..age and a step ladder jus dont mix i recon…
hmmm… i always thought the reason people are against gay marriages is that they are against gay relationship altogether… and acknowledging gay marriage is directly acknowledging gay relationship, which is the core of the problem.. but then, to use such an argument would mean losing supporters and votes, hence creating another reasoning that can be seen as somewhat reasonable…
Gay Marriage could be banned all over the world, but its not going to stop people from being gay or from being in same sex relationships, or having hot, sweaty gay sex. SO…..what exactly are we accomplishing by fighting gay marriage except for pissing off the LGBT community, and making Christians look like even bigger ignorant assholes??
I think arguing against gay marriage is stupid. My mother-in-law and her wife do not have their marriage recognized by the state we live in and I think it is stupid. They are a wonderful couple who deserve all the same rights as everyone else.
haha agree.
The slippery slope argument is, as Celestial_Teapot said above, rather lazy. It’s just something that people tend to use when they don’t have ay other real objections to something. If they can’t explain without resorting to bigotry why they oppose something, they simply claim the slippery slope. There aren’t any real reasons to oppose gay marriage outside of intolerance and bigotry, and trying to sound smart by employing this weak argument is equally weak.
Indeed. People who credit A with the eventual adoption of B, C and D fail to take into account the fact that we already have laws in place to protect children and animals from sexual abuse. It’s not as if the moment gay marriage is accepted everything we have in place collectively by state (and via the federal government), each and every law that relates to family, children and humane treatment of animals will magically vanish from the books. Anyone who thinks that is a complete fucking idiot. Forget for a moment that A, B, C and D are completely separate and unrelated issues; it should be of great concern to rational, clearly thinking human beings that such a large part of the population of this country thinks a loving, consensual relationship (or casual sex) between two same sex adults is equal to bestiality and pedophilia.
If that alone is not ample evidence that government and organized religion should be kept mutually separate, I don’t know what it will take to convince people.
good post! Here’s another, which you may have already seen: “I’m a Christian, Unless You’re Gay”
The last time I commented on a “why you’re an idiot for arguing slippery slope”, you agreed that you hadn’t understood the issues and that’s why you posted a blog that was completely wrong. But here you are, posting the same old crap again. If you’re going to recycle issues, you should stick with the ones that made sense and had some foundation in truth. The “Jesus is a socialist” and “Only idiots believe the law is written in degrees” arguments don’t fall into that category.
That’s the thing that pisses me off about slippery slope arguments. Issues B, C, and D usually have absolutely fucking NOTHING to do with issue A, yet people continue to insist on comparing them. Common sense is slowly going the way of the dinosaurs.
@blonde_apocalypse - It would probably be more useful if you were to comment on the issue (same-sex marriage) or the topic of discussion (slippery slope fallacey) than to whine about past treatment.
At the very least, you can point us to the past entry with a link or a paraphrase of your reply.
If marriage is a religious institution and being Gay is against the religions that count, therefore putting you outside of them and having no access to marriage – why does it matter so much to you. Go and live in your STD infected, shallow life, pink dollar spending, selfish lifestyle, attention seeking hell hole and leave the rest of the real human race to get on with bugger issues.
@Guest (Real Men Do Not Eat Dick) – Glad to see someone so secure in their hateful viewpoints that the have to hide behind a ‘Guest’ name.
See, the “slippery slope”argument is right. The Supreme Court did affirm interracial marriage and now we’re discussing gay marriage. ( For those of you who don’t understand satire, I’m just joking.) A major argument of those opposed to gay marriage is that the definition of marriage has been the same for thousands of years; hell, the definition has changed in my lifetime (I’m 84).
As Ronald Reagan would say, “There you go again.”
In this instance, there you go again, getting all up close and personal with logic. Adult human beings who have invisible friends in the sky are not prime candidates for understanding, or accepting, logic.
I agree with your post, however, I have used the slippery slope argument in the past: If we have sex tonight, then, you’ll want to have it every night!
Agreed, it’s dumb. It’s worse though when people quote Leviticus, like they follow all the other laws in it.
People are just stupid.
What irks me the most is when people use the term slippery slope like it is a valid argument. I see that on news channels all the time. wtf.
Once again, I completely agree with you.
@thinby30 - This is almost unrelated, but when I read your comment I thought of those people who don’t do certain things because “its against their religion” but engage in other things that may be even worse, that are ALSO against their religion. As far as I’m concerned, you can’t use that as a valid excuse if you openly and willingly do other things that are against your religion.
Belgium has had national legal same-sex marriage since 2003. Belgium was also voted as the happiest place in the world.
Slippery slopes are so much fun.You never know where yer gonna end up when you fall.
They don’t make slip n slides long enough for me!
@TheSutraDude -
it’s a non sequitur, but I’m reminded of this, where Jon Stewart praises Fox for “taking a stand”…a “stand” that he disagrees with.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_qJiReI8hU
On the one hand, marriage licences for a couple preschoolers will not soon be issued. On the other hand, there are some slippery slopes that go right off into an abyss. Post-Shah Iran was no picnic for those of moderate POV. And Germany’s post-Weimar Republic abyss was a doozie.
Not that I’m saying same gender marriage is an abyss. and the categorization of “abyss” is an overstatement. It’s more of an encouragement to the splinter sectarian polygamists and the NAMBLA members. After all, it takes a certain amount of hemming and hawing, and even a little tongue in cheek to explain to one group why one type of union is legal and another is not.
The beginnings of your slippery slope in the gay marriage issue started with the Lawrence v. Texas ruling. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in dissent, that the same legal reasoning used in the Lawrence v. Texas case, would make laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity unenforceable. SO far since then Justice Scalia has been right. Bigamy laws while still on the books have become nearly unenforceable. The slippery slope is not always a fallacy and it is far from a fallacy when we are talking about the law. In the world of laws what you are calling a “slippery slope” judges call a legal precedent
@wrybreadspread - haha he nailed CNN perfectly with the Coke vs. Pepsi metaphor. “What do you think?” “We like Coke.” “And what do you think?” “We like Pepsi.” “Ok that’s all we have time for today.” i agree with him about FOX. thanks for the link. Stewart is funny while making points.
All marriage should be outlawed.
@Zee Z Zee@facebook - Bla, bla. So much bigoted bullshit in such a small space.
@Zee Z Zee@facebook - At the end of the day, if you really want to use the Christianity argument, Jesus said “Love one another as I have loved you”. That’s it… he didn’t say anything about “unless they prefer sex with other men” or anything like that. Just a message of love. And, if you ignore it to show open hatred towards someone because their race, religion or sexual orientation is different from yours, then I’m sorry, but you are an embarrassment to Christianity.
@thinby30 - Well it does make homosexuality and a polyester double knit equally an abomination….
Personally, I don’t believe that the government should be the one to define or regulate marriage.
Again, I agree and do not see how people equate gay marriage to bestiality and such. People never heard of something called “consent.” Besides, dogs do not get married to other dogs. Why? Because we don’t even know if they gave consent! All they do is hump my leg (which I’m fine with because it’s my leg).
@trunthepaige - “The beginnings of your slippery slope in the gay marriage issue started with the Lawrence v. Texas ruling. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in dissent…”
And good thing Justice Scalia was in dissent. The right to sexual intimacy is one that touches on many of our constitutionally protected rights– from that of personal association, that of the family, and that of privacy. Scalia’s opinion has no weight of law because Justices Kennedy, Breyer, O’Connor, Souter, Stevens, Ginsberg all upheld a key foundational right.
“…that the same legal reasoning used in the Lawrence v. Texas case, would make laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity unenforceable. SO far since then Justice Scalia has been right. “
Go ahead Trun, name me federal cases citing Lawrence v. Texas that actually challenged and overturned bigamy, incest, and prostitution laws.
“…The slippery slope is not always a fallacy and it is far from a fallacy when we are talking about the law. In the world of laws what you are calling a “slippery slope” judges call a legal precedent.”
Most of the countries and and all of the states that had legalized same-sex marriage have a common law system like that of the federal government. In none of those places have same-sex marriage slipped to incestral underage animal butt sex.
@firetyger - “Personally, I don’t believe that the government should be the one to define or regulate marriage.”
On the question of same-sex marriage, this is a red herring. There is no public will to abolish the handing out of marriage licenses in any of the 50 states.
And since marriage is here to stay, the government ought to recognize it without prejudice.
@Garistotle - I just love that Guest said, “bugger issues”. Awesome Freudian typo.
Spot on.
@Celestial_Teapot - here is the first case that has even made it to trial since that ruling. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/22/us-usa-bigamy-idUSBRE82L08G20120322 they are not even prosecuting it anymore, these guys got in trouble for sex with minors this is the only one out of 12 they have tried on bigotry. Everyone knows it will be appealed based on Lawrence and that is why no prosecutor is bringing these charges up anymore
@Celestial_Teapot - One of these days you will notice that Justice Scalia is the best mind on the court
@trunthepaige - I’m willing to bet you all my eProps that this sect also is anti-homosexual marriage. I guarantee they did not suddenly decide to be polygamists because gay marriage became legal in New York state. They are justifying this behavior based on their personal religious beliefs, not because of any court decision or law passed within the United States.
@trunthepaige - Damn, you are confused. You’re talking about bigamy, not bigotry. If you meant they are no longer prosecuting this particular man, you’re wrong as he was sentenced to 10 years for bigamy. If you mean they are no longer prosecuting bigamy in general, they rarely ever have because: “It isn’t a crime committed and prosecuted very often,” added George Dix, a criminal law professor with the University of Texas. Most bigamy cases involve people from other countries married in the United States who said they did not know that their marriage in another country was still valid, or when a divorce did not go through before another marriage took place. And that’s taken directly from the article you linked.
And actually, if you want to use the slippery slope argument as a reason to not allow gay marriage then we may as well go back in history and overturn legalizing interracial marriage because that is being used to support the idea that marriage is a civil right and therefore cannot be constitutionally denied to homosexuals.
@GodlessLiberal - I bet you are right… but the point is the argument that same sex marriage and private sexual matters must be condoned as rights, does make a legal precedence against, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity laws. That is not a slippery slope fallacy, its its a legal precedence that makes bigamy laws as unconstitutional as sodomy laws
@Melissa___Dawn - Sorry if the typos ruined you
@Melissa___Dawn - You really need to try following things better you way off track
@trunthepaige - Well, if you’re strictly talking about the marrying minors issue, that’s a separate issue, still illegal, still prosecuted. So exactly what is your gripe?
@Melissa___Dawn - No I was talking about the marriage as a right argument being a legitimate case of a slippery slope. if you look at the case I showed they are unable to prosecute bigamy laws unless it involved the breaking of state licensing laws or sex with minor laws. So long as these guy took wives over 18 and did not try and make them legal wife’s but just lived as such, they would have no charges against them. Thanks to lawrence vs texas’s slippery slope
@Celestial_Teapot - There isn’t a public will to abolish the government’s regulation of marriage? You’ve hear of the libertarian party, right?
I’ll be first to step in line to hand in my marriage certificate. And FYI, I’m not against keeping gay couples from being officially recognized by the government. I support liberty. Even the liberty to make decisions that people don’t agree with. I was just stating my overall opinion on the matter of marriage.
@trunthepaige - Your answer only sort of makes sense. I see your point that under these arguments bigamy/polygamy should not be considered illegal either. I don’t see the problem personally, as long as everyone is of legal age of consent and does indeed consent. However, your statement that as long as they only “live as such” and don’t actually seek out legal marriage licenses they wouldn’t be prosecuted – are you saying that they should be prosecuted in those cases? Living as married without being married is not a crime, so of course no charges are brought in those situations. As for this: Scalia also averred that state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’s validation of laws based on moral choices.
Only adultery and bestiality should remain illegal within a free society as those are done without consent.
@trunthepaige - Paige, if you’ve ever given or received oral sex and not gone to jail for it, guess what, that’s thanks to Lawrence v Texas. For someone who hates big government intrusion, I’d imagine you’d be the biggest proponent of the outcome of this case, since what bigger government intrusion could there be than the government being involved in what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes?
@Melissa___Dawn - Exactly so godless liberal is wrong about the slippy slope argument being only for morons. In this case it a valid legal precedent one you agree with
GodlessLiberal So you to agree that in this case Antonin Scalia’s argument was right, and the slope was very slippery. You just happened to like that slope. Thank you for admitting you are wrong about that argument
@trunthepaige - Put simply, yes and no. Yes, it will lead to other “consensual crimes” being not crimes – but in a free society that is how it should be. It will not lead to rape, sex with minors and bestiality becoming legal. In fact, groups like NAMBLA that push legalizing pedophilia have been doing so for decades already and very few take them seriously or believe that they will gain the right to legally molest children.
@Melissa___Dawn - That matters not, you do agree with the only point I was making.With a legal rights argument, one thing does lead to another. It is not a fallacious argument as Godless Liberal was claiming. It can be fallacious with a different argument but not with that one and that is about half of the gay marriage leads to bigamy arguments. Legalizing homosexual marriage does not necessarily lead to relaxation of other sexual laws. But calling it a right does. so making it legal by way of a court ruling is a very slippery slope
It is good to agree once in a while
@firetyger - “There isn’t a public will to abolish the government’s regulation of marriage? You’ve hear of the libertarian party, right?”
Right. Absolutely. Within each of our lifetimes, the libertarian party in each of the 50 states (plus D.C.) will muster the democratic majorities to abolish state recognition of marriage.
“I’ll be first to step in line to hand in my marriage certificate. And FYI, I’m not against keeping gay couples from being officially recognized by the government. I support liberty. Even the liberty to make decisions that people don’t agree with. I was just stating my overall opinion on the matter of marriage.”
Fair enough.
I’m just a little frustrated at folks who, when faced with the issue, seem to offer enjoinment of the state recognition as a democratic alternative to same-sex marriage recognition. On state propositions and state house bills, this usually isn’t an option.
@trunthepaige - “One of these days you will notice that Justice Scalia is the best mind on the court.”
Sure Scalia is bright, but so was Souter and O’Connor and so is Breyer, Ginsburg, and Roberts. The only difference between Scalia and the rest of these folks is that he has no concern for being loud, obnoxious, and strident.
@Celestial_Teapot - His only concern is with being accurate. Ginsburg’s stuff is nuts she has no concern with what a law says. But yes they are all smarter than I am. It is just some of them spend all that brain power trying to twist laws to meet their own desires.
@trunthepaige - Accurate? Scalia’s argument in his Lawrence dissent is that “morality” alone may justify the stripping of Constitutionally protected fundamental rights. With the exception of Thomas, Scalia has less respect for stare decisis than any other Supreme Court Justice.
If you want to know what the law says, gander back over the Lawrence majority opinion and see how the striking down of Texas’ anti-gay statute was a concenquence of a body of 14th Amendment due process precedence.
” It is just some of them spend all that brain power trying to twist laws to meet their own desires.”
Okay, try me. Give me examples.
@Celestial_Teapot - I do know what they say but he looks at the bigger picture if the supreme court rules that states do not have the right to pass laws regulating abhorrent sexual practices, then the states can not outlaw bigamy incest and bestiality. The proper way to end these laws as he states is by way of the legislator.
@Celestial_Teapot - http://guncite.com/court/fed/McDonaldvChicago.pdfin this ruling read the dissenting opinions and tell me where were they were even talking about the second amendment? Tell me you can read the descents and not see that they were just trying to make things up to say what they wanted it to.
@trunthepaige - Not sure where you got that out of my agreement with the majority decision (which, incidentally, was not Scalia’s opinion). I merely pointed out that the majority opinion took big government out of our bedrooms, something I figured you’d be all for. But hey, arguments are way easier to win when you make up what the other person believes.
Anyone getting married AT ALL is the start of the Slippery Slope to marrying anyone and anything. So maybe we should just abolish it entirely?
@GodlessLiberal - That was his prediction, (proved correct) of the results of that ruling. It was a slippery slope there was nothing moronic or fallacious about being correct. When the topic is law or rights the slippery slope is a very valid argument.
Basically you are calling that argument fallacious,and moronic because you like the slope.
@trunthepaige - I think you’re confusing one thing leading to another thing with the slippery slope. The Captain America movie leading to the Avengers movie is not a slippery slope, it’s just a series of logical events. The Captain America movie causing all movies to be based on comic books would be slippery slope.