Gay marriage/slippery slope

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


This is for discussion of the "slippery slope" argument against gay marriage.


right-arrow debaticon if we allow gay marriage, we allow anything and everything
down-arrow debaticon This is a slippery slope circular argument – that is, it argues that gay marriage is bad because if we allow it, we might then allow something worse ("something worse" implying that gay marriage is bad, which implies the conclusion in its premise). The same rhetorical statement could be positively rephrased as: If we redefine marriage to include gay couples, then this opens the door for us to continue refining it so it serves everybody to the best possible extent.
up-arrow debaticon Refinement: Redefining "marriage" to include same-sex couples opens the floodgates, giving rise to redefine any terms with which the vocal minority does not agree.
down-arrow debaticon This is still slippery slope argument, which is circular by nature in that it assumes the proposed change is bad.
? Why would we want to avoid opening the floodgates to further redefinitions?
? How does redefining one word "open the floodgates" to redefine others?
? "Open the floodgates" is an imprecise, emotionally-laden term which does not sufficiently describe what process we fear will occur. What does it actually mean?
up-arrow debaticon Example: Marriage could be further redefined to be a union with any number of people (Heinlein's S-Marriage / Line Marriage -- see wikipedia:Group marriage).
? What's wrong with group marriages?
down-arrow debaticon Gay marriage falls within the meaning of "marriage", as both a word and a legal term in many cultures throughout history; otherwise the term "gay marriage" would be semantically null.
down-arrow debaticon Further redefinitions of "marriage" (or any other redefined term) should be considered on their own merits.
down-arrow debaticon Just because you look at a map and realize you need to walk three blocks north in order to reach your destination does not "open the floodgates" to walking a further three blocks after you have reached it.
up-arrow debaticon Example: "Adult" could be redefined to mean anyone who can vocalize the word "no" (a commonly held belief in the MAA community is that children are capable of giving consent to sex).
? What is "MAA"? Is the claim about MAA beliefs a supporting or counter argument?
down-arrow debaticon Redefinitions of other words should be considered on their own merits.