Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Slippery Slope is as Unidirectional as Tolerance

Slippery Slope Unidirectional

Okay, that does it!  Now I’ve officially heard everything.  The following hypocritical gem comes from the gay “rights” camp that has screamed “logical fallacy, logical fallacy, LOGICAL FALLACY anytime traditional marriage supporters bring up the slippery slope argument.  This just goes to show how one-way the thought process is here.  From tolerance to slippery slope, we’re finding out that the gay “rights” activists who think their arguments are immune to hypocrisy are, in fact, most plagued by it.

ContraCostaTimes
Big labor urges court to invalidate Prop. 8

A coalition of more than 50 labor organizations representing more than two million Californians filed a friend-of-the-court brief Tuesday urging the state Supreme Court to overturn the voter-approved constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

“Agreed UHW-West President Sal Rosselli, ‘Us defending the right of gay people to marry, us defending this civil right is fundamentally important because ... there's a slippery slope and wealthy bigoted people could organize votes of the electorate to take away other civil rights.’”

[Read on…]

As was the case with the CTA, I wonder if any of these two million Californians represented by these labor organizations are actually supporters of traditional marriage whose money is being ill-used against their wishes?

Your Slippery Slope Samurai,
~Pearl

Related Articles:
Have a Helping of Group Marriage With Your Gay Lifestyle
Same-Sex “Marriage” Faces Off Against Religion
Sacramento Protest, Cho Blasphemy

5 comments:

the pomegranate apple said...

pearl. thank you for that last bit: the slippery slope samurai part.

this is an important concept for people to know. the gay activists for marriage whine all the time about flawed arguments. so people think...i can't argue logically for my belief. but they can. there are PLENTY PLENTY of logical arguments that don't include religion for keeping marriage between a man and a woman.

all they need to do is read up a little bit.

so thank you pearl, for bringing info to the masses on how they can also be slippery slope samurai's

Euripides said...

Thanks Pearl for pointing out that the slope can go the other way.

thejournalistachronicle said...

Those labor unions are at it again. Never a dull moment with those people. The marriage fight is getting it from all sides. Thanks for the info!

op-ed said...

It is not a "slippery slope" argument to point out that arguments for neutering marriage apply equally well to other alternative lifestyles neutered marriage supporters want to "ban from marriage" or "make second class citizens of." The point is, if the same arguments are not compelling in those cases, why would they be compelling in the case of a same-sex couple? Answer: They're not. If the arguer doesn't believe his own arguments then it's clear we shouldn't, either.

A true "slippery slope" argument (or actually, fallacy) involves a supposedly inescapable chain of events that will be kicked off once that first step is taken, like taking that first step onto a greased slide will inescapably take you to its bottom. The notion that standing up for a purpose in marriage means we'll inescapably next be reinstating slavery is a slippery slope fallacy. There simply is no inevitable link between slavery and the purpose of marriage. It is not simply an application of the arguments actually used by marriage supporters to a different subject to expose a contradiction or at least an insufficiency.

Pearl said...

@Pomegranate Apple

So true. Though opposition to traditional marriage would make this all about religion, it is true, nonetheless, that even atheists can be supporters of traditional marriage if they value, and wish to promote, a successful society.

@Op-ed

That is a very good point you make. I appreciate your illumination of the slavery v. marriage fallacy as an example of ill use. And, your explanation helps to clarify the infallibility of the continuous redefinition argument. At the moment a word is redefined once to make special exception for the sexual orientation of a minority, it is very much a reality that it's redefinition will be demanded again and again by grosser and grosser "sexual orientations" taking advantage of the greased-up slope.