Replies

I challenge gay activists to argue where and why the slippery slope ends.

Why, right on the other side of them, of course. You see, they're not 'perverted' like those practicing bestiality or whatever. They're 'normal' - different from the mainstream (at least, so far) but 'normal.'

And that is a very, very important point to them. They have to feel validated by the mainstream so that everyone agrees that they're not perverted. It's not enough to be 'tolerated' in their private behavior. They have to be positively affirmed by society. Why? Because, in their hearts, they know they're wrong. Their guilt and shame demand the good opinion (at least officially) of others since they do not have a good opinion of themselves.

But that will come. The proof is in the statement of the article:

a point that is more easily understood if we think of same-sex marriage as coming at the end of such a slope rather than the beginning.

What are the points higher up on the slope? All those things that break down the sanctity of marriage - including the special value it held as the one arrangement that provided sexual fulfilment. 'Free-sex', divorce and remarriage, co-habitation, children out of wedlock - all are heterosexual violations of the sanctity of marriage, and were at one point considered as immoral as homosexuality. When the mainstream said sex outside of marriage was 'okay' - when they could feel good about themselves because their choices such as divorce or 'affairs' were validated by society - then the next step on the slope was ready to be taken. Children out of wedlock became common, and are now the norm (70% of black children are born out of wedlock). Where can the line be drawn? The slide down the slope has started - and there is no logical place to draw another line.

Think that's wrong? How many people feel that divorce is immoral any more? How many people boycott movie stars who brazenly celebrate a promiscuous lifestyle, or cohabitation, or having children without marriage? We think that's all 'okay' and 'draw the line' just downslope from ourselves, turning our noses up at the homosexuals just as they turn their noses up at the bestialists, who no doubt turn their noses up at someone they consider further down the slope - probably those dull, rigid, puritans who reject the joy of sex altogether. Now that's really sick, right?

While I agree that in the moral sense, this is indeed a slope that is part of a whole mountain range of slopes. Even down to your handle...what is the point of implying that you are physically appealing? (That is not an attack...I just cannot imagine Martha Washington choosing a handle like Gorjus...it is a sign of the times)

But I think legally there is a specific point at which the slope starts. Yes, the redefinition of marriage is part of a bigger picture, both legally and morally, but it is also somthing very narrow and specific. We had a man and woman definition defined by our judeo-christian religious heritage. We have abondoned that...for what? Our religious roots no longer provide the line...what does now? And I think that is a question that those removing the old line have to answer. A quick survey will show that on a global basis polygamy is far more accepted than homosexuality (think Muslim world), why aren't polygamists entitled to the same 'equal protection' as gays?

'Free-sex', divorce and remarriage, co-habitation, children out of wedlock - all are heterosexual violations of the sanctity of marriage, and were at one point considered as immoral as homosexuality.

What's this "at one point" noise. They are still immoral.

Think that's wrong? How many people feel that divorce is immoral any more? How many people boycott movie stars who brazenly celebrate a promiscuous lifestyle, or cohabitation, or having children without marriage?

To the best of my ability, I do.