This is not the Victorian Age and FR is not a Sanctuary.
The fact that Ted Cruz argued the case to the Appellate level and considering taking his “anti-sexual device case” (omitted the “D” word for virgin eyes) to The Supreme Court of the United States speaks volumes.
Humor aside, his argument that the utilization of such devices would condone “engaging in consensual adult incest or bigamy” is an absurd argument.
It’s a huge error for a master debater like Cruz to present to the court. And a classic example of the slippery slope fallacy -. A slippery slope argument proposes that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.
I predict you will not be here long.
A slippery slope may have started with the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut, which led to Roe, then the same sex marriage cases etc.
:: It’s a huge error for a master debater like Cruz ::
For myself, I prefer to think of Cruz as a “cunning linguist”.