Replies

Here's the problem.

People argue against legal recognition of homosexual unions. In their arguments they bring up the "slippery slope" concept of polygamy, bestiality and pedophilia -- well, some do.

The argument is fallacious when they do not explain why one leads to the logical progression of another. Most who make such arguments don't bother to do that. It consists of handwaving "well if we allow X, why not allow Y? Why not allow everything!?" when in fact X and Y are two different issues and allowing X might have very different implicaitons than allowing Y. As an example: legal recognization of homosexual unions means you remove the gender requirement. Everything else stays the same, all legal rights and benefits as well as obligations and penalties (such as the marriage tax) are granted, the only difference is that there is no requirement that the persons entering the contractual agreement must be of opposite genders. In polygamy you run into problems because you are introducing additional parties. Marriage grants, among things, next of kin rights to the spouse. In a polygamous relationship, how is this next of kin transferred? Should one spouse die, how does that affect the contractual relationship amongst the others? In two-person marriage death dissolves the marriage and only residual benefits (inhertance and all) remain. In a >2-party marriage, is it multiple spouses joined to a single party (in which case all would be "unmarried" should the main spouse die) or is it multiple people all within the same "marriage", so that no matter who dies everyone else is still married to each other?

Note that I'm not saying that polygamy is good or bad, I'm just pointing out issues in considering legal recognition that are distinctly different than any issues for 2-party same-sex unions.

The other problem is associating the slippery slope as an argument against homosexual unions itself. Is the person making the argument stating that homosexual unions themselves are a "bad thing", or is the arguer saying that regardless of whether two people of the same gender gaining the legal benefits of marriage is good, bad or indifferent the other items down the slippery slope, like pedophilia, are "bad" things and thus homosexual unions themselves should be condemned?

If someone wants to use the slippery slope method as an argument, they should detail it with more than just "it will lead to recognition of pedopihlic unions etc etc". A detailed analysis of how it will lead would be preferrable and IMO the best way to do that is to point out what is "wrong" or undesirable about allowing pedophilia and then pointing out how homosexuality shares some of the same attributes.

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

I would guess that my aversion to over-dependence on strictly logical considerations as to the merit of an argument is rooted in my early aversion to 'ideological' arguments for the merits of socialism.

I firmly believe that theses about the observable world are best confirmed or refuted by facts about that world, not by analysis of the terms. Over-reliance on analysis leads one to the error of reductionism, the most dangerous of all logical fallacies.

Your 'Candidean' assessment of the foundation of the rights to property, the exclusivity of marriage relations, etc. is based, it seems to me, on the belief that humankind will always do the rational and prudent thing.

I think the 20th Century is an adequate rebuttal of that view.

Abandon your calculations! Affirm your life, and the heritage of your ancestors.

The heterosexual union (aka "marriage") is based on a roughly 5000 to 10,000 year old tried and true tradition that turned out to be the best way to protect offspring from starvation and predators. Socialism would undo that arrangement by assigning child protection and education to government. With that mindset, marriage becomes nothing more than a contract of convenience between two consenting adults. The very concept of "homosexual union" is the logical result of decoupling the idea of "family" from marriage. Perhaps "slippery slope" is an overused analogy, but as the basic unit of civilization - the family - continues to be marginalized, there is no taboo, however grotesqe or unthinkable, off limits to whatever creeps in to fill the void.