Replies

Sorry, but it's not a fallacy, it's a logical inevitability. Without a transcendant moral authority, all so-called morality boils down to only two elements: preference, and the power to enforce it. And if preferences change, so will the powers (the laws, etc.)

It is a slippery slope fallacy, combined with argument from the consequences. Instead of directly arguing what is "wrong" with recognizing homosexual unions, the author instead argues that it's a bad idea because of other, not directly related, ideas that would be considered afterwards.

If recognizing homosexual unions is "wrong" for some reason, that/those reason(s) should be stated directly. Bringing up polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality only distracts from the issue, because arguments in favour of the first do not necessarily translate into arguments in favour of the latter three.

Many argue that there is now a great push for pedophilia to gain acceptance. I don't buy it. I think that what's happened is that the very small minority with such an interest has grown more vocal over the years -- but I see little chance of them getting their way. In the few instances where someone in a field of authority (ie, a medical professional of some sort) even hints at making child sexuality more "acceptable", public outcry and backlash occurs instantly (Rind, et al).

" I think that what's happened is that the very small minority with such an interest has grown more vocal over the years -- but I see little chance of them getting their way. "

You are very well schooled on the names and intracies of logical fallicies, but your resort to unfounded opinion to support your arguments. The argument you make above might be called the "That's so outrageous it could never happen" fallacy. Going back 50 years and coming forward, we could reference a string of "experts" explaining to us how out of wedlock pregnancies, the homosexual agenda in public education, animal rights, multiculturalism, a sex scandal in the White House, etc. would never become accepted as normal. The ongoing breaking of moral barriers has become normalized. People have come to accept that "morals are declining." Observation tells us that morals are, indeed, declining. It's only logical to assume that they will continue to decline - meaning that what is immoral today will become acceptable tomorrow. Another word for a decline is a slope. A really steep decline might be called slippery. The only correct thing in your nit picky list of fallacies is that we can't accurately link correlations to causality - we don't know which norms will be the next to fall. But we can guess. It doesn't take a degree in linguistics and logic, just a memory and a little common sense.

The aborigines of Van Damien's Land are a stark testimony to the validity of cultural slippery slopes. Once able to hunt, weave, cook, build huts, make boats and fish at sea they degenerated to naked animals living in the open unable to hunt, eating only shellfish and fruits they could gather by hand.