I almost didn't repost this because it seems so obvious, but upon consideration:
1. Maybe it's not obvious, and that understanding of the distinction in how folks, very broadly speaking, categorize types of sexual activity, might be useful and educational.
2. Hey, look, it's that evil Set Theory stuff. No wonder it's disliked by the Religious Right: once you start realizing that you can define sets in a certain way, it raises the question of whether there are other ways to group them, an d we simply can't have that.
(h/t +George Wiman)
Reshared post from +Dana Hunter
Embedded Link
So you say you don’t hate gay people, Part IV
I'm sure you've all heard it before. If we normalize and accepting being gay, next we'll have to accept pedophilia! If we allow gay marriage, we'll have to let people marry turtles, or dogs! I remembe…
Google+: Reshared 1 times
Google+: View post on Google+
The slippery slope fallacy of a leading to b will ultimately end up at z irritates me to no end. Almost as much as the "all or nothing", black and white, kinds of distinctions.
Binary, false dilemmas are pretty annoying. I don't mind slippery slopes because there can be an element of truth to them, and sussing that out can be a helpful exercise in looking at the arguments for or against a proposed action.
I suppose my issue with the slippery slope is when the end-game is completely ridiculous. Like legalizing marijuana leading to heroin use across the country.
But false dilemmas are just as aggravating.
Some slippery slope is acceptable to me, such as a leading to b will end up at e, but the assumption that every slope ends in the most diabolical, worst-case scenario bothers me.
One I hear often is if we don't get our house in order right now we'll end up like Greece. Well, ok, yes if we don't get our house in order for the next decade or two we may end up like Greece, but the US is very very very far away from Greece financially.
I think the article says it perfectly. I'll add here that what authoritarian moralists (those who define good as in accordance with God's will, or some other authoritarian pronouncement — someone in authority telling us what's good rather than deciding for ourselves) end up with is an atrophied moral sense. It's a decline in the ability to see that something is wrong (like bigotry) when the authority didn't specifically say so.
+Travis Cobb I've been guilty of using the Greece analogy. But you are correct, we are quite a long way from there and have lots of opportunity to prevent it. I suppose I see that less as a slippery slope and more of a "these are the potential outcomes if the following things don't change" sort of thing.
Which I suppose is the same thing. 🙂
To those referring to the slippery-slope fallacy, the whole point of the article is that in the minds of traditional Christian moralists, there is no "slope" here. Instead, there are boxes. Pederasty is not, in this thinking, worse than homosexuality, and so the argument that acceptance of homosexuality will lead to acceptance of pederasty is not honestly made; it's made only because these folks are perceptive enough to see that OTHERS make a distinction between the two. It's not a distinction they really understand, though; pederasty is condemned as homosexuality is condemned because both are against God's will, and that which is against God's will is all equally wrong.
I've heard the argument made from the other direction, actually, a Christian moralist arguing with his co-religionists who viewed homosexuality as worse than premarital sex — no, the moralist said, both are against God's will, both are equally wrong.
The reason we — by which I mean, myself, the blog's author, and others who think the way we do, in terms of evil being "doing harm" rather than "disobeying God" — object to pederasty is that it hurts people. It victimizes children. That isn't something that applies to homosexuality, except of course to gay pederasty (which is just as bad in our sight as straight pederasty). Hurting people = bad. A simple enough equation, but not one that Christian moralists have an easy time making. To them, disobeying God = bad. And so in their sight, the reason why accepting homosexuality leads to accepting pederasty is that, in accepting homosexuality, one has already rejected the entire basis (in their view) for rejecting pederasty and although one can continue to reject pederasty at that point, one has no basis for doing so.
It really is a distinction about the entire basis of morality. It has nothing to do with the slippery slope fallacy.
+Brian Rush Understood, that makes sense to me. I suppose my reasoning for citing slippery slope has been for those I know personally who have used the words "if you allow one, you are opening the door to allow them all", which feels like the slope to me because I don't see them all in the same box.
So I suppose the slope is a matter of perception, in some views the slope is more of a cliff with all the "bad" things beyond the edge.
But yes, I see what you are saying and have no disagreement to it. I also agree with the "hurting people = bad" piece being different from "diobeying God".
A good point, +Brian Rush. I'd hesitate to go too far in lumping all (conservative) Christians together on this, but I think there's at least a partial slippery slope they argue, in that, "Well, if you simply decide to ignore God's Laws on this, there's no rational, objective basis as to what other of God's Laws may be similarly discarded." (For their perceived meaning of "rational and objective".)
Interesting explanation. Of course, if conservatives really divide things into what God does and does not allow, then they should see that gay marriage could lead to legalizing tattoos and clothes made from mixed fabrics and beard-trimming. What will become of America then?
(Conservative handwave away of other inconvenient Old Testament rules.)
+Andrew Eva The slippery slope works both ways. Just remind people that outlawing gay marriage could lead to outlawing mixed-race marriages, inter-faith marriage, marriages between right- and left-handed people, marriages between redheads and blondes or brunettes… The list never ends!