Culture Opinion

Those Who Warned About the ‘Slippery Slope’ Were Right

Consensual incest advocates are today backing a New Yorker's efforts to marry their own adult child. The parent, who has remained anonymous for obvious reasons, is suing to overturn laws barring the incestuous practice.
  • 649
    Shares

Those who have sought to preserve the God-given definition of marriage have often argued that if an arbitrary definition of “love” is sufficient enough reason to redefine the institution, then there’s no meaningful basis to discriminate against incestuous and polygamous relationships.

After all, if “love” is the sole, supreme qualifier, and if we dare not impose our definition of love on others, then how can we possibly draw a line anywhere? How can we prevent anyone from calling any union a “marriage,” provided they personally deem it “love”?

In the debate about legalizing same-sex marriage, this line of reasoning was often dismissed as the “Slippery Slope Argument,” otherwise known as the domino fallacy.

The “Slippery Slope Argument” objects to a course of action on the grounds that once taken, it will inevitably lead to additional actions and ultimately undesirable consequences. However, that does not mean the argument is wholly without merit.

As Australian academic, Stephen Chavura has argued: “All public policy analysis considers the potentially negative side effects of proposed laws and policy, however just. In other words, they consider slippery slope scenarios and judge the prudence of proposed laws and policy accordingly. The best intentions often have bad side-effects.”

Case in point: Consensual incest advocates are today backing a New Yorker’s efforts to marry their own adult child. The parent, who has remained anonymous for obvious reasons, is suing to overturn laws barring the incestuous practice.

Unsurprisingly, advocates supporting the legal push in the Manhattan Federal Court are employing the same arguments that were used to legalize same-sex marriage.

Australian Richard Morris, who is reportedly attempting to change incest laws in about 60 countries, has said fighting for true “marriage equality” is “the right thing to do.”

“It seems to be as unjust as the law that used to imprison gay people, and the law that used to stop people of different races from marrying,” Morris said.

According to the New York Post, Morris and other advocates have launched about 130 petitions online seeking to change incest laws.

This isn’t a societal oddity. Since the redefinition of marriage, we’ve witnessed multiple efforts to remould the institution even further. Earlier this year it was reported that three homosexual men became the first ‘throuple’ to have all of their names legally placed on a child’s birth certificate.

A year earlier, a bill that would drastically reduce the penalty for polygamy overwhelmingly passed the state House of Representatives in Salt Lake City, with some at the time suggesting the legislation is the result of the Supreme Court’s legal redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

As we’ve said before, and will continue to say: What we’re witnessing in our culture is the sidelining of God and the downward spiral of debauchery that follows. With the Bible effectively rendered irrelevant in society, people will start to feel emboldened to operate outside the restraints of an objective moral standard.

There are no brakes on this thing, because there’s no longer any binding definition of right and wrong. Every act, even the most heinous, can now be justified. Every act.

It’s sold to us as liberation. Freedom from the shackles of “superstition and religion.” But as author Vishal Mangalwadi rightly asked: “What is liberty without virtue?”

“It is the greatest of all possible evils,” he said. “It is madness without restraint. Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetite… Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and less of it there is within, the more there must be without.”


  • 649
    Shares