I am sorry. I don’t quite understand your point. Mine was that what started as expanding womens’ rights in society and marriage lead inexorably to the end of legal differences based on gender in civil marriage under the law. This is what I meant by a slippery slope. Once that progression was complete, then it became a foregone conclusion that one may not under the US Constitution discriminate based on gender to grant a marriage license. It is indeed a slippery slope, and it took about a century to slide down it this far.
Granting women rights does not validate an inherently dysfunctional action that is intrinsically contrary to their natural design.
However, ignoring the self-evident differences of gender based solely on a chosen dysfunctional action that is overtly contrary to our natural design and then sanctioning state recognition and coerced societal validation specifically based on that intrinsically disordered action and granting it equal statues to the natural paradigm of marriage, changes all the objective standards of every socially acceptable union.
Does it not?
Gay “marriage” by it’s very nature, IS based on an intrinsically disordered action. You cannot give it equal legal status on par with the heterosexual union of marriage without hijacking and thus bastardizing the entire concept of morally acceptable unions by any and all standards.
How do you deny the incest union?
By what objective moral standard?
And when the psychological parameters of “maturity” and adulthood" have been redefined (and they’re already in the process) how do you deny the pederast his “rightful” expression of “love”? Who are
you to stand in the way of progress?
And how about polyamory (group marriages)?
By what moral objection do you deny them their rights?
And since disordered desires redefined as the right to express “love” is the new amoral standard, how can you possibly deny the person who wishes to express their “love” for animals?
Should “loving” your pet by illegal?
Can the animal not derive pleasure (love) from it? Define “love”.
Is it really against the animals will?
Don’t we subject animals to harmful things against their will on a daily basis?
Does it matter that the animal isn’t human? Why should that get in the way of the human from being formally granted his or her right to express their “love”?
By what objective moral standard do you ignore our natural design and human nature to validate homosexual actions that cannot equally be applied to many other unnatural unions based on their disordered attractions?
More so yet, how can you possibly prevent it from being applied?
You’re simply distorting the concept of the “slippery slope” by realigning and irrationally comparing it to other healthy societal progression that are based on the intrinsically natural advancement of recognized natural rights that are NOT contrary to the inherent goodness of our ordered design. And in doing so you are misapplying the amoral standard of “progression for progression’s sake” to any and all changes no matter how dysfunctional and immoral their intrinsic actions are.
And what’s more, you are validating the immoral actions of same-sex unions by applying the dysfunctional standards of broken heterosexual unions as the objective moral norm. You’re simply pointing out socially acceptable dysfunction to validate an intrinsically disordered dysfunction.
By misapplying the objective standards of the slippery slope argument, you have already (inadvertently) displayed the inherently unnatural progression that gay unions will have on all of society.
Since you are comparing a disordered action to naturally ordered actions and calling it a natural "right, what prevents other unnatural actions from being deemed “natural” as well?
