Same sex marriage and Slippery Slope arguments

[Curious_Hobbit]

I took a logic class 2 semesters ago and in the text book the social conservative argument against gay marriage was given as an example of a slippery slope. The argument was something like " The traditional family and marriage will both collapse and be significantly undermined if same-sex marriage becomes legal". The Fallacy was that there is no evidence or proof that an acceptance of same sex marriage will lead to the decay of the traditional family and marriage. So there you have it, a slippery slope.

However, there have been other instances where arguments like “A will lead to B, with no evidence to back the claim” have ended up being correct. I’ve got a few examples in mind.

In the 20th century when the issue of Contraception was being debated, the pope (I can’t remember which) argued that the wide acceptance of birth control would eventually lead to a society accepting abortions. The proponents for contraception at the time argued the opposite, that because we will have birth control there would be no need for abortions. After the Anglican Lambeth Confrence in 1930, The secular Washington Post even argued that the acceptance of contraception would be a deadly blow to the family institution. Then Roe v Wade came in the 70’s and now we see that the pope was right. Not only do we now have a society that is more accepting of abortion, but more than half of the women who have abortions were using birth control at the time of conception and are using abortion as a back up.

In the 70’s, No-Fault divorce became legal and opponents of it argued that it will be very damaging to the family. Opponents maintained that this will eventually lead to couples getting a divorce over silly reasons, some people will get married without putting much thought into their decision, and the kids will suffer as a result. Today we see that they were right. The divorce rate is now between 40-50% of first marriages, and much higher for 2nd and 3rd marriages. People go to Las Vegas and get married by Elvis and divorce 3 months later.

Aren’t these also situations of arguing that A will lead to B without scientific studies or evidence to back them up? Does this mean that not all slippery slopes are fallacious?

 

[daisy14]

Hi Curious Hobbit,

This was very interesting to read. I have had some interesting conversations with my friend… who happens to be homosexual. I sometimes wonder about same sex marriage. I can’t say I believe its good. I mean aren’t people supposed to want love from someone? But then again is this not their cross to bare?

Anyways… I think what if they did scientific studies? I don’t think it would change their minds. But as I see it two men or two women can’t create life… its impossible without outside help. Doesn’t this mean that takes away from traditional families and marriage? Isn’t a main component of marriage to create life together and to raise children in faith?

Just some thoughts.

 

[edwest2]

I took a logic class 2 semesters ago and in the text book the social conservative argument against gay marriage was given as an example of a slippery slope. The argument was something like " The traditional family and marriage will both collapse and be significantly undermined if same-sex marriage becomes legal". The Fallacy was that there is no evidence or proof that an acceptance of same sex marriage will lead to the decay of the traditional family and marriage. So there you have it, a slippery slope.

However, there have been other instances where arguments like “A will lead to B, with no evidence to back the claim” have ended up being correct. I’ve got a few examples in mind.

In the 20th century when the issue of Contraception was being debated, the pope (I can’t remember which) argued that the wide acceptance of birth control would eventually lead to a society accepting abortions. The proponents for contraception at the time argued the opposite, that because we will have birth control there would be no need for abortions. After the Anglican Lambeth Confrence in 1930, The secular Washington Post even argued that the acceptance of contraception would be a deadly blow to the family institution. Then Roe v Wade came in the 70’s and now we see that the pope was right. Not only do we now have a society that is more accepting of abortion, but more than half of the women who have abortions were using birth control at the time of conception and are using abortion as a back up.

In the 70’s, No-Fault divorce became legal and opponents of it argued that it will be very damaging to the family. Opponents maintained that this will eventually lead to couples getting a divorce over silly reasons, some people will get married without putting much thought into their decision, and the kids will suffer as a result. Today we see that they were right. The divorce rate is now between 40-50% of first marriages, and much higher for 2nd and 3rd marriages. People go to Las Vegas and get married by Elvis and divorce 3 months later.

Aren’t these also situations of arguing that A will lead to B without scientific studies or evidence to back them up? Does this mean that not all slippery slopes are fallacious?

You are mistaken about no evidence or proof. It reminds me of my instructor in electronics class telling us: “How do you tell if a bomb is live or not?” He suggested we could find out, but not by setting it off.

Pope Paul VI consulted with experts before the publication of Humanae Vitae in 1968. In 1967, The Pill had just reached widespread use in the United States. At the time, most people lived on farms or in rural areas. He knew it would lead to greater promiscuity. At the time, some of the cool kids in school, Catholic School, told me that in the future there would be no need for condoms because of The Pill. I thought, “We aren’t supposed to have sex until we’re married.”

I saw Bill Murray on TV in the 1990s. “I want to tell everyone watching that I don’t know why I divorced my wife.” He was surprised at himself.

People need to understand two dynamics.

1. Too many people confuse “it’s legal” with “it’s the right thing to do.”
2. Too many people feel comfortable doing something that is not right when they see people they know doing it.

Logic is great but understanding human behavior means looking beyond logic and considering “what would I do if my girlfriend ended up pregnant” or “what would I do if my wife argued with me a lot”? Work it out? Go to counseling? Or get a divorce?

No one is perfect,
Ed

 

[inocente]

I took a logic class 2 semesters ago and in the text book the social conservative argument against gay marriage was given as an example of a slippery slope. The argument was something like " The traditional family and marriage will both collapse and be significantly undermined if same-sex marriage becomes legal". The Fallacy was that there is no evidence or proof that an acceptance of same sex marriage will lead to the decay of the traditional family and marriage. So there you have it, a slippery slope.

Slippery slope arguments work both ways on the homosexual civil union issue. Reverse the case - homosexual union has been legal for donkey’s years and some now oppose it and want it banned. Those who want to keep it can argue that banning unions will lead to promiscuity amongst homosexuals, and this is a slippery slope towards promoting promiscuity in heterosexuals that undermines family values.

(Either way civil union everywhere seems broken. )

 

[chrysostim83]

Aren’t these also situations of arguing that A will lead to B without scientific studies or evidence to back them up? Does this mean that not all slippery slopes are fallacious?

Fallacious arguments don’t have be wrong all the time. When we identify a fallacy, in fact, we are not saying that the conclusion is false, but only that someone who accepted all the premises of the argument should not be convinced by the conclusion.

For example, the following arguments are fallacious:
(1) If it’s January, then it’s cold
(2) It’s cold
(3) Therefore, it’s January.

(1) If it’s February, then it’s cold
(2) It’s cold
(3) Therefore, it’s February.

The two arguments have precisely the same form, and the premises are all true at least where I’m sitting. But the conclusion of the first is false while the conclusion of the second is true.

So, as the examples show, fallacies can have true or a false conclusions, and that’s why they shouldn’t convince anyone of anything. After all, what’s the use of arguing if you don’t get true conclusions at the end?

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

I took a logic class 2 semesters ago and in the text book the social conservative argument against gay marriage was given as an example of a slippery slope. The argument was something like " The traditional family and marriage will both collapse and be significantly undermined if same-sex marriage becomes legal". The Fallacy was that there is no evidence or proof that an acceptance of same sex marriage will lead to the decay of the traditional family and marriage. So there you have it, a slippery slope.

However, there have been other instances where arguments like “A will lead to B, with no evidence to back the claim” have ended up being correct. I’ve got a few examples in mind.

In the 20th century when the issue of Contraception was being debated, the pope (I can’t remember which) argued that the wide acceptance of birth control would eventually lead to a society accepting abortions. The proponents for contraception at the time argued the opposite, that because we will have birth control there would be no need for abortions. After the Anglican Lambeth Confrence in 1930, The secular Washington Post even argued that the acceptance of contraception would be a deadly blow to the family institution. Then Roe v Wade came in the 70’s and now we see that the pope was right. Not only do we now have a society that is more accepting of abortion, but more than half of the women who have abortions were using birth control at the time of conception and are using abortion as a back up.

In the 70’s, No-Fault divorce became legal and opponents of it argued that it will be very damaging to the family. Opponents maintained that this will eventually lead to couples getting a divorce over silly reasons, some people will get married without putting much thought into their decision, and the kids will suffer as a result. Today we see that they were right. The divorce rate is now between 40-50% of first marriages, and much higher for 2nd and 3rd marriages. People go to Las Vegas and get married by Elvis and divorce 3 months later.

Aren’t these also situations of arguing that A will lead to B without scientific studies or evidence to back them up? Does this mean that not all slippery slopes are fallacious?

I find it more interesting that the Left has even inserted their gay marriage propaganda into a Logic textbook. Of all the things to give as an example of faulty logic, they picked gay marriage slippery slope? Give me a break, they’re not teaching logic, they’re sermonizing on gay marriage

 

[InSearchofGrace]

You are mistaken about no evidence or proof. It reminds me of my instructor in electronics class telling us: “How do you tell if a bomb is live or not?” He suggested we could find out, but not by setting it off.

Pope Paul VI consulted with experts before the publication of Humanae Vitae in 1968. In 1967, The Pill had just reached widespread use in the United States. At the time, most people lived on farms or in rural areas. He knew it would lead to greater promiscuity. At the time, some of the cool kids in school, Catholic School, told me that in the future there would be no need for condoms because of The Pill. I thought, “We aren’t supposed to have sex until we’re married.”

I saw Bill Murray on TV in the 1990s. “I want to tell everyone watching that I don’t know why I divorced my wife.” He was surprised at himself.

People need to understand two dynamics.

1. Too many people confuse “it’s legal” with “it’s the right thing to do.”
2. Too many people feel comfortable doing something that is not right when they see people they know doing it.

Logic is great but understanding human behavior means looking beyond logic and considering “what would I do if my girlfriend ended up pregnant” or “what would I do if my wife argued with me a lot”? Work it out? Go to counseling? Or get a divorce?

No one is perfect,
Ed

To piggyback on your argument:

Law is a great teacher. Not a wonder that social engineers exert efforts to reach their objective with legalization of an issue such as reproductive rights (a verbally engineered term from “abortion”). Or, legalization of gay “marriage”, preceded first of course by changing the definition of “marriage”, and insisting that homosex is the same as heterosex. Then the public is lulled into believing the concept that the law is right, even if it is wrong, teaches a wrong, and leads to other wrongs.

And down the slope we go.
,

 

[RichP]

I took a logic class 2 semesters ago and in the text book the social conservative argument against gay marriage was given as an example of a slippery slope. The argument was something like " The traditional family and marriage will both collapse and be significantly undermined if same-sex marriage becomes legal". The Fallacy was that there is no evidence or proof that an acceptance of same sex marriage will lead to the decay of the traditional family and marriage. So there you have it, a slippery slope.

Maybe I don’t quite understand your example of “slippery slope”, but my understanding is a little different.

Logically, if the reasons for same-sex marriage are true and correct, the the argument for same-sex marriage could be applied to anyone and anything. For example, there have been many news reports of people marrying animals or trees. As funny as this seems, if same-sex marriage is okay, then maybe any marriage of any people and anything is okay. Polygamy would be okay, even if it was same-sex. The same thing applies to birth control. If an argument can be made for any kind of artificial birth control, then all birth control (including abortion) is okay. If suicide is okay, then euthanasia is okay and maybe even forced euthanasia is okay.

Once one steps onto the slippery slope, it is almost impossible to stop the slide down to the bottom and walk back up to the top where we were…

Peace,

 

[JimG]

Hi Curious Hobbit,

This was very interesting to read. I have had some interesting conversations with my friend… who happens to be homosexual. I sometimes wonder about same sex marriage. I can’t say I believe its good. I mean aren’t people supposed to want love from someone? But then again is this not their cross to bare?

Anyways… I think what if they did scientific studies? I don’t think it would change their minds. But as I see it two men or two women can’t create life… its impossible without outside help. Doesn’t this mean that takes away from traditional families and marriage? Isn’t a main component of marriage to create life together and to raise children in faith?

Just some thoughts.

Exactly. Marriage requires marital relations, which are only possible between opposite sex partners. Same sex partners, to put it simply, are incapable of marital relations, thus there is no marriage. Same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms.

An isolated island occupied only by same sex persons, would, after the passage of 100 years, have no human occupants at all, because there would be no marital relations an no procreation, even if various couples called themselves “married.” Simple contradiction in terms.

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

Well in the class I took Slippery Slope arguments were identified as arguments like this,

“If A happens, A will lead to B. If B happens, B will lead to C”.

The fallacy is that there is no proof or evidence that A will actually lead to B which will eventually lead to C.

For example,

If we allow same sex marriage, then traditional marriage and family will be undermined.
If traditional marriage and family are undermined, then society will decay because traditional families are the building block of society.

What proof do conservatives have that legalizing same sex marriage will actually lead to the undermining of traditional marriage and that will in turn be hazardous to civilization? My problem is that there seems to be at least 2 other occasions (birth control and no fault marriage) where the arguments had the same style as this, but proved to be correct. I think after looking at these 2 cases which are styled in the same way as the opposition to same sex marriage is styled, and seeing that these 2 arguments turned out correct, the same sex marriage argument can’t NECESSARILY be considered fallacious.

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

Logically, if the reasons for same-sex marriage are true and correct, the the argument for same-sex marriage could be applied to anyone and anything. For example, there have been many news reports of people marrying animals or trees. As funny as this seems, if same-sex marriage is okay, then maybe any marriage of any people and anything is okay. Polygamy would be okay, even if it was same-sex. The same thing applies to birth control. If an argument can be made for any kind of artificial birth control, then all birth control (including abortion) is okay. If suicide is okay, then euthanasia is okay and maybe even forced euthanasia is okay.

Peace,

I think that marriage should be discriminatory in favor of heterosexual monogamous marriage. It has always been assumed that marriage is between a man and a woman and if we change that assumption, then legally the law could protect a number of other relationships to be considered marriage.

If the legal argument in defense of same sex marriage is, “what does it matter what these consensual adults do? How do they harm you? How does allowing them marriage negatively affect you?” then polygamy and incest logically follow as a result.

Why did the U.S. Federal government demand that Utah abolish their polygamy laws before entering the union? Switzerland is debating whether or not to legalize incest in their country. What authority does the government have to tell a brother and sister that they can’t get married? If one man wants to marry 3 women, and everyone involved is perfectly fine with it, why does the state have a say so? I just think the state has to be discriminatory in some way in order to prevent these kinds of situations. Secular modernity isn’t as much of a cry for justice and equality as it claims, it is just a reaction against Christianity.