You want to see a slippery slope?
Jan. 5th, 2010 03:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sparkindarknessOne of the most annoying arguments used against gay rights is the "slippery slope" argument. I.e. we give gay people right and next we know men will be marrying their pot plants.
The slippery slope argument has a lot of dubiousness about it. Yes, movements work in increments so it can seem that one thing leads to another - but it's more a movement reaching its goals. It's progression towards an end goal, not one event causing another.
For example - decriminalising gay sex will probably lead to gay marriage/gay adoption/etc. Yes, the haters are right. NOT because decriminalisation CAUSED gay marriage/adoption/etc but because they're both elements on the overarching path of equality and justice.
This is where the slippery slope proponents get themselves confused. It's not that one causes the other, it's just that they're milestones on the road to full equality.
And this is why the whole "men marrying children/pot plants/pet ducks" is so ridiculous. Because when you look at the overarching goal of GBLT equality it's pretty clear that duck-sexing is not even remotely relevent. If you want to see the "Slippery slope" of any group, movement or advocacy - you need to look at what their goals are and what they want.
And, much as I am reluctant to speak for everyone as a whole, I feel safe in saying that NO-ONE in the GBLT movement wants a potted plant being dragged up the aisle in a veil. No. Really.
Now, if you want ACTUAL slippery slopes I can give 2 good examples.
Firstly - the anti-choice movement. STATED overarching goal? Stopping abortion because they think abortion is murder. I think some actually believe that. But I think most don't, especially when it comes to the big movements and organisers. I think for them, the whole "abortion = murder" is a lie and convenient excuse. I think this because of the number of anti-choicers who are utterly against any kind of welfare (life starts at contraception and ends at birth?). They don't advocate appropriate penalties for 'murder'. They're against decent sex education and contraception.
So, I'm more inclined to think their goal is more anti-sex/religious imposition since that fits the position better. And here we have a slippery slope - pushing abstinence only education, opposing birth control, attacking the pill. Here's a slippery slope for you - religious imposition on health care choices, your private lives and on your sex lives. Frankly, I think that's a waaaay scarier slope than any amount of ducks waddling down the aisle.
Here's another slippery slope
It has been joked by many pro-gay-marriage folks that divorce should be banned since it's a clear threat to precious precious straight marriage.
Well, it just goes to show that satire can never match reality. Oklahoma state legislator, Sally Kern is expanding on her already well known and virulent homophobia and looking at you terribly immoral straight people and your divorces!
Again, what’s the overarching goal? Writing religious laws and morality onto the statute book. Controlling people’s personal and matrimonial lives with religion. And the progression? Gay marriage, straight divorce - anything that doesn’t fit her religious definition. There's a slippery slope for you. Of course, the anti-divorce stance probably won’t go to law because all those straight people who are happy to be ‘righteous’ about gay rights are going to be a lot more wobbly when it comes to being ‘righteous’ in their own lives. But still - we can see the goal, we can see the progression, we can see the slope.
So maybe we should start looking at these slopes in detail. It’s time to recognise not only how divorced from reality the “slippery slopes” they quote against us are - and it’s time to realise what treacherous slopes they’re trying to push us down
The slippery slope argument has a lot of dubiousness about it. Yes, movements work in increments so it can seem that one thing leads to another - but it's more a movement reaching its goals. It's progression towards an end goal, not one event causing another.
For example - decriminalising gay sex will probably lead to gay marriage/gay adoption/etc. Yes, the haters are right. NOT because decriminalisation CAUSED gay marriage/adoption/etc but because they're both elements on the overarching path of equality and justice.
This is where the slippery slope proponents get themselves confused. It's not that one causes the other, it's just that they're milestones on the road to full equality.
And this is why the whole "men marrying children/pot plants/pet ducks" is so ridiculous. Because when you look at the overarching goal of GBLT equality it's pretty clear that duck-sexing is not even remotely relevent. If you want to see the "Slippery slope" of any group, movement or advocacy - you need to look at what their goals are and what they want.
And, much as I am reluctant to speak for everyone as a whole, I feel safe in saying that NO-ONE in the GBLT movement wants a potted plant being dragged up the aisle in a veil. No. Really.
Now, if you want ACTUAL slippery slopes I can give 2 good examples.
Firstly - the anti-choice movement. STATED overarching goal? Stopping abortion because they think abortion is murder. I think some actually believe that. But I think most don't, especially when it comes to the big movements and organisers. I think for them, the whole "abortion = murder" is a lie and convenient excuse. I think this because of the number of anti-choicers who are utterly against any kind of welfare (life starts at contraception and ends at birth?). They don't advocate appropriate penalties for 'murder'. They're against decent sex education and contraception.
So, I'm more inclined to think their goal is more anti-sex/religious imposition since that fits the position better. And here we have a slippery slope - pushing abstinence only education, opposing birth control, attacking the pill. Here's a slippery slope for you - religious imposition on health care choices, your private lives and on your sex lives. Frankly, I think that's a waaaay scarier slope than any amount of ducks waddling down the aisle.
Here's another slippery slope
It has been joked by many pro-gay-marriage folks that divorce should be banned since it's a clear threat to precious precious straight marriage.
Well, it just goes to show that satire can never match reality. Oklahoma state legislator, Sally Kern is expanding on her already well known and virulent homophobia and looking at you terribly immoral straight people and your divorces!
Again, what’s the overarching goal? Writing religious laws and morality onto the statute book. Controlling people’s personal and matrimonial lives with religion. And the progression? Gay marriage, straight divorce - anything that doesn’t fit her religious definition. There's a slippery slope for you. Of course, the anti-divorce stance probably won’t go to law because all those straight people who are happy to be ‘righteous’ about gay rights are going to be a lot more wobbly when it comes to being ‘righteous’ in their own lives. But still - we can see the goal, we can see the progression, we can see the slope.
So maybe we should start looking at these slopes in detail. It’s time to recognise not only how divorced from reality the “slippery slopes” they quote against us are - and it’s time to realise what treacherous slopes they’re trying to push us down
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 05:37 am (UTC)I don't think it's a slippery slope at all. It's not a slippery slope but plain fact warping. There must be a reason why these people overlook one very simple fact: a [gay] person getting married is a capable adult person who can consent and make decisions. A pot plant or a pet duck, however, is not a legally capable consenting adult. Comparing gay people to pot plants is being illogical on purpose.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-09 07:39 pm (UTC)They KNOW they have no logical argument against gay rights - so they have to make shit up about utterly unrelated things