Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The "slippery slope" argument is not a valid debating technique for reason that (1) it begs the question, and (2) mischaracterizes the issue. Using the same-sex marriage issue of this thread, consider the following sentence: "The sanctioning of same-sex unions is the start down the slippery slope to the loss of sanctity of marriage and immorality." This statement, petitio principii, begs the question (viz. the conclusion that same-sex unions are illegal or illegitimate is assumed in the premise), while mischaracterizing gays and lesbians (without mentioning them) by labeling them as immoral. Such circular reasoning is illogical for it is premised upon a presupposed bias or prejudice rather than facts susceptible of proof; and it is inherently unfair because it at once postures the opponent as against the sanctity of marriage and in favor of immorality. Thus framed, the argument goes round and round and gets nowhere, while the framer paints the opposition in a bad light. Sadly, in political debate, there has been a great deal of this of late.
It's not a slippery slope argument though.
That judge is presiding over a case involving incest when the brother and sister were minors but are now in a relationship and are adults.
When a society accepts baseless phobias and/or religious dogma as the basis for its laws that society is doomed.
Western society, the rule of law, and personal freedom is a Judeo Christian premise. I'd say the decline we are witnessing is from a lack of character and self control, which extremists call phobias.
Extremely promiscuous behavior becoming accepted as normal is the signal to the end of any civilization.
If man feels accountable only to man, society is doomed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Well the judge did say the worry was always about having abnormal children and with abortion so readily available that should no longer be a concern.
What was taboo in the past is accepted today and what still is taboo today is slowly easing it's way into not being taboo.
Again, extremely promiscuous behavior (those things that are taboo for good reason) becoming accepted as normal is the signal to the end of any civilization.
Well the judge did say the worry was always about having abnormal children and with abortion so readily available that should no longer be a concern.
What was taboo in the past is accepted today and what still is taboo today is slowly easing it's way into not being taboo.
It really wasn't so uncommon in the past for brother/sister/cousins having children.
The "incest will give birth defects" is not what people make it out to be. If a brother and sister have a child, for instance, there is a 95% chance that baby will be born fine and healthy. However, if the brother and sister share both parents, then if there is a genetic disorder that runs in the family, the chances of their child displaying that genetic trait is significantly increased, meaning a few percentage points.
Yes, it is a matter of time. Once a society accepts homosexual acts as legitimate, it opens the floodgates for all other forms of sexual depravity including incest and bestiality. You asked for it; you got it.
Same old rhetoric, come up with a new mantra, no ones is advocating any of what you claim.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.