I think you are incorrect in regarding the slippery-slope argument as fallacious. You have not proved it to be so by simply pointing out one way in which it has been misapplied in the past.Danny you wrote:My point in bringing up those quotes about inter-racial marriage was simply to point out that the "slippery slope" argument has been used in the past in the same way it is being used now. It was as fallacious then as it is now. It is a very weak argument to use, and one that is prone to sensationalism and hyperbole.
In Canada, pro-lifers rightly used the slippery-slope argument with regards to abortion. At the time, abortion was illegal in Canada, but thanks to the illegal activities of Henry Morgenthaler (performing abortions and going to prison for it), Canada began to permit abortions rather restrictively, until Canada's abortion practice fell down the slippery slope all the way. Now there are no laws in Canada against any form of abortion --- even the horrible procedure of "partial birth abortion" (a misnomer). The procedure should properly be called "infanticide", since it is performed in the last month of pregnancy, sometimes immediately before what would otherwise be a birth. The baby is first turned around so that it's head does not come out (if the head does not emerge, then legally it's not "a baby"). Then instruments are used to crush the head of the baby. But legally it's not torture or homicide, since it's not done to a human being.
During an election, I emailed one of the local candidates concerning the immorality of "partial birth abortions" and his obligation as a potential Member of Parliament to oppose the practice. He wrote back saying, "It may be immoral, but it's a woman's right to have one!"
If asked your opinion on "partial-birth abortions" would you give the same answer?JC you wrote:I understand the argument that if Christians have a voice, they should use it. I agree with that, but disagree with how that voice should be used. When asked for my opinion on gay-marriage I usually just say it has nothing to do with me.
I suppose some people might want to differentiate between the two by affirming that homosexual "marriage" does not hurt anyone as "partial birth abortions" do. There is no harmful outcome to such a "marriage". It concerns no one but themselves. But is that, in fact, the case? It has yet to be demonstrated. It is a fact that most homosexualilty is not due to "natural" inclinations, but is learned behaviour --- sometimes through an early experience, forced or otherwise. Most homosexuals have hundreds of partners over a year's time. Few heterosexuals have that many. In my opinion, when homosexual couples within a "legal marriage" are permitted to adopt children "just like any other married couple", the children are likely to be induced into homosexual experience. If I am right, then it certainly does concern someone other than themselves, namely, the children they will be permitted to adopt. And what may happen to those children is indeed a harmful outcome!
