Some hilarious dumb in Andrew’s attempted defence in today’s paper of the slippery slope fallacy, sorry, “argument”:
When you destroy the traditional idea of a marriage being between a man and a woman, in favour of a union between any two consenting adults, you invite more changes.
Why stop at two? Why not also “respect” unions between a man and two women? After all, polygamy has what same sex marriage does not – religious backing in Islam, and historical precedents everywhere.
Yes, this is the slippery slope argument that social “reformers” sneer at, arguing we’re smart enough to know how much is enough when we start smashing.
Yes, how else to determine where we draw the line? Which is why Bolt now apparently endorses a return to Biblical marriage, where a woman must marry her rapist and the man rules over her.
What, too far? No, sorry. When you destroy the traditional Biblical idea of a marriage being between a Christian man and a Christian woman, in favour of a union between any two consenting adults, you invite more changes. Why stop at atheists? Why not also “respect” polygamy?
Only the rules in the Bible stop us falling down the slippery slope. If you let women be treated as equal, then eventually people will marry dogs. Why not? You’ve already abandoned the Bible, the only clear rules on what should be acceptable. And why should non-Christians be allowed to marry? Recognising non-Christian marriage is the first step to allowing people to marry a tree. Once you’ve abandoned the Biblical principles, where do you stop?
It couldn’t possibly be the case that we can review each development on its merits, and if it has more problems than benefits draw the line there like rational human beings, could it?
Nope. As soon as we let women not marry their rapists, we brought the rest of this on ourselves. And if we don’t want to find ourselves being forced to marry a stockpile of Australian uranium on a dock in India, then we must return to those Biblical principles immediately. All non-Christian marriages must be annulled. All divorcees must be forced to go back to living with their first husband. All rapists must be let out of jail and forced to marry their victims.
Because if we don’t, then where will it end?
PS I did like Andrew’s little concession disguised as a dismissal – “The legal difference between those unions and marriages are usually small”. Oh, so you concede that there still are differences before the law in how they’re treated, do you?
But as long as they don’t affect you, you don’t mind?
PPS Seriously, I doubt Andrew Bolt is really stupid enough not to understand why the “slippery slope” is a fallacy. Which begs the question, then – why does he run an argument he knows is misleading and false? What is he trying to do? (Note: suggestions on what readers suspect he is trying to do will be tightly moderated, so as to protect our right to speak in these dark times.)