Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 18:27:34 -0500 From: GB Clark <gclarkii@vsservices.com> To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Senator Santorum Message-ID: <20030512182734.05f92a3e.gclarkii@vsservices.com> In-Reply-To: <20030507111626.GI11502@iconoplex.co.uk> References: <ADAEB726-7FD9-11D7-8EA4-000393A335A2@mac.com> <20030506101600.D4420@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <20030506175400.GA28671@rfc822.net> <20030507111626.GI11502@iconoplex.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 7 May 2003 12:16:26 +0100
Paul Robinson <paul@iconoplex.co.uk> wrote:
> On f, Pete Ehlke <pde@rfc822.net> wrote:
>
> > Please explain the slippery slope that lies between consensual sex among
> > adults who are not married to one another and bigamy and polygamy,
> > which are marriage to multiple partners. I really, really don't follow
> > that one at all.
>
> I'm a liberal, so maybe not the best person to answer, but I do keep my eye
> on the right-wing press, and their argument goes something like this:
>
> If you base your value of a society based on the morality it embodies, it is
> important that the moral rules are clearly adhered to. Therefore, if you
> believe that sex is appropriate in marriage and nowhere else (for moral
> grounds, typically derived out of religious belief) and you see that society
> accepts sex between non-married couples, within that society you must assume
> that there is a morality breakdown taking place. If you have a society that
> does not value it's own morality, then everything is possible, and those
> moral barriers that were in place preventing bigamy and polygamy are being
> erroded and ultimately, they are likely to be deemed acceptable. The
> argument therefore is that if society accepts sex outside of marriage, then
> the same society will ultimately accept multiple partners within marriage
> due to the inevitability of moral decline.
>
> This is of course, complete rubbish.
>
> In other words, you can spot a right-winger whose opinion on how society
> should order itself (or be ordered externally) by the fact they use phrases
> like "it's a slippery slope" or, more commonly in the UK, "it's the thin end
> of the wedge". If somebody nearby says that in your presence, back away
> facing them, slowly towards the door and if need-be, uttering favourable
> statements about Republicans and guns. If you are in the UK the right winger
> won't understand references to republicans and will think you want to kill
> the Queen, so instead talk about the Queen Mum and that "wonderful Baroness
> Thatcher".
Paul,
That is a masterpiece! Being a pagan/libertarian/rational anarchist it
always gets me people want to pass laws to keep ME from doing something,
even if my behavior has ZERO effect on them.
What's even worse, these are the same people who show up in the press
having got caught with their fingers in the cookie jar.
GB
> --
> Paul Robinson
--
GB Clark II | Roaming FreeBSD Admin
gclarkii@VSServices.COM | General Geek
CTHULU for President - Why choose the lesser of two evils?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030512182734.05f92a3e.gclarkii>