Hey folks, another brief update on the marriage equality issue that's flared up in Aotearoa recently. I realise this is all running counter to my normal verbose delivery. I guess it just seems like such a simple matter that I shouldn't need to give detailed arguments for why we should stop withholding this basic right from a minority that harms no-one. Instead of making a case for marriage equality, I find I'm spending a lot more time poking holes in the EXTREMELY poor arguments offered against marriage equality. And by far the most popular argument raised is the dreaded Slippery Slope.
The Slippery Slope argument runs like this: If we allow homosexuals to enjoy the same access to marriage rights as heterosexuals enjoy, then we will absolutely and inevitably slide down the slippery slope into allowing marriage to children, and animals, objects, and abstract concepts. Slippery Slope arguments are, prima facie, poor arguments; any student of critical thinking will recognise a Slippery Slope to be a logical fallacy. You will no doubt have already noticed that the slippery slope makes an argument based not upon the facts pertaining to the current case, but rather the prospect of a future case separate to the one being discussed (usually a more extreme, even hyperbolic example, and frequently unrelated!).
Always poor, when applied to issues of rights and fair treatment, Slippery Slope arguments become absurd! The argument here is that extending access to a legal status to include those previously barred on the grounds of their sexual orientation, will somehow lead to a future state of affairs where people can marry children and dogs. The point being missed here is that adults in homosexual relationships are capable of granting informed consent (they can legally enter into contracts), whereas children and animals most certainly cannot! On the 19th of September, 1893, New Zealand became the first modern nation to acknowledge women's right to vote; 119 years later we have yet to extend that right to children, or animals. Yes, 119 years after New Zealand women won the right to vote, we haven't even extended that same right to sheep! Is it conceivable that we could extend this right to children and animals? For a given value of 'conceivable', yes. Does it logically follow that we will? Not even remotely.
Now I suppose the bigoted could cite an example of voting rights in the U.S.A. where the franchise expanded from land-owning white males, to white male citizens, then male citizens including non-whites, then male and female citizens including non-whites, and Native American Indians, etc. However, this completely ignores the fact that in each and every single case, IT WAS RIGHT AND JUST TO RECOGNISE THESE VOTING RIGHTS. It wasn't a 'slippery slope', because each and every time it was the right thing to do. Women were granted the right to vote, not because it was their turn to sample some good old-fashioned freedom pie, but because women are every bit as capable of making a rational and informed decision as men. Even though America's Supreme Court seems to think corporations are people, and consequently they can buy elections, they still don't get to vote in them.
Hence, the only Slippery Slope argument I will entertain, is thus:
Hence, the only Slippery Slope argument I will entertain, is thus:
