A Salute to the Good Word

Oh, what's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet... and luckily for us there's no shortage of bullshit around to serve as fertilizer...

Argument: The Government has no right to change the definition of Marriage!
Well, actually, funny you should mention that...

"The state - which did not invent marriage - has no authority to reinvent it." -Bob McCoskrie

It is entirely within the purview of government to determine what legal rights and statuses should exist, and to which people these rights and status should extend. Depending on what you consider 'the state' (whether it is the formal legal entity, such as that established by democratic principle, or rather the collective communal will of a populace conscious of the concept of 'a state', such as the Greek polis from which the term 'politics' is derived, or whether it is merely the communal organisation of a society, whatever its governing structure, for instance tribal council), the idea of the legal status of marriage certainly did not occur before there was a state to confer said legal status. And as the bill seeks only to address the legal status, and not to speak on or alter existing marriage customs (of which there are many), then it is absolutely the right of the government to be more inclusive, and include homosexual unions under the aegis of the legal state of marriage.

There's another error of reasoning here. The government isn't arbitrarily changing a definition; it is legally recognising and sanctioning a definition that is in use. LGBTQetc. advocates have been agitating for a seat at the table for yonks now, as they say, and our politicians are responding to that. There are plenty of homosexuals who see themselves as married as it is, and want the government to recognise the validy of their relationships. And in some cases, they want the government to recognise their church's desire to solemnify their marriage, which currently they cannot, legally. A Topp Twin 'married' her partner, the papers and magazines reported it as such, their friends and family consider it such, and I do not doubt that Lynda and her lovely partner would like it if the government recognised it as such also. A lot of people already include same-sex partnerships in their concept of 'marriage', including a number of Western nations. 

You see, language is a living thing. Definitions don't simply change, they grow. They grow with new parameters for the definition, to cover new contexts, and the addition of new definitions does not replace or remove existing definitions. Open a dictionary, you'll find that words have plenty of definitions, each representing a slight nuance of meaning or applying to a slightly different context. As Bob fails to notice when he references both Polygamy AND Polyamory, the former word means multiple marriages, and the latter means the same relationship sans marriage. Polygamy is already included in the broad definition of marriage, as is monogamy, meaning marriage restricted to two people. The definitions are already there, independent of legal recognition.

Words are under no threat from this bill. Only two things can remove definitions from common use: lack of use, and authoritative suppression. And there's only one group in this debate trying to remove or restrict definitions, and it sure as heck ain't the ones arguing for an inclusive society (i.e. the ones who support extending legal recognition to minorities). The law and common usage CAN accommodate all. It's worth noting that there are a number of people making specious arguments about 'equality' and semantic differences, trying to paint LGBTQ advocacy as incoherent or hypocritical, by means of restricting meanings so as to render them meaningless, in much the same way as Orwell's 1984 shows the deleterious effect of a shrinking, restrictively definitive language.

Everyone's favourite definition: LITERAL

The government can only control LEGAL DEFINITIONS, which are entirely its right to determine. The government is incapable of controlling language, as language is a living beast that grows through usage, it means what we collectively say it means, its' use is determined in how it is used, and Bob McCoskrie can no more hold back the common usage to which words are put than the government can, no matter how much of a Cnut he is.

A Salute to Orwellian Conspiracies

The Argument: The legislation allowing same-sex couples to marry will eliminate terms like 'husband', 'wife', 'father' and 'mother'. This is bad. Therefore, we should not legally recognise same-sex marriage.

"I met my wife here. AND- waitaminute, waitaminute, just to set the record straight, SHE'S A WOMAN! The thing is, you actually knew that, right? When I said I met my wife here, you knew she was a woman, I wanna tell you, that's because you know what marriage is"
-Colin Craig, AUSA Marriage Amendment Bill Debate, 2012

One of the most peculiar arguments against same-sex marriage out there. The idea that a legal status will somehow determine conversational English, or that conversational English should somehow determine a legal status. Bob McCoskrie has argued ad nauseum about how the legislation will eliminate terms like those listed in the first paragraph, that a Politically Correct Gestapo will stop us using words like 'Mum' and 'Dad'.

First off, a quick show of hands: How many of you have ever read a piece of government legislation prior to the Marriage Amendment Bill?

This is such a frivolous argument. Legal definitions DO NOT DICTATE CONVERSATIONAL ENGLISH. We refer to Mum/mother or Dad/father long, long, long before we even learn to read, let alone develop any desire to read legal documentation. Conversational English doesn't run with that level of exactness! When have you ever encountered someone who takes their cues from technical jargon? We use language in a fluid way, it's all ambiguous, and depends on the context built up in a rapport to be meaningful. Legal documents don't work that way, they require exact and precise definitions, specificity, in order to avoid loopholes and legal challenge. The two are worlds apart. We never read our kids the story of the Three Porcine-New Zealanders, each between 4'2" and 4'6" tall, and the incident involving the Alleged Lupine Assailant. And for good reason! Legal documents determine legal classifications, not common English. 

ProtectMarriangeNZ: Marriage is between a face, and a palm

Further to the above: Regardless of what the opponents of this bill tell us, people are already changing the 'definition' of marriage without regard for the legal status. When ProtectMarriageNZ decided to claim that Lynda Topp supported them by virtue of her (then upcoming) Civil Union, she decided to speak up and slam the cads for appropriating her name, and claimed she was getting married. Friends of mine in Civil Unions refer to each other as 'husband' and 'wife', as do some in de facto relationships. 

And the terms are intelligible! The point where Colin Craig's argument in the quote up top falls down so tragically, is that although he thinks he's invoking an inherently gendered union, he's instead just relying on the gendered individual term 'wife'. When someone mentions their 'wife', because it's a gendered term, we know they are referring to a woman that they are in a long-term commitment in, even if they themselves are a woman and regardless of whether or not that long-term commitment is legally recognised as marriage or merely as a civil union. Unless they're being ironic, in which case any of those could be inverted, because that's what irony is for.

When it comes to other gendered terms, the argument becomes even more tenuous. Father is a gendered term for either a male parent (someone raising you), or a biological progenitor (sperm donor, biological father of an adoptee, etc.). Likewise with the gender inverted for a woman. This does not in any way mean that a father or a mother (or a grandmother or grandfather) are married, or married to correlating mother/father. Depending on the relationship and the feelings of those involved, someone considered to be a father or mother may not be biologically so or even LEGALLY so (part of the reason Louisa Wall drafted the bill was to deal with the legal ambiguity of civil union partners in the parenting of children from prior relationships etc.). 

People use language as they will. The bill seeks only to address the relationship between the state and couples in the LGBTQI minority. Mums will still be mums, dads will still be dads, even if Girls are Boys who like Boys to be Girls, who do Boys like they're Girls, who do Girls like they're Boys. Always should be someone you really love!

Delivering a legal opinion on the "They'll ban words!" argument

A Salute to Audacious Inanity: What Would Your Grandfather Think?

Have you ever encountered somebody so utterly dense that enlightenment is incapable of navigating their gravity well? Someone capable of lowering the intellectual temperature of a room to somewhere around 12 Kelvin? What I'm getting at is someone of such limited faculties that they would have to hold their breath whilst tying their shoelaces, for fear of overheating their mental circuitry as a result of operating their lungs and their hands at the same time.

If so, you've met ProtectMarriageNZ's mascot, Chris Meyer (aka John Moe, aka proof positive to Creationists that whatever process created humans could not possibly ever be called 'intelligent design'). This detestable little troll inhabits the page like some cave-dwelling inbreed, dispensing homophobic slurs and creepy private messages like manna from whichever heaven Graham Capill believes in. The only opponent of Same-Sex Marriage to ever be banned from PMNZ (and then reinstated once the admin realized Chris is responsible for roughly 50% of the comments on the page), Chris was one of the first PMNZ die-hards to advocate a non-religious argument against same-sex marriage.

The... well, I'll call it an argument for the sake of consistency:
"If the ANZACs who fought in WWII could see us now, they'd be rolling in their graves!"

Yes. We shouldn't extend the right of access to a core social institution to a minority because some people may have disagreed with our decision. Not because of their reason for disagreeing, heavens no, relying on such things as 'reasons' for any given political action/inaction is just cheating! No, purely because people who don't like gay marriage who are claiming the right to speak for the dead on an issue wholly unrelated to them, have decided that people who can't object to the claim, are definitely against a bill they never lived to see.

So I guess the first point to consider here is... SO?

Look, I mean no disrespect to our returned servicemen. My grandfather served in World War 2, and I had great respect for the man, and certainly appreciate the sacrifice of those prepared to put themselves in harms way. But... that doesn't mean I'd have to agree with them. Nor does being a soldier make you right. If our grandparents fought in WW2, it doesn't mean anything to the contents of their beliefs not pertaining directly to the experience of war. Some of our returned servicemen are racist, that doesn't make racism right. Some are sexist, it doesn't make sexism right. Some are alcoholics, that doesn't validate alcoholism. This is the most oblique, misdirected, and practically insulting 'appeal to authority' I've ever witnessed.

There isn't really much point in going too deep into this, because it's a shallow argument, and you can tell at a glance that it's patently ridiculous. Why? Observe.

These are ANZAC soldiers:

ANZAC soldiers, notably not spinning in their grave over social issues

They served in WW2, where they fought the Imperial Japanese, and these guys:

The NAZIs! Everyone's favourite, snappy-dressing ENEMY OF HUMANITY

The Nazis were a totalitarian regime that employed coercive political violence and maintained control of their nation through fostering hatred of scapegoats like Jews, Communists, and these fine folks:

People thrown in concentration camps, for being gay.

The Nazi regime was utterly detestable and morally bankrupt, and they persecuted homosexuals quite enthusiastically.

Now, anyone with two brain cells to rub together (which is just as well for Chris, otherwise the entry requirements would've prevented him from thinking of it in the first place) can tell Chris Meyer decided to appeal to the 'moral authority' of the ANZACs because they fought against a truly inhuman regime. Anyone that fought the Nazis picked up a mother-lode of humanitarian brownie points just by association. So Chris makes an appeal to the moral authority the ANZACs earned by fighting an inhuman regime persecuting homosexuals, in order to deny rights to homosexuals. Is anyone else vaguely offended that he invokes the name of the people who fought the Nazis, to support a position the Nazis would support? It would be as ludicrous as invoking the moral authority of Dr. Martin Luther King Junior to validate and incite acts of violence.

Every soldier learns how to salute.

A Salute to Threats of Voter Revolt

Yes, the peasants are revolting... at least, you could be forgiven for finding them so if you spend any amount of time reading the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the opponents of the bill. 

The Argument:

Ah, single-issue voters. An effective tool for legislative change, just look at the Legalise Cannabis Party!

If you vote FOR the Marriage Amendment Bill, you'll lose the support of ultra-conservatives.

Where it falls down:
What conservative votes do Labour, the Greens, Maori, Mana and Act have to lose?

The only party this threat actually threatens, is National. NZ First have shown their mettle by boldly covering their asses and shunting the responsibility onto the public, with Winston's ringing endorsement of his own irrelevance to the legal process. Consequently NZ First gets a free pass from conservatives. Labour, Mana and the Greens were never going to receive votes from conservatives. The only conservative in the token libertarian party in NZ, ACT, happens to be John Banks himself, who will lose the only support he has if he doesn't vote in favour of this legislation. This leaves National.

Now, roughly half of National are voting FOR the bill, and roughly half AGAINST. If this threat to vote-out those who support the bill has any legs, if the threat is followed through, National may well lose the next election. Contrary to Su'a William Sio's claim that supporting the bill will cost Labour the next election, the efforts of opponents of the bill to withdraw support from National on the grounds of a single issue, could end up handing the election to Labour instead. Of course it's bound to give Colin Craig's Conservative Party (CCCP) a bounce in support, so he looks set to make off like a bandit in all this. I do so hope he enjoys his time in Parliament with a Labour-led government setting the agenda.

A Winner is YOU!

A Salute to Self-Defeating Analogies: The Rugby Argument

Using analogy to illustrate or explain your position is extremely popular in almost all human interaction. It was good enough for Plato, therefore we can conclude it is good enough for me! It allows us to map the familiar to the unfamiliar, to make new ideas more accessible to people. All conversation carries an element of ambiguity, and use of analogy can reduce this ambiguity, by using the similarities between the context being discussed and the analogous context to signpost your intended points. In this way, use of analogy could be considered a crude differential diagnosis of communicable ideas...

The problem with an argument from analogy is that, well, it's not precise. You're using an analogue to talk about something else. Not only could the valid points of reference between the two be limited, it's left entirely to interpretation precisely what the analogy means. It's entirely possible to supply an argument that does not relate at all, or isn't clear in how it relates to the original context. Worse, you could end up supplying an analogy that works AGAINST your argument, shooting yourself in the foot as it were.

Which is EXACTLY what's happened with Colin Craig and Bob McCoskrie's endeavours into the wonderful world of analogous arguments! Last August, Bob faithfully reproduced the Rugby Equality Bill on his blog, and thankfully a week later after I (and several others) had bugged him sufficiently to make him realise how bad it made him look, he decided to remove the callous and flippant reference to youth suicide. Baby steps. Not to be outdone, in October, Colin Craig decided to whip his balls out at the AUSA Marriage Equality Debate.

The Argument... such as it is.

The 'Rugby analogy' runs pretty much like this. Heterosexual unions and Homosexual unions are similar, but different, and it would be silly to give them the same name. Just as Rugby and Soccer are similar, but different, and it would be silly to give them the same name. The reason homosexuals want this bill to pass is because their union lacks the prestige and cultural significance of marriage, just as soccer lacks the prestige and cultural significance that rugby has in New Zealand.

Where it goes wrong...
Oh dear, where do I even start? Oh I know, the own-goal:
Both Rugby and Soccer are already referred to by the same name: FOOTBALL! 

Even though Rugby and Soccer are different, they're BOTH called 'football'. As is Australian Rules Football, and gridiron, and a number of others. Colin and Bob have managed to supply an analogy that SUPPORTS the Marriage Amendment Bill. You see, just as rugby union and rugby league and soccer and gridiron etc. are all 'football', so too are Catholic Marriage and Anglican Marriage and Jewish Marriage and Secular Marriage and 'Gay Marriage' all 'Marriage'. The addition of a tradition does not change the existing traditions, any more than a gridiron team starting up at the same field as an existing rugby club suddenly turn rugby into gridiron by association.

And this isn't the only example of their spectacular own-goal. I've already encountered people posting screeds of Copy-Pasta from PMNZ, including a new Food Equality Bill analogy. In this case meat is the stand-in for heterosexual unions, and vegetables are the stand-in for homosexual unions, and vegetarians are the stand-in for 'libruls!' (which I guess makes opponents of the bill 'meatheads' ;-). Problem there, although slightly more obscure, is that the word 'meat' derived from the Old English 'mete', which means 'food'. This definition can also be found in the book of Genesis:

  29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

They don't seem to be having much luck with this, do they?

Setting aside the fact that advocates of the Rugby Analogy are presenting a self-defeating argument, even the argument they actually intend is a deeply, deeply flawed analogy. This is evident by virtue of the fact that NOBODY IS DENYING SOCCER PLAYERS THE OPTION OF ALSO PLAYING RUGBY. Homosexual couples presently cannot have their union solemnised under the auspices of marriage, whereas heterosexual couples are free to choose between marriage and civil unions (and a number of my friends are in civil unions until such time as same-sex couples are allowed to marry, kia kaha!). This doesn't even work for the analogy, because the analogy is so tortuously fucking stupid. Unless you add a layer of demographic abstraction (Pakeha can play Rugby or Soccer, but New Zealanders from Brazil are only allowed to play Soccer), then the real case becomes impossible to represent in the analogy. The fact remains, the analogy does not represent the restriction present in real life. Soccer players can play rugby, rugby players can play soccer. I believe it's on Sonny Bill Williams' 'To-Do List'.

Salute!

Of Slippery Slopes and Human Rights

An Illustrative Example of the Slippery Slope

Yesterday I dealt extensively with the Slippery Slope argument, which roughly holds that a sequence defined as "Things I Don't Like" will inevitably occur, because they're "Things I Don't Like", and we all know that "Things I Don't Like" are all the same, working together in a grand conspiracy to destroy all that is good and right in this world. It is the black-and-white binary thinking the claims that people supporting something innocuous like Same-Sex Marriage aren't actually supporting Same-Sex Marriage, oh no, they're really supporting Bestiality!

Those advocating the Slippery Slope go about it in a number of ways. They claim moral degeneracy. They believe if the definition of Marriage can be changed, then ALL conceivable changes will immediately be adopted (the burst dam principle) despite the fact that Marriage has been in a state of continuous change since its inception. They state that if the pro-SSM arguments are respected, then there's no logical reason to oppose polygamy or paedophilia. They accuse SSM-supporters of hypocrisy if they don't also support incestuous marriage, because clearly equality between two things (same-sex marriage and heterosexual marriage, for example) is not really equality unless EVERYTHING is equivalent (you can't have equality between homosexual and heterosexual couples until fish can marry bicycles!).

I'm not free until I can marry beer!

The 'Rights' issue:

As mentioned in the preceding article, one particular(ly ignorant) version of the argument is "If you make it a rights issue, then we have to respect the rights of paedophiles to marry kids!" etc. This just so happens to have a very handy parallel that we can all point to. So rather than clutter up the previous article with yet MORE words, I figured I would turn it into the addendum you are now reading. So without further ado, I present to you:

 The Slippery Slope to Suffrage

Haven't they suffraged enough?

When it comes to political rights, what could be a more central right than the participation in the democratic process? It's commonly accepted that government governs by consent, and the right to vote is how we establish that consent, so all other political rights flow from the right to vote, no?

The thing is, the definition of 'voter' has changed since its inception. Especially as regards who may be considered a 'voter', and who is deemed incapable or unworthy of voting responsibly. This gradual broadening of the 'voting public' can be seen as a lowering in quality, a general degradation of the character and requirements of eligible voters, a view that has certainly been expressed in the public discourse. In other words, a Rights-based argument leading to a Slippery Slope towards undesirable voters who do things like elect MPs that support Same-Sex Marriage, a problem we wouldn't have if we hadn't granted the vote to soft-hearted intellectual invalids such as women and itinerants!

So, let's take a look at the brief history of New Zealand voting rights! 

Firstly, from the 1853 election, the right to vote was restricted only to adult British men of means, either landowners possessed of £50 worth of land, or significant rental tenants. This would mean that men of substance, invested physically and financially in the prospects of the country, would be able to determine its future. A reasonable requirement, rather (eh wot!). As most Maori-owned land was held under communal title rather than private, independent ownership, the ability of Maori to vote in these initial elections was certain curtailed.

In 1862, the requirement that voters must own land was waived for those holding mining rights. This allowed itinerant miners to vote, despite their roaming, unsettled nature. In 1867, with the establishment of four Maori Seats in parliament, the right to some political representation was extended to the savages (good heavens!), with Maori being able to vote for their four representatives even if they did not privately own land.

When you give people rights, you have to acknowledge them as people?!

In 1879, the requirement to own land was discarded entirely, meaning any male British subject aged 21 or older could have a say in how he was governed. One of the direct consequences of this was the rise of working-class politics, which resulted in the ultimate moral degeneracy: The New Zealand Labour Party! Not convinced? Well the Labour Party introduced the bill that made homosexuality legal, and you can't have gay marriage without gay people now, can you?

Actually, let's entertain a brief tangent here a minute, shall we? The 1986 Homosexual Law Reform saw some of the most bitter and bellicose discourse in our political history, with National MP Norm Jones telling homosexuals to 'go back to the sewers where you came from'. It was a simpler time. The Homosexual Law Reform passed by the slimmest of margins, 49-44 in favour. Truly a nation divided.

1,000,000 people thinking about two dudes boning

So, a number of conservative and Christian figureheads formed the Coalition of Concerned Citizens, a lobbying group opposed to any and all homosexual law reforms in the 1980s. As you can see to your left, these stalwart defenders of Tradition and Morality decided to make themselves heard by delivering a petition to Parliament, to show the nation did NOT support any act that would allow consenting adults to do what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. A petition they claimed was signed by one million New Zealand citizens! Quite impressive in the days before the internet and social media. 

There's just one tiny little problem with this. Apparently the petition wasn't entirely kosher, and in fact contained an extensive number of fake signatures. When the Marriage Amendment Bill was drawn from the Members' Ballot last July, the ironically named Family First formed the 'ProtectMarriageNZ' advocacy group, and figuring that a discredited petition that failed to affect the political process in any way was such a good idea, they'd do the same thing again! EXACTLY the same thing, because it turns out they've managed to collect a petition with no quality control, so that it contains a myriad of prank pseudonyms (like Homer Sexual), duplicate signatures, signatures from foreigners without NZ citizenship, and the ringing endorsement of fictional characters from popular television shows and cartoons. Go look at the link and see for yourself, I don't mind waiting. The kicker? It's been running for a year and isn't even a tenth of the size of the CCC petition, despite the larger population and the ease of access afforded by the internet. They'll have to work a lot harder to be taken as the 'moral majority'. Of course petty vote-stuffing for their own vanity and self-justification isn't entirely unheard of for ProtectMarriageNZ, considering they picked up 99% of their fans on January 13th, all from Istanbul, Turkey. Totally legit, right?

So, suffrage, right?

Suffragette, and Captain of the Starship Normandy

Alright, back to the illustrative example. After abolishing the land requirements, a determined effort by the Suffragettes, spearheaded by Kate Sheppard, won women the right to vote in 1893. The final relaxation in voting requirements were age based, with eligibility set at 20 in 1969, and 18 in 1974.

So, we've seen a gradual expansion in voting rights in this nation. Or, to put it another way, extending voting rights to Miners was the first step on a slippery slope to Maori voters, poor voters, women voters, and young voters! It's a degeneracy of the sacred democratic principle of an informed and invested voting public! It worked so well to start, and it all went horribly wrong. Mark their words, this nation will surely fall to ruins over a century ago!

They expect the world, don't they!

And the argument that they use? That citizens of the nation contribute to the national economy whether they own land or not, that those affected by the law should have a say in who makes the laws and how those laws are made? Why, that could be extended to so many things! Our livestock and our trees contribute immeasurably to our economy! Our children and our automobiles are affected by the laws our government enact! Surely this means that we'll soon be extending the vote to children and sheep, rivers and bicycles, right? I mean we'd already lowered the age restriction TWICE!

It is the exact same reasoning, is it not? We relaxed standards and extended rights to different demographics already, so there's nothing stopping us relaxing standards further and broadening the aegis of human rights once more, right? It's a slippery slope to Fido deciding the next election, as much as extension of marriage rights to homosexual couples entails granting those rights to polygamists (and, by illogical extension, bestiality). Which is to say, not at all.

Just as we acknowledge and accept that children and animals and inanimate objects are incapable of granting or withdrawing informed consent regarding votes (and hence are in the custodial care of the relevant authorities, or simply completely outside of the political process), we can also acknowledge when a lack of meaningful consent (amongst other reasons), serves as a satisfactory reason to oppose the relationships Slippery Slope advocates claim will surely be legitimised by allowing Same-Sex Marriage. And in the case of the arguments raised in opposition to Same-Sex Marriage, I have yet to encounter one that cannot also be applied to people we already allow the right to marry.

A Salute to the Slippery Slope

Part 1 of my series on ambitiously stupid arguments
 
The Argument: "Gay Marriage will lead to Polygamous/Incestuous/Paedophilic/Bestial Marriage"

Why it sucks:
It's a handy rule of thumb, that if the name of your argument contains the word 'fallacy', it's time to find a new argument. However, the gormless gift that keeps on giving (and never learning), Bob McCoskrie, isn't about to let a little thing like 'logic' stand in the way of some good old-fashioned scaremongering! Simply jump on that flagship of stupidity, ProtectMarriageNZ, and you'll see roughly 50% of the articles posted assert the slippery-slope fallacy... logic-free portents of paedo-incesto-polygamy are about the only non-religious argument they have. It's a pity for them that the argument is about as valid as Fred Durst is talented.

Assumptions: Before we begin exploring why the Slippery Slope is as daft as a box of hair, it would pay to detail a few of my underlying assumptions here.

• The Marriage Amendment Bill seeks to change the LEGAL definition of Marriage. That is, it relates to the relationship between the state, and a couple in a committed relationship that is considered, to some degree, as one legal entity for certain aspects of the law.
• In order for legislation to be changed, it must either have support from the majority of the populace, OR be supported by an argument sufficient to warrant the change, in the absence of a sufficient counter-argument. In philosophy and logic this is the Principle of Sufficient Reason: For each thing that occurs, there is a sufficient reason to explain/cause its occurrence.
• It is entirely within the purview of the Government to amend legislation so as to better account for the reality of those it governs.

The Slippery Slope argument calls for legislative inertia: Don't change the status quo, because terrible things WILL INEVITABLY FOLLOW.

What it says: The Slippery Slope holds that if some state X were to occur, then state Y and Z will follow, therefore we should do everything in our power to prevent the occurrence of state X, even if state X is perfectly fine, harmless, uncontroversial, or even beneficial in and of itself. So in this specific case, we should not legally recognise same-sex couples as 'married', because then we will inevitably be recognising incestuous, paedophilic, or bestial couplings as married, too.

Where it falls down: The thing to note with the Slippery Slope fallacy, is that the argument wishes to establish a necessary link between causally-distinct states, such that if one should occur, the other must inevitably also occur. To show what this means, and why it is such a catastrophic failure of logic, contrast it with the most fundamental logical relationship known to mankind: Cause and Effect. With the cause/effect relationship, state A causes state B, state B causes state C, and state C causes state D, etc. This is not a 'Slippery Slope', because the cause of each state is sufficiently explained by the preceding state, and each causal relationship is readily identifiable and supported by sound logic and empirical evidence. For example, a lit match applied to a particular fuel with a flash point conducive of ignition from an external source causes the fuel to burn (state A causing state B), and the burning of the particular fuel is a chemical reaction that produces smoke (state B causing state C). This is a causal chain; each step in the chain is identifiable as the direct cause of each subsequent step, and each causal relationship is necessary, hence the maxim "Where there's smoke, there's fire". We never state that 'lit matches are a slippery slope to smoke!'. A Slippery Slope Argument superficially resembles Cause and Effect, but entirely lacks any causal/logical necessity between any of the predicted states: It claims each state will inevitably happen, with NO reason or justification as to why they will necessarily happen. Cause and Effect is where each step causes the next, the Slippery Slope is where unrelated events happen in sequence because I said so!

So why do they do it?  The point of the Slippery Slope argument is not to present any logical or coherent argument pertinent to the current debate. It exists solely to sideline the debate in favour of moral panic. The whole point of the Slippery Slope argument is to imbue the current debate with all the moral opprobrium of a visibly harsher and more detestable 'future state' of affairs, despite the fact that the two states are COMPLETELY UNRELATED. To reaffirm a waning social stigma by borrowing stigma from elsewhere. It's the same principle as dog-whistle politics. You'll note that the Slippery Slope takes no account of the comparative merits of the state currently being discussed (same-sex marriage), nor do the advocates of Slippery Slopes ever articulate why the pursuant states are wrong. No judgement for or against is made or given. The entire purpose, is scaremongering.

Fine-tuning Foul Arguments: "Aha!" the Blogs McConstantly's of the world will cry, "What about habitual association?". Most advocates of the Slippery Slope argument would not be so bold as to claim that same-sex marriage causes polygamy (okay I may be somewhat generous in the use of 'most', there), but will point to patterns or identifiable trends. Essentially, they will point at past examples of chronological sequencing (with the 20/20 vision of hindsight) and claim that because chronological sequencing of tangentially related states has occurred before, that is proof that the Slippery Slope has merit. Such claims are wrong. And bad. For one thing, just because you can point to a chronological sequence of thematically related events in the past, does not mean that there was any necessity inherent in that sequence. All that it means is that you are capable of looking at past events and grouping them together under a particular thematic category that you yourself are imposing upon them. To extrapolate from that to make assertive claims of what the future holds is to elevate yourself to the status of soothsayer, provided 'sooth' is Ye Olde English for compleat bulleshyte.

Nostrodumbass, if you will.

Let's take a look at an example to highlight the error here: Methamphetamines. Meth ruins lives, no argument; it is INCREDIBLY addictive and wreaks havoc on your health and mental well-being. And I guarantee you, almost without exception, people who have tried Meth have previously tried caffeine. They're both drugs, they're both stimulants, and they both cause some degree of addiction or physical dependency (much lighter in the case of coffee, but we're speaking thematically here). So, coffee is a slippery slope that leads to meth addiction. Meth is terrible, so we should ban coffee.

Think of the children!

If we're going to give any weight to this 'sequence of thematically related events' perspective, then considering the entire sequence leading through Polygamy all the way to Bestiality, we should at least be honest: The first step was heterosexual marriage. Straight marriage leads to Bestiality. And took a LOT of detours to Polygamy-Land (not Utah!) and a couple of dalliances with same-sex marriage already. Clearly, marriage should never have been legal at all. For the good of our immortal souls.

Except that it's all bunk. It is a living testament to the accuracy of Poe's Law:

So the Slippery Slope lacks any logical necessity, and the predictive powers of 'habitual association' are weaker than homeopathic lager. But Bob says that Polygamy is the natural next-step after same-sex marriage, so surely all the countries that recognise Polygamy must already recognise same-sex marriage, right? Uh, well, funny you should mention that... No state that recognises polygamous marriage extends legal recognition to same-sex marriage! In fact, in a large number of countries that support polygamy, homosexuality is illegal, or deemed non-existent within that nation's borders. In Uganda, it could well carry the death penalty! So it's actually entirely possible to have polygamy regardless of whether or not you allow same-sex marriage. So possible is it, that nowhere in the world is BOTH polygamy and same-sex marriage legal. Every extant example points at the complete OPPOSITE of the claim made by Slippery Slope advocates. But they have EVIDENCE. That evidence being statements and press-releases from polygamy advocates advocating for polygamy... because clearly people in polyamorous relationships don't want to get married until homosexuals are allowed. Yes, it seemingly never occurred to Bob and his ilk that advocates of polygamy may be advocating polygamy independently of the Same-Sex Marriage issue. It would appear that his 'smoking gun' is firing Dum-Dum bullets.

But you made it a Rights argument!

Ah yes, the capstone of this hyperventilating hyperbolic hissy-fit of an argument. The 'Rights' angle. The problem, as the Slippery Slope advocate sees it, is that in coaching the rhetoric about same-sex marriage in terms of human rights, this gives polygamists, incestuous couples, paedophiles and dog-botherers carte blanche to use the same argument and be recognised by the government in turn. There is, of course, a fundamental flaw in this reasoning:
Even if every argument made for Same-Sex Marriage could be made for Polygamy/Paedophilia/Incest/Bestiality, the arguments against them are different. 

Try this illustrative example on for size!
To make this slippery slope argument, you essentially have to admit that there is nothing specifically wrong with, say, paedophilia. Which is an uncomfortable position to have to defend, making it all the more curious that in ten months of frequent discussion, not a single soul I've confronted over the Slippery Slope has ever articulated a specific argument against any of the aforementioned states (perhaps unexpectedly cognizant of the fact that this would immediately shoot a hole in their Slippery Slope argument). It is telling that the only people that I have encountered who were advocating Polygamy, Incest, Paedophilia or Bestiality, were anti-SSM types trying to pin the social stigma of these acts on me.

Conclusion: To make the 'Slippery Slope Argument' is to admit that you do not have an argument to make.

If you had an argument for or against Same Sex Marriage, you wouldn't need the Slippery Slope, and the Slippery Slope only works if you ignore all other arguments specific to any of the states posited therein. The ONLY thing even remotely approaching validation for the Slippery Slope is the way stigma diminishes once the public becomes familiar with different people or ideas, otherwise known as the quiet death of ignorance. And if stigma is the only argument you can make against something, you have already abdicated the moral high-ground.

A Salute for all the True Believers!

Post-Script: Some may feel I'm being a little hard on ol' Bobby Boy. I assure you, it's nothing personal, I'm sure he's lovely to his friends. It's just, well, I wish he would follow the wisdom of Homer Simpson.