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.