Santorum's Slippery Slope
Yes that is an alliteration. I'm so talented.
I've been participating in a debate over at Amp's site, specifically his comments section, on Senator Rick Santorum's (R-PA) recent homophobic ramblings, where Santorum said basically, if we allow sodomy, we have to allow bigamy, incest, and I don't know, let's throw in murder and nun-beating for good measure.
My favorite post in the comments comes from JRC (no web page, unfortunately. You'll have to check out comments on Amp's page to see his/her/its writing's):
My favorite response to this particular slippery-slope argument is to just turn it around:
"If there's no right to sexual privacy, then it's constitutionally acceptable to ban opposite-sex sodomy, oral sex, kissing, or any sexual expression at all, even within marriage. If the Supreme Court says that the constitutional right of privacy does not cover private consensual sexual activity, there will be no constitutional reason to extend legal protection to consentual, heterosexual sexual contact inside marriage."
Well, let's assume that Santorum . . . [is] correct for a moment (I don't think [he is], but let's pretend). Which do you believe is worse for our nation in the long run. . .legalizing group marriage, or outlawing kissing?
Sure it's a rediculous scenario, but no more rediculous than "legal sodomy = legal bestiality," and just as "logical" according to their professed point of view.
Edited so that it makes sense out of context (JRC refers to another of the posters in the comment thread).
Yes that is an alliteration. I'm so talented.
I've been participating in a debate over at Amp's site, specifically his comments section, on Senator Rick Santorum's (R-PA) recent homophobic ramblings, where Santorum said basically, if we allow sodomy, we have to allow bigamy, incest, and I don't know, let's throw in murder and nun-beating for good measure.
My favorite post in the comments comes from JRC (no web page, unfortunately. You'll have to check out comments on Amp's page to see his/her/its writing's):
My favorite response to this particular slippery-slope argument is to just turn it around:
"If there's no right to sexual privacy, then it's constitutionally acceptable to ban opposite-sex sodomy, oral sex, kissing, or any sexual expression at all, even within marriage. If the Supreme Court says that the constitutional right of privacy does not cover private consensual sexual activity, there will be no constitutional reason to extend legal protection to consentual, heterosexual sexual contact inside marriage."
Well, let's assume that Santorum . . . [is] correct for a moment (I don't think [he is], but let's pretend). Which do you believe is worse for our nation in the long run. . .legalizing group marriage, or outlawing kissing?
Sure it's a rediculous scenario, but no more rediculous than "legal sodomy = legal bestiality," and just as "logical" according to their professed point of view.
Edited so that it makes sense out of context (JRC refers to another of the posters in the comment thread).
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home