The Slippery Slope

Many on the left make fun of the "slippery slope" argument. Sometimes, though, it's an appropriate and rational discussion to have.

Here's my slippery slope question: "Before redefining marriage from a relationship between a man and a woman to a relationship between consenting adults, can we agree about which consenting adult relationships will not qualify as "marriages?" We haven't had that debate yet, which is why I oppose gay marriage. It shouldn't be permitted until we explore what other doors might be accidentally thrown open. Adults consent to a lot of things, and once we've made that the standard, how do we keep it at two? Why can't three adults consent? What next? How can we re-write marriage law to accommodate gays without opening up a pandora's box of possible marriages? It's a debate worth having.

Here's a perfect example of why the slippery slope argument needs to be respected. Consider what some now consider acceptable:

A disturbing column in the Guardian more than suggests that pedophilia may just be another “sexual orientation,” an odious comparison. The argument being made is that by acknowledging that the desire for sex with children as just part of the human condition, we can somehow better protect children. Yet, the article also points to some academics who say that sex with adults doesn’t hurt children. Can we say, “normalization”?

That is perfectly reprehensible, but given the way are constantly lectured that "tolerance" of all sorts of sexual behavior is the only civilized reaction, it is also perfectly predictable. It's the very bottom of a slippery slope.