Last fall this series addressed the “slippery slope” in relation to homosexual marriage, noting that there was a valid concern that the acceptance of homosexual marriage might lead ultimately to the acceptance of pedophilia. The article noted only that decisions made today become the foundation for decisions in the future, and it was plausible that the acceptance of homosexual relationships as normal now could lead to the acceptance of other relationships currently deemed unacceptable.
The article was slammed, and although some who criticized it did so without reading it (based on the incorrect assumption that it was saying that homosexuals were more likely to be pedophiles) others raised objections, that this was different in kind. In our response to these criticisms, we included that polygamy and incest would probably come first, and later cited NAMBLA, an organization of homosexuals promoting relationships with adolescents (and younger), as evidence that there were factions pushing in that direction in regard to pedophilia. Yet in regard to polygamy and incest, at least, the public response from those defending homosexual relationships has generally been that it won’t happen, and the question from those opposed, “Why not?”, has gone unanswered.
In the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision, at least one major proponent of homosexual marriage, Boston College Law School Professor Kent Greenfield, has given the answer: of course it will. He suggests that the LGBTQ community has known, or should have known, this all along. He looks at the arguments against approving these, and finds them all wanting. This is particularly intriguing, because this spring, before the decision, he argued that such a slippery slope argument made absolutely no sense to him (at the bottom of this article). So which is the truth, that he always knew even when he lied to say that it made no sense, or that he is lying now that it has always been obvious?
Conservatives are already persuaded that liberals lie to push policy in the direction they want. In Roe v. Wade, doctors testified that the unborn were not yet human beings in any legitimate sense of the word; perhaps a decade later one of those doctors admitted that of course they knew that the unborn were fully human, but they lied about it because they wanted the law to permit abortions. We again have the smoking gun, that at least some supporting the LGBTQ agenda were knowingly lying about the slippery slope, that they fully recognized that Justice Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558 (2003), stating that
State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision….
was completely correct, but pretended there was some new magic line that distinguished homosexual marriages from all these others in order to win court cases and set policy the way they wanted it.
Some will object that they do not see it that way. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but that does not make it truth.