Tag: Slippery Slope

The Slippery Slope Can No Longer Be Called a Fallacy


2012: “Come on, man. Gay couples should be able to get married so they can visit their loved ones in the hospital. Gay marriage won’t affect you at all. Only paranoid bigots believe ‘we’re coming for your children.'”

2022: “What’s a woman? Only a biologist could answer that. And if you disagree, you’ll be banned from social media. Also, we’re totally grooming six-year-olds to join the LGBT Alphabet Community, and if you object, you’re an ignorant, hateful bigot.  Oh, and if you try to remove gay pr0n from the school library, you’re a bigot and we hate you.”

Is Polygamy Next?


shutterstock_124665844-2John Roberts seems to think so. From his dissent in Obergefell:

Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.

He continues:

Member Post


SoCons (and perhaps some Libertarians wary of huge social changes taking place very quickly at the federal–nay, civilizational–level): Have you ever been talking (perhaps on Facebook) about some potential negative effects of same-sex marriage and been accused of committing the slippery slope fallacy?  Then read on! The slippery slope argument form is not always fallacious. Preview Open

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.