Slippery slope

Anyone who wants more than one mother-in-law deserves them

The slippery slope arguments have started in the US, where there are claims that there will be attempts to legalise polygamy because now same-sex marriage is legal, that is the next step.

Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court?s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. Following on the rejection of interracial marriage bans in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right?one that forces the government to recognize, as Friday?s decision said, a private couple?s ?love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.?

The question presents itself: Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable: Now that we?ve defined that love and devotion and family isn?t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy?yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.

This is not an abstract issue. In Chief Justice John Roberts? dissenting opinion, he remarks, ?It is striking how much of the majority?s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.? As is often the case with critics of polygamy, he neglects to mention why this is a fate to be feared. Polygamy today stands as a taboo just as strong as same-sex marriage was several decades ago?it?s effectively only discussed as outdated jokes about Utah and Mormons, who banned the practice over 120 years ago.

Yet the moral reasoning behind society?s rejection of polygamy remains just as uncomfortable and legally weak as same-sex marriage opposition was until recently.

Read more »

First tobacco, then booze, then sugar, the control freaks are coming

I have covered this extensively and commented, and even given speeches about the troughers worldwide who are moving from attacking the tobacco industry to booze and now onto sugar and fat.

They are using the same tactics as they have used against Big Tobacco…and at one recent speech I gave when I mentioned “Big Sugar” ther was some sniggering…then lo and behold we saw the troughers use that term just a few weeks later. I bet those sniggering had an “oh fuck!” moment.

James Delingpole looks at this phenomenon as well.

In this week’s Spectator I have a rant?about all those pressure groups you see quoted in all the papers pretty much every day. Some are small, obscure and marginal ? Bright Blue, the think tank for Lib Dems who want to play at being Tories, comes to mind ? while some sound superficially respectable ? the British Medical Association, say. What they all have in common is that they tend, on the whole, to lend far, far too much credibility to a hardcore of professional activists whose tedious and unhelpful opinions we would most of us do better to ignore completely.? Read more »

Sit down, I was wrong, I’m sorry

Yep, I admit it I was wrong about where the slippery slope argument goes if we allow marriage equality…or gay marriage as some like to call it.

I fought against Colin Craig’s arguments, and those of Garth McVicar…I was wrong. I was wrong about polyamory… Read more »