We all saw this argument coming.

It’s just like homosexuality, doncha know?

I really expected this to come from pologamists before hearing it from the incestuous, but then Daddy/Daughter got caught out.

Future debaters, take note: this argument seems much more sincere when made prior to getting caught with your pants down. FWIW.

Advertisements

About wormme

I've accepted that all of you are socially superior to me. But no pretending that any of you are rational.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to We all saw this argument coming.

  1. D.J. says:

    Saw this http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/12/columbia-professor-is-arrested-for.html via Insty, and immediately zoned in on this part of Scalia’s quotes in particular:

    If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review.

    A slippery-slope argument was made prior to, and in the wake of (and almost certainly during )Lawrence, that a decision striking down anti-sodomy laws would lead to something like this. Now, slippery slope arguments are generally very weak. It is only when they keep being shown to be correct that they appear stronger. (Of course, there are those that look at the slippery slope argument and reply, “So? That’s where I want to end up! That’s a good thing!”)

    Where do I think the slope is going? Let’s look at that quote again, this time removing one word:

    If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review.

    Did you catch it? Let me be explicit: In the absence of an absolute, objective foundation for law, all that law can be is the promotion of majoritarian morality in every field. Basically it comes down to the premise (I would hold that it is a self-evident axiom) that whatever is created by man can be changed by man. Thus: no absolute standard of right and wrong if there is no external source. Law is the same way.

    If you want freedom in some aspects of law, but not others, how can you make your wish come true? Why should the government be able to outlaw fraud, rape, or murder, but not sodomy, incest, and polygamy?

    Discuss. (And I hope that more than just the W.O.R.M. is drawn into this debate.)

  2. DiogenesLamp says:

    Nothing remarkable. Just the powers of darkness doing what they’ve always done. 🙂

    There is a reason why the Latin word for “Left” means “Sinister.”

    As for the “Slippery Slope.” I had a good friend in High School (1979) whom I repeatedly tried to convince of the dangers of Liberal Social engineering. Among other topics we discussed was the “mainstreaming” of Homosexuality\Abortion\Incest\lowering consent ages, etc. and what the long term agenda of the Liberals were regarding it and other moral issues. In 1979 he wasn’t buying any of it. He Completely rejected the idea that society would devolve into a debauched hedonism. A Few years ago, I had a chance to talk with him again. He told me everything I had predicted was absolutely correct.

    Here’s another slippery slope. Make morality subjective to the majority, and pretty soon we decide things like rapes and murders aren’t so bad.

    • D.J. says:

      You make me feel young, DL. I turned 1 in 1979…

    • wormme says:

      Great points all around, guys.

      The need for an absolute standard is why the Founders had such strong deital references in our earliest documents. If there were any outright athiests in that bunch, they still saw the moral implications of claiming that human rights are subject to human decisions.

      Today’s atheists aren’t that sharp.

  3. old white guy says:

    and the republic dies because of a lack of morality in ?????? such decay, it is impossible to keep up.

  4. Mazzuchelli says:

    I was anticipating the groupists to weigh in as well. That’s my major problem with the whole ‘marriage’ issue. Where will the line finally be drawn? Guess, as we see here, it won’t be. Hopefully the tide will be stemmed until I’m no longer around to see it.

  5. Mazzuchelli says:

    There is the little problem of the Spartans if history back that far is valid.

    There was a raving academic of some sort on one of the higher-numbered cable channels theorizing that the deluge at the end of the last ice age took with it a good deal of human history. Believe one of his rants dealt with the need for undersea archeology along the continental shelves. I have no relevant point to make here except that the concept is compelling. Interest has lagged on ‘lost Atlantis’ and von Daniken stuff after puberty so this could be old news. A similar program made connections with lost Atlantans washing up on the shores of Egypt after a significant volcanic event. Clearly, I should now depart for ‘heaven’ across the river.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s