Even its proponents admit that SSM is a slippery slope

Marriage redefinition is not a “progressive” step, an “equality amendment,” or even a legislation addition – it is a jump into an abyss of consequences.

Supporters of the ‘Yes’ Campaign energetically mock the metaphoric argument about “same-sex marriage” being a slippery slope. Behind their counter-banter (which they never base on facts but rather emotional appeals) is a deeper reason for why they hate the metaphor: because it is true. 

With his customary incisive appraisal, Andrew Bolt lays out undeniable proof that same-sex marriage proponents know full well that legalising same-sex marriage will open a Pandora’s Box of crippling effects:

Once we scrap a tradition or some absolute taboo, many other things will likely follow - either because they logically follow or because it is too hard to muster the energy and consensus to defend the next point. We've also seen Malcolm Turnbull and Peter van Onselen rail against that slippery slope argument when used against same-sex marriage...

But it turns out that opponents don't need arguments to prove them wrong. All I need do is to quote the words of some same-sex marriage crusaders themselves - in this case, members of the Greens.

High profile same-sex marriage supporters are actually counting on the slippery-slope to use same-sex marriage as the start of a wider attack on the definition of the family. Bolt’s analysis is cogent, and as he mentioned, these activists don’t even try to hide their true agenda:

Introducing these two pieces on the Greens website is this declaration, under the headline Beyond Marriage Equality:

For more than a decade now marriage equality has dominated the energies of gay and lesbian campaigners. So when we achieve it, we can all celebrate and relax, right? Not a chance....

Here's Dignam, who argues that legalising same-sex marriage is just the start of "expanding" the definition of marriage, an institution he criticises as "patriarchal":

Queer campaigners are beginning to question the validity of same-sex marriage as a campaign focus... But if we are to think in terms of our ultimate objective as queer campaigners, then we should recognise that ‘equal love’ is a critical step...

The point of a campaign is less to solve everything, and more to build power to continue to achieve victories. Legalising same-sex marriage won’t only reduce discrimination — it will give queer organisers a stronger platform to create further change ...

Queer campaigners should not win their rights by meekly trudging into the tent of patriarchal marriage, their tails between their legs. Rather, the same-sex marriage campaign can be about dismantling the walls of the tent, expanding it to be open to more of us, and continuing to liberalise this cultural institution ...

Here's Copland, who treats same-sex marriage as merely a "symbol" in a crusade for further rights - contradicting the activists now telling us this is really just about the right of two gays to marry and nothing else, whether safe schools or gender fluidity theories:

…In Australia marriage equality actually has few practical impacts. State-based de-facto legislation gives same-sex couples practically all of the same rights as their married straight counterparts... We know that the only thing that will result in real progress for LGBTIQ people are concerted campaigns on these issues — ones that open up a more progressive debate about gender and sexuality rather than trying to confine us to being “normal”…

Many proponents of “marriage equality” are sadly being manipulated – same-sex marriage is a Trojan horse for a much more disturbing end. Legalising same-sex marriage will not resolve anything. It will pave the way for any law to be rewritten in conformity with the totalitarian, crippling regime of the LGBTI lobby.

Same-sex marriage is indeed a slippery slope. 

There are 3 reactions, Login to View

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.