Topic: New Evidence Supporting the Religious Right and Their Slippery Slope

[Justin Kissel]

The religious right have long argued that if same-sex marriages were allowed, it would be followed by a slippery slope of normalizing other activities, including incest, bestiality, and even polygamy. Now we have disgusting news which seems to provide strong evidence for this. Count me completely gobsmacked!

[FormerReformer]

Logical fallacy or cracker of coccyges?

Either way, that news if very scary.

[Maria]

crackpots galore.

I have heard that a certain person has been in a state-run psychiatric nursing home for five months because she tells anyone who will listen to her that the Blessed Virgin has told her to marry a certain man. Psychiatrists are afraid that she will stalk that man, so she is under lockup in a secure nursing facility. She is likewise planning the wedding asking friends to serve as her maid of honor or bridesmaids as she believes that she will be released soon.

The more meds she is given, the crazier she becomes.

Lord have mercy.

[Maria]

The religious right have long argued that if same-sex marriages were allowed, it would be followed by a slippery slope of normalizing other activities, including incest, bestiality, and even polygamy. Now we have disgusting news which seems to provide strong evidence for this. Count me completely gobsmacked!

How embarrassing. The antics! People are becoming weirder and weirder.

Must be the fluoridated water.

[dzheremi]

Maybe this yahoo and Nadine Schweigert, the North Dakota woman who "married" herself can get together and complain about their lousy, uncaring and self-centered spouses.

I guess the up side of marriage being remade in the image of the craziest people around is that it takes said whackjobs out of the dating pool. This quote from the bride-to-be made me laugh: 'A few of my ex-boyfriends found out and they're surprised I'm taking things this far, but they've always known I'm a massive romantic.' A 'massive romantic'. Yeah...something tells me that was not their honest first reaction!

[Fabio Leite]

There are several "crazy marriages" around - besides, of course, those between two men or two women.

A man in Japan married a human-sized pillow with the drawing of an anime girl.

I read more than one case of men marrying animals in India.

Pedophilia *is* being advanced by "serious" scholars under the politically correct name of "intergenerational love". I will not search for that to provide links because I'm at work, but you can do it and get scared. You'll not see pornography but congresses, articles and that old well-known air of self-righteous indignation we find in other movements. And yes, most of it takes the homossexual movement as their reference in advancement of "civil rights". And guess what? In their views, *they* are the victims of an oppressive prejudicial society.

If marriage were only about "love", "consent" and "physical safety" than there will be no rational motive to prevent sick adults from "getting married" to children once they prove they cause no body harm to them. Children can be taught to kill without guilt as seen in some guerrillas, they can be taught to do other things as well. The sick discourse of "gay marriage" is just the first step.

[Kerdy]

I suppose the Slippery Slope isn't a logical fallacy after all.  Of course, some of us have known this for a long, long time.  What’s the old adage?  "Give someone an inch and they will take a mile," except now days, people take 25 miles and demand more.  If they don’t get it, it violates some imagined right they have and the opposition is immediately and automatically labeled phobic.

The really sad part is, today, no one can tell if someone is serious or if it is a parody.  Scary.

[Fabio Leite]

Unfortunately the "intergenerational love" is not a parody. They are dead serious about it. And don't be mistaken, the decision to bring up the scandals with the priests was intended as the first step to bring the issue to public view and discussion. That which you look and hear for long ceases shocking you after some time. That's why the first public appearance had to be slandering the group that was most likely to oppose it in the future.

But just like divorce first entered literature and "intellectual" discourse in the 19th century to be normalized in the 20th, just like the "heroism" of sex outside marriage made its debut in romanticism to become the acceptable norm in the 60s, these subjects have to linger in imagination for some time before being "normalized". See the thread "Sinful thoughts" for the 5 stages of sin, starting in imagination and conversation with sin, to see how the devil has been working that collectively in the West.

Don't be mistaken, you will see full fledged campaigns for "intergenerational love" in your lifetime, and I'm afraid that sooner than we would expect.

I suppose the Slippery Slope isn't a logical fallacy after all.  Of course, some of us have known this for a long, long time.  What’s the old adage?  "Give someone an inch and they will take a mile," except now days, people take 25 miles and demand more.  If they don’t get it, it violates some imagined right they have and the opposition is immediately and automatically labeled phobic.

The really sad part is, today, no one can tell if someone is serious or if it is a parody.  Scary.

[Kerdy]

Unfortunately the "intergenerational love" is not a parody. They are dead serious about it. And don't be mistaken, the decision to bring up the scandals with the priests was intended as the first step to bring the issue to public view and discussion. That which you look and hear for long ceases shocking you after some time. That's why the first public appearance had to be slandering the group that was most likely to oppose it in the future.

But just like divorce first entered literature and "intellectual" discourse in the 19th century to be normalized in the 20th, just like the "heroism" of sex outside marriage made its debut in romanticism to become the acceptable norm in the 60s, these subjects have to linger in imagination for some time before being "normalized". See the thread "Sinful thoughts" for the 5 stages of sin, starting in imagination and conversation with sin, to see how the devil has been working that collectively in the West.

Don't be mistaken, you will see full fledged campaigns for "intergenerational love" in your lifetime, and I'm afraid that sooner than we would expect.

I suppose the Slippery Slope isn't a logical fallacy after all.  Of course, some of us have known this for a long, long time.  What’s the old adage?  "Give someone an inch and they will take a mile," except now days, people take 25 miles and demand more.  If they don’t get it, it violates some imagined right they have and the opposition is immediately and automatically labeled phobic.

The really sad part is, today, no one can tell if someone is serious or if it is a parody.  Scary.

I believe you, trust me!  I have seen organizations, which so far are still illegal in the USA, which promote this sort of stuff. 

[stavros_388]

Don't be mistaken, you will see full fledged campaigns for "intergenerational love" in your lifetime, and I'm afraid that sooner than we would expect.

Freedom comes with people pushing boundaries. However, I have faith that my fellow human beings will protect children. Am I being naive? Of course there is some truth to the slippery slope idea. But it doesn't matter how slick a campaign is, most people recognize the difference between mutual love and consent, and situations where one party is being victimized or exploited. "Intergenerational love" will never be widely accepted. If it is, I will flee society and live off of the land (until my insulin runs out, and then I'll die ).

[vamrat]

Don't be mistaken, you will see full fledged campaigns for "intergenerational love" in your lifetime, and I'm afraid that sooner than we would expect.

Freedom comes with people pushing boundaries. However, I have faith that my fellow human beings will protect children. Am I being naive? Of course there is some truth to the slippery slope idea. But it doesn't matter how slick a campaign is, most people recognize the difference between mutual love and consent, and situations where one party is being victimized or exploited. "Intergenerational love" will never be widely accepted. If it is, I will flee society and live off of the land (until my insulin runs out, and then I'll die ).

Depending on how "intergenerational" they are trying to be, it is really far more natural than same-sex.  From mid-teens on everything is fully operational and had been done for centuries.  Heck, these "children" are doing it amongst themselves...since as far as our society is concerned sex is just a recreational past time anyway, basically hovercrafting for poor people.

[genesisone]

Would the betrothal of the Theotokos to Joseph be considered "intergenerational"?

[Fabio Leite]

It's children they are talking about, not about senior men with their new 20 something lover.

Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex promised readers a “radical, refreshing, and long overdue reassessment of how we think and act about children’s and teens’ sexuality.” The book was published by University of Minnesota Press in 2003 (with a foreword by Joycelyn Elders, who had been the U.S. Surgeon General in the Clinton administration), after which the author, Judith Levine, posted an interview on the university’s website decrying the fact that “there are people pushing a conservative religious agenda that would deny minors access to sexual expression,” and adding that “we do have to protect children from real dangers … but that doesn’t mean protecting some fantasy of their sexual innocence.”

Ken Plummer, one of the contributors, writes that “we can no longer assume that childhood is a time of innocence simply because of the chronological age of the child.” In fact, “a child of seven may have built an elaborate set of sexual understandings and codes which would baffle many adults.”

Claiming to draw upon the theoretical work of the social historians, the socialist-feminists, the Foucauldians, and the constructionist sociologists, Plummer promised to build a “new and fruitful approach to sexuality and children.”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/meet-the-academics-who-are-trying-to-redefine-pedophilia-as-intergeneration

[ialmisry]

Don't be mistaken, you will see full fledged campaigns for "intergenerational love" in your lifetime, and I'm afraid that sooner than we would expect.

Freedom comes with people pushing boundaries. However, I have faith that my fellow human beings will protect children. Am I being naive?

Yes.

[Fabio Leite]

Had they actually get married, yes.

St. Joseph did protest the idea - unlike the "holy family" of Romans portray. Only when they understood he had to be a *mentor* and protector he agreed with the betrothal to protect her from being stoned as a single mother. He called upon himself the cross of slander for this crime to protect the Messiah who was to be born.

On a side note, the "Holy Family" in Orthodox has always been the family of the Theotokos, although not with this emphasis in particular.

Would the betrothal of the Theotokos to Joseph be considered "intergenerational"?

[stavros_388]

Depending on how "intergenerational" they are trying to be, it is really far more natural than same-sex.  From mid-teens on everything is fully operational and had been done for centuries.  Heck, these "children" are doing it amongst themselves...since as far as our society is concerned sex is just a recreational past time anyway, basically hovercrafting for poor people.

I don't care so much if it's more "natural" or not, in this case (...one could argue that homosexuality exists throughout the natural world and is therefore natural, but that's another thread altogether). If it involves consenting adults doing whatever they do behind closed doors, it doesn't bother me. If it involves minors being exploited or sexually preyed upon by mature adults, it bothers me a great deal. I hope we can all see the difference.

[Fabio Leite]

If it were not tragic it would be funny seeing the defenders of civil union for homossexual pairs be put against the wall on their own arguments for this.

What the "intergenerationalists" would say is probably something like this:

"Listen you pedophobic, if you are not mature enough to see that this child already has sexual drive than you are the immature one here, and a hateful one at that, full of Christian reactionary prejudices. Intergenerational sex has happened since the dawn of time! Look at Greece, the philosophers and their ephebos! Look at the animal kingdom, are they perverts too just because they don't share your cultural limitations? Who do you think you are to put limits to love? Your hate is the only perversion here! Would you rather this child be in a house with abusive parents or with an adult whom he loves and who loves him? What is worse, be beaten everyday or have a sexual organ rubbed on occasion for pleasure? You want to enslave this child for your own nasty conservative republican agenda, to see him grow to be a pedantic pedophobic like you! This is just gay prejudice in disguise, what you really don't like is the fact it is love between two men who just happen to have been born in different years. Here is a list of people who had sex as child and grew up just fine - after the concept of "just fine" was changed once again. Pedophobic, bully, medieval....you, you... Christian! (forgive me oh Marx for using such an awful word!) I don't want to see children as victims of violence either! But only a sick mind would think that sex has to be violent. It can be tender and full of love and respect. Don't adults with different body shapes have to care not to hurt their partners eithers? It's just the same here. Stop being a bore, being uncool, accept progress. In the future you will be seen just like those fighting against slavery, you reactionary!"

[Fabio Leite]

And now just think of the children who are taught to be soldiers in guerrillas.

One can safely argue that being in a war killing and being hurt is far more traumatazing and hurtful for a child than being forced to have sex. Yet, many of those children say they like what they are doing - be it for Allah, Freedom or whatever. I don't have to go far, in my own city, Rio, children were used as soldiers of the drug dealers. They had military weapons and were used to prevent the police from shooting them.

They loved it. They saw themselves as heros. It was a big adventure for them, and most grew to become dangerous psychopaths.

Children will learn and accept everything adults introduce them too. Among indians in the Amazon, a common initiation rite was to smear honey on the young boy and tie him to a tree with ants who would bite all his body. Some, of course, died, but the ones who survived, ah, these were the "true" men. They *longed* for the experience.

Don't you think that having sex with an adult can't be put in the place of these intitiation rites and we have children actually asking to be part of it and used as witness of the "good" that "intergenerational love" is. It's mass dementia, but mass dementia is precisely the state of humanity we had before.

[stavros_388]

Well, I suppose we'll all get a chance to see more of what the so-called slippery slope brings, since acceptance of the civil unions of homosexuals is growing, not declining, in many parts of the world. Hopefully it will bring even more sensible human rights, rather like racial, gender, and class equality helped forge the way for same-sex civil unions. I predict that pedophelia will never be societally accepted, no matter how slick its marketers. I still have at least that much faith in society. Just because kids can be brainwashed or tricked into doing something terrible doesn't mean that we, as a society, have to endorse it! And as for people marrying cardboard... at least there is very little chance of them procreating.

[ialmisry]

Well, I suppose we'll all get a chance to see more of what the so-called slippery slope brings, since acceptance of the civil unions of homosexuals is growing, not declining, in many parts of the world.

Yes, we live in dark times indeed.

Hopefully it will bring even more sensible human rights, rather like racial, gender, and class equality helped forge the way for same-sex civil unions.

Why would insanity bring sanity?

I predict that pedophelia will never be societally accepted, no matter how slick its marketers.

Why not?  Worked for same sex "marriage," as you said.

I still have at least that much faith in society.

It is misplaced.

Just because kids can be brainwashed or tricked into doing something terrible doesn't mean that we, as a society, have to endorse it!

acceptance of the civil unions of homosexuals is growing, not declining, in many parts of the world.

And as for people marrying cardboard... at least there is very little chance of them procreating.

and the chance of same sex "marriages" procreating?

[Fabio Leite]

1) Bring perversion to public view
2) Keep it there until people get used to it and find it "bad" but no longer "shocking"
3) Demedicalize and detheologize it so people can't call it "sick" or "sinful" without being an empty offense. The multiplicity of accidents must be used as "proof" against any affirmation of essence;
4) Campaign to normalize it.
5) Use the last successful liberation of a perversion through these steps (a) as a reference that we must move forward (for liberals); (b) that it can't get worse (for conservatives); All the liberals that supported the last perversion and who oppose this one must now be called conservatives;
6) Use the next worst perversion as reference for those currently being corrupted to think that there are still imoral things they will never accept (this is part of the first step for them);
7) Convince a lot of "artists" that they will be "avant garde" if they do it and expose it more
8 ) Start demonizing those who oppose it and flood them with judicial action while trying to create precedents for legal acceptance
9) Has it worked yet? If not, go back to 4.

[stavros_388]

Why not?  Worked for same sex "marriage," as you said.

I said no such thing regarding slick marketing.

...and the chance of same sex "marriages" procreating?

Exactly... none! So why get bent out of shape about it? BTW, don't bother answering. I've heard all of the old, inane arguments here before.

I'm all for gay rights in the secular sphere. Adults only, though, of course! So stone me! 

[ialmisry]

Why not?  Worked for same sex "marriage," as you said.

I said no such thing regarding slick marketing.

I quoted you.

acceptance of the civil unions of homosexuals is growing, not declining, in many parts of the world.

That you didn't want to fess up that slick marketing has done that isn't my problem.

...and the chance of same sex "marriages" procreating?

Exactly... none! So why get bent out of shape about it? BTW, don't bother answering.

Then don't bother asking.

BTW, gay adoption goes hand in glove with same sex "marriage."

I've heard all of the old, inane arguments here before.

How about the right and truthful ones?

I'm all for gay rights in the secular sphere. Adults only, though, of course!

Why "of course"? Rather narrow and intolerant of you.

So stone me! 

No, saying "I told you so" suffices.

[stavros_388]

I quoted you.

You misquoted me (intentionally or not). I said: "I predict that pedophelia will never be societally accepted, no matter how slick its marketers." That is different than me saying same-sex union was accepted because of slick marketing.

BTW, gay adoption goes hand in glove with same sex "marriage."

I'm perfectly okay with that, as long as the parents are not deemed unfit (by the correct institution) to raise a child. Anyway, many gay couples are far more fit to competently raise a child than some of the hetero couples I've encountered.

[TheMathematician]

Why not?  Worked for same sex "marriage," as you said.

I said no such thing regarding slick marketing.

...and the chance of same sex "marriages" procreating?

Exactly... none! So why get bent out of shape about it? BTW, don't bother answering. I've heard all of the old, inane arguments here before.

I'm all for gay rights in the secular sphere. Adults only, though, of course! So stone me! 

Here, I'll stone you

[stavros_388]

Why not?  Worked for same sex "marriage," as you said.

I said no such thing regarding slick marketing.

...and the chance of same sex "marriages" procreating?

Exactly... none! So why get bent out of shape about it? BTW, don't bother answering. I've heard all of the old, inane arguments here before.

I'm all for gay rights in the secular sphere. Adults only, though, of course! So stone me! 

Here, I'll stone you

(Cough, hack!) Sweeeet maaan. Now that's a good stonin'...   

[ialmisry]

I quoted you.

You misquoted me (intentionally or not). I said: "I predict that pedophelia will never be societally accepted, no matter how slick its marketers." That is different than me saying same-sex union was accepted because of slick marketing.

Again, that you won't face the truth, and misplace your trust, is not my problem.

BTW, gay adoption goes hand in glove with same sex "marriage."

I'm perfectly okay with that

why am I not surprised?

as long as the parents are not deemed unfit (by the correct institution) to raise a child.

...in accord with the latest slick advertising.  Such "correct" institutions already deny adoption to Christians who will not get with the program on same sex marriage.

Anyway, many gay couples are far more fit to competently raise a child than some of the hetero couples I've encountered.

I hear that many SS officers made excellent parents.

[Fabio Leite]

Did I say in our lifetime? I am really very naive. I should have said "happened this month".

Les pédophiles réclament les mêmes droits que les homosexuels (Pedophiles claim the same rights as homossexuals)
http://is.gd/YsH8lh  (translate to English by Google)

[Fabio Leite]

Here is the original source in English:
http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517

Some "highlights" (should be "highshadows"):

A group of psychiatrists with B4U-Act recently held a symposium proposing a new definition of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA.

Pedophilia has already been granted protected status by the Federal Government. The Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act lists “sexual orientation” as a protected class; however, it does not define the term.

Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation;” however, the amendment was defeated by Democrats. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law. “This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.”

The White House praised the bill saying, “At root, this isn’t just about our laws; this is about who we are as a people. This is about whether we value one another  – whether we embrace our differences rather than allowing them to become a source of animus.”

Milton Diamond, a University of Hawaii professor and director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society, stated that child pornography could be beneficial to society

In July, 2010 Harvard health Publications said, “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.”



Sex offender laws protecting children have been challenged in several states including California, Georgia and Iowa. Sex offenders claim the laws prohibiting them from living near schools or parks are unfair because it penalizes them for life.

Did I say in our lifetime? I am really very naive. I should have said "happened this month".

Les pédophiles réclament les mêmes droits que les homosexuels (Pedophiles claim the same rights as homossexuals)
http://is.gd/YsH8lh  (translate to English by Google)

[Rufus]

You're so clever, Asteriktos.

[orthonorm]

I hear that many SS officers made excellent parents.

I hear you do as well.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

I hear that many SS officers made excellent parents.

I hear you do as well.

I am not happy with this post. I am going to lock the thread so that I can check with my fellow moderators. Carl Kraeff