Man Wants to Marry a Goat

Because the slippery slope argument is fundamentally flawed as a sole argument and its use must be fully justified for it to be any good.

I think that is an exaggeration. The slippery slope analogy could be taken too far. But it is not necessarily fundamentally flawed. And to say it has absolutely no place, I think, is naive.

With the same logic any argument of your thousands, against biblical faith, fearing the outcome of theism, is just as much your "slippery slope" paranoia.

I see the argument was so bad that you were even able to find objections to it yourself,

You should know by now that I tend to be preemptive. That is why people often complain about the length of my posts.

I volunteer some expected objections of comments in a preemptive way, rightly or wrongly. Sometimes I figure - Why wait for someone to chime in - "Oh, but you didn't consider thus and such" ?

Originally posted by sonship

Because the slippery slope argument is fundamentally flawed as a sole argument and its use must be fully justified for it to be any good.

I think that is an exaggeration. The slippery slope analogy could be taken too far. But it is not necessarily fundamentally flawed. And to say it has absolutely no place, I think, is naive.

With ...[text shortened]... I figure - Why wait for someone to chime in - "Oh, but you didn't consider thus and such" ?

I think there is a fundamental aspect of marriage that makes these slippery slope arguments invalid: that of informed consent.

Marriage is (I think universally, though I could be wrong) a contract between two informed and consenting individuals. Both tend to sign some sort of register that states that they understand and agree to the terms of the marriage contract. A goat is unable to do this.

Of course the above definition allows same-sex marriage, as well as polygamy (where you simply have multiple contracts, none of which include any 'forsaking all other' type clauses). But in all cases, both parties sign the contract.

On the day that another species becomes capable of comprehending and truthfully signing such a contract, then inter-species marriage may become legal (and rightly so) but while that situation is not even a remote possibility, it serves no purpose to discuss it.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by sonship

Because the slippery slope argument is fundamentally flawed as a sole argument and its use must be fully justified for it to be any good.

I think that is an exaggeration. The slippery slope analogy could be taken too far. But it is not necessarily fundamentally flawed. And to say it has absolutely no place, I think, is naive.

With ...[text shortened]... I figure - Why wait for someone to chime in - "Oh, but you didn't consider thus and such" ?

In this case, though, I think the slippery slope argument breaks down because there is a “categorical break” between incommensurable differences in consciousness (which includes the inability of informed consent mentioned by Penguin). That would not be the case, say, when comparing laws and “moral” arguments against miscegenation to those against homosexual relationships.

I would also find it offensive to compare same-sex relations (and the persons involved) to animality—just as I would in the case of miscegenation. However, I think you have already addressed that in your post (your 3rd post on page 3) about the “divine dignity” (my summary of your point there) inherent in humanity—well done. But I think that what you say there also—from a religious perspective—highlights the kind of categorical difference that causes this slippery slope to collapse.

Originally posted by sonship
I think that is an exaggeration. The slippery slope analogy could be taken too far. But it is not necessarily fundamentally flawed. And to say it has absolutely no place, I think, is naive.

I never said it had no place.

However, wikipedia goes as far as calling it an informal fallacy in general:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect.

So you need to provide the warrant for your argument to have any punch. You have not done so.

With the same logic any argument of your thousands, against biblical faith, fearing the outcome of theism, is just as much your "slippery slope" paranoia.
Now I am confused. Do you accept the validity of the "slippery slope" argument when used in that way? Or did you just argue against yourself?

I must also note that I have never used the slippery slope argument with respect to biblical faith and consider it invalid in that context.

I volunteer some expected objections of comments in a preemptive way, rightly or wrongly.
Well how about volunteering some counters to the objections? Stating the objections before your opponent does not nullify them as objections.