It’s not a slippery slope


Recently, Tony Jones said that he finds the “slippery slope” arguments against homosexuality as being fallacious. Just a short response on my part:

It’s not a slippery slope argument. It’s simply looking at the logic of the situation and taking the arguments used for homosexuality and applying them elsewhere. If we say that the Bible’s prohibition on homosexuality is a cultural matter of that time, then we must also say that polygamy, prostitution, pornography (lusting with the mind), bestiality, and other sexual sins are likewise products of that culture.

The few one exception would be that homosexuals consent with each other, thus bestiality, pedophilia, and rape do not quality. Even if we grant this premise, this still leaves open adultery, pornography, polygamy, and so on and so forth. This whole “monogamous relationship” that Tony elevates is irrelevant; who cares if it’s monogamous or not? Why do we reject some verses, but accept others?

So no, it’s not a slippery slope at all. It’s simply taking the arguments used for one context and applying those same arguments to other contexts.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “It’s not a slippery slope

  1. I agree that the sexual sins referred to in your post should be evaluated by a common standard. However, while it can be shown that homosexuality is a cultural matter of Biblical times, the other sexual sins are not cultural but transcultural, i.e. they apply to all cultures over time. Also, homosexuality passes the no-harm test (if done with loving care) but the other sexual sins fail that test. Full reasons for these conclusions are given on the “Gay and Christian” website (www.gaysandslaves.com).

    1. I read the answers on the site. To be quite honest, I’m not convinced at all. First, let us apply the “no harm” test (which, by the way, is a horrible ethical standard because it takes God out of the equation, specifically His purposes in ethical constructs, but I’ll grant it for this argument). Polygamy, if done carefully, is a “no harm” act. Pedophilia, so long as the teenager or child is capable of making choices, is a “no harm” act. According to some philosophers (Peter Singer comes to mind), bestiality is a “no harm” act so long as the animal doesn’t put forth any resistance. So if we go by a “no harm” ethic, you’re still left with these problems.

      Secondly, it’s quite difficult to say that homosexuality is a cultural issue, but other sexual sins are not. The only justifiable way to accomplish this (since the prohibition on homosexuality is in both the Old and New Testaments) is to go with the “no harm” standard, but as seen above, this standard is insufficient. Without it, there is no reason to allow homosexuality, but forbid polygamy or promiscuity. By appealing to culture when proper hermeneutics simply does not allow for cultural appeals given the passages of Scripture forbidding homosexuality, you set up an arbitrary standard. You might have a standard, but being arbitrary it lacks justification.

      As a side note, since I reject arbitrary standards, that is another reason why I reject the “no harm” ethic; “harm” can be and in most cases is a subjective thing because it relies on the human experience.

    2. Also, you should read my article, “Eisegesis vs Exegsis”. The site you linked me too gives HORRIBLE exegesis on passages and reads much of modern culture and certain connotations on English words back into the ancient text – that’s a “no no” when it comes to interpretation.

Comments are closed.