Pandora’s Argument: Why Justified ‘Gay Marriage’ Justifies Anything
by Shane Morris
As the LGBT movement approaches its endgame of a U.S. Supreme Court decision redefining marriage for the nation, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the conservative response long derided as a “slippery slope argument” was less of a fallacy and more of a prophecy.
“If we redefine marriage to include same-sex couples,” the argument so often heard in the early 2000s went, “then soon we will be accepting group sex, pedophilia, incest, etc.” Proponents of same-sex “marriage” had little tolerance for this argument, labeling it “scare tactics” and those who made it “homophobic.”
Fast-forward 15 years, and it’s clear which prediction was right. Whether it’s polygamy, sexual relationships between relatives, polyamory, or even bestiality, a floodgate of new sexual “orientations” has opened up, each of them enjoying the eager support of avant-garde journalists and entertainers. The coverage of this diverse collection of sexual preferences follows a familiar path blazed decades ago by LGBT activists and laid out in books like Marshall Kirk’s and Hunter Madsen’s After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s.
The plan these authors proposed back in the late 1980s was simple: cut back on the in-your-face gay-pride parades, and reintroduce homosexuality to Americans in a sympathetic light. By portraying gay characters as funny and likeable in sit-coms and profiling their plight in major news publications, these authors said, activists could slowly overcome the majority’s longstanding aversion toward same-sex relationships. And above all, wrote Hunter and Madsen, self-identified homosexuals must be portrayed in news and entertainment as suffering discrimination for the way they were born…
FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE >>>