Of course, that could only come from a man who is defending Debra J. Smith and her total belief of what Mark at Chesterstreet wrote earlier today. If I’m a moron, what is she? Maybe Mark will tell her to her face what he thinks about her and her swallowing what he had written as the truth. I doubt it. Instead, he erased her comment and she took down her post. And I’m the moron here? Hehehehehe.
Maybe the next new post Mark can do is write about how animals will be able to marry their human owners, which of course is what will happen now that gays and lesbians are allowed to marry here in California. That would be totally new for this anti-gay activist who is obsessed with gay males–NOT.
Mark likes to think he is being clever with this ‘slippery slope’ argument. I hate Wikipedia, but since Mark likes to use it for his definitions, I’ll give a bit of what Wikipedia has to say about slippery slopes:
In debate or rhetoric, the slippery slope is one of the classical informal fallacies. It suggests that an action will initiate a chain of events culminating in an undesirable event later without establishing or quantifying the relevant contingencies. The argument is sometimes referred to as the thin end of the wedge or the camel’s nose. While the term sees a broader pragmatic usage, especially outside of the context of logic, rhetoric and philosophy, the term specifically refers to a fallacious argument. Arguments that provide a well-supported chain of contingencies are not slippery slope arguments. The term "slippery slope" is often used synonymically with continuum fallacy, in that it assumes there is no gray area and there must be a definite transition at a certain point from category A to category B.
And here is a bit more that must have been written just for Mark:
This form of argument often provides evaluative judgments on social change: once an exception is made to some rule, nothing will hold back further, more egregious exceptions to that rule.
His slippery slope from gay marriage to incestuous marriages has been debunked before and undoubtedly will be again (most recently in the California State Supreme Court finding–but I wouldn’t expect Mark to actually read that). I wonder why he didn’t write about polygamy in the same way? Maybe that would hit a little too close to home with all these Christian groups who form their own communities and then their male founders screw everything under the sun because God tells them it is o.k. You can look to Texas for more than a couple of recent examples. By the way, they get their ideas from the Bible.
And Debra J Smith and those like her are great examples of people who believe what they read without thinking. The analogy here that I am thinking of (in case you didn’t think of it) is reading the Bible and believing everything in it. That book is swallowed whole and regurgitated up without any thought. It is called Objective Truth even though that objective truth has been changed millions of times by billions of people–Mark included. He likes to believe it is objective truth because he likes to see himself as being one of the chosen people. He HAS to believe this. Otherwise, what is the point of his brand of Christianity?
The only Objective Truth out there, according to Mark, is his own version. Fortunately, anyone who wants to know about Mark’s Objective Truth only need to read up on the Protestant Reformation. A new Objective Truth came out of that one. And now there are hundreds of versions of the Objective Truth found in the Protestant Churches just in this country alone. Of course, that doesn’t include the Objective Truth of Catholicism. Or the Objective Truth of Orthodox Christianity. And my god–let’s not even get into the Objective Truth of EVERY SINGLE RELIGION on the face of the planet. I have to keep telling myself that only Mark has the true Objective Truth (and I suggest, Debra, that you really look up what sarcasm before you go off and make a post about the fact that I just agreed with Mark…).