Slip­pery slope

Guardian Express - - GUARDIAN OPINION - SARAH BROWN, Wem­b­ley Downs

IN re­sponse to Fa­ther David Watt (Septem­ber 5, 2017, “Tra­di­tion in tur­moil”), the ba­sis of le­gal­is­ing same-sex mar­riage is to pro­vide equal­ity to all Aus­tralians re­gard­less of their iden­tity.

The fal­lacy in Fa­ther Watt's anal­ogy of 'per­mit­ting men to have mul­ti­ple wives' be­ing com­men­su­rate to mar­riage equal­ity is two-fold.

The first be­ing that this is a clas­sic 'slip­pery slope ar­gu­ment'.

The sec­ond rea­son the anal­ogy is false is be­cause the SSM Bill aims to pro­mote equity among the pop­u­la­tion, whereas in Fa­ther Watt's di­a­tribe he seems to think the next step would be to pro­duce fur­ther in­equal­ity (would women be per­mit­ted to have mul­ti­ple part­ners too?).

Fur­ther, ref­er­enc­ing that Is­lam dis­crim­i­nates against women to jus­tify Christianity dis­crim­i­nat­ing against the LGBTQI com­mu­nity does noth­ing for his ar­gu­ment.

Fa­ther Watt should ei­ther present a clearly ar­tic­u­lated ar­gu­ment as to why he does not believe in equal­ity or sim­ply state his re­li­gious be­liefs don't al­low him to form a cer­tain opin­ion, which is at least a log­i­cally sound ar­gu­ment. Let's just not pre­tend that Fa­ther Watt doesn't value rev­e­la­tion via 2000-year-old texts over ra­tio­nal thought.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.