Podcast #62: Slippery Slopes and Christian Patriotism

32 September 13, 2015 by

62_finalIn this episode, the DXPs banter a bit about Kim Davis’s eye of the tiger, wanting to rock, and all the people God screwed over just to make a point, after which we take a call about the propriety of Christians’ selling their testimonies for money. We bat around the clearly unthought-through idea of doing a Drunk Ex-Pastors college tour, and then field a question about slippery-slope arguments against gay marriage (do they lead to slippery-slope arguments against a farmer marrying his own sister? What if his sister is a dog, who’s black?). We address Detroit’s being enslaved by the dark lord of the Underworld (as evidenced by a new statue of Satan being erected there), although Jason is puzzled because he assumed that Detroit has belonged to Lucifer since the late ‘90s at least. This leads us into, you guessed it, a slippery-slope discussion concerning whether theocracy really is a good idea anymore, because ISIS. Jason gets all Luddite-y again because he fears the Internet, and Christian explains why, in addition to wanting to murder babies, he hates all cops. Jason is in too good a mood to have a bieber, but Christian picks up his slack.

Also, Pig-Taints got your tummy a-hurtin’? Two words: Peppy Bismilk.

Links from this Episode:

32 Comments (click here to leave a comment)

  1. I do think the slippery slope argument is valid in the case of marriage. Especially since we have removed a lot of principals on which marriage had been grounded. Right now, I would say our culture defines marriage as what you do if you temporarily feel strong romantic feelings for another – rock solid foundation there /s. I echo the caller, what principled argument could you make against a brother and sister having sex/getting married? If they use contraception or get sterilized, they vow to have all children aborted, and of course consent (which is the ONLY moral principal of the progressive); what is your moral principal against it? That it is yucky? Not an argument. They are adults (only matters because of an arbitrary view of consent), they consent – who are you to tell them what they can or can’t do with their bodies? Seriously progressives, you don’t see this coming?

    The only answer that I remember Christian giving to this is that he couldn’t see the majority of Americans ever being in favor to it. However, since when has that decided anything? Gay marriage didn’t become law because we voted for it. No majority needed, except if a majority of the supreme court thinks that the right exists constitutionally somehow.

    Oh, I also what to point out that marriage has always been limited, because I think someone said that we shouldn’t limit marriage. Up until recently, to marry you have to be: both old enough, both consent, both be of the opposite sex, both not already be married, both not closely related, and I guess I could add both human as well. Bounds are not new or surprising. We are protecting the children, not the adults, with marriage laws – or at least that use to be the case.

  2. This might be a moot discussion, but back when civil unions were being debated I always thought they should be open to more than just sexually engaged adults. I remember talking to my pastor about it several years ago when I was still in the PCA. He pointed me to a similar view of one his professors, Dr. David C. Jones who taught Christian ethics back at Covenant Theological Seminary (PCA’s seminary).

    Here is a quote from him, I believe 15 years ago:

    I worked one summer at Camp Nathaniel in Kentucky when I was in college and spent some time with two single women who were part of that organization and owned a home together and lived together in a perfectly chaste relationship. If one of them went to the hospital, I would expect the other to be able to serve as next-of-kin. … It’s not the state’s business whether they’re chaste or not

    http://www.presbyteriannews.org/volumes/v5/4/ethics-professor-opposes-anti-sodomy-laws.html

    He was open to civil unions, and thought they should be principally open to all adults as a way of easing the legal process. He did not think that sexual relations should be a condition for civil unions. I tend to agree.

    Also, as a Catholic, I am very focused on people growing in virtue. That’s why I do not like the government ever intentionally promoting immoral actions. However, a part of me sees a small good in gay marriage, but only as something much less than the ideal, but much greater than some of the potential alternatives. If you can’t stop people from engaging in potentially ruinous self-centered sexual promiscuity, at least encourage their settling down and becoming other focused – even if not the ideal. I value at the very least striving toward committing oneself to another. My really progressive friends would object to me valuing hetero-normativity, they would reject every form of marriage and don’t understand why gay people or anyone for that matter should want to get married in the first place. In fact, I’ve heard it argued that Catholics might be somewhat to blame for encouraging gay people to get married in the first place. I’m not sure if I agree, but it is a interesting thought regardless:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/cosmostheinlost/2015/04/15/do-you-know-why-you-can-blame-catholics-for-gay-marriage/

  3. And the incest thing isn’t some fringe contrived scare scenario; this is a real thing. When related adults (siblings, father-daughter…), who have been separated their whole lives meet for the first time as adults (adoptions, sperm donations), it is very common to have sexual feelings for one another. So common (about 50% of the time!) that it is given a name Genetic Sexual Attraction.

    Here is an article talking about it:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2147758/Forbidden-love-How-adults-reunite-lost-parents-risk-genetic-sexual-attraction.html

    Here is a group pushing for it to be legalized:
    http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/p/genetic-sexual-attraction.html

  4. I think the slippery slope argument is valid too! As soon as you let two adults sign contracts to be united, you have to let all adults capable of signing contracts do it. The logical thing to do is to get rid of marriage!

  6. Ha, not too surprised by your stance. In my view, marriage is not some sort of relationship accessory, but is there to protect the rights of the child.

  7. lol, look at you making the exact same argument as a member of the NRA for why we shouldn’t have any gun control laws – criminals aren’t concerned with following the law.

  10. Random thoughts…

    • Come on… Who doesn’t have a framed picture of Hitler hanging in their office? Oh, that’s right… everyone.

    • Altar calls are the Christian equivalent of being trapped in a timeshare presentation and you’ll pretty much sign anything at the time because it seems like a great idea or simply to get it over with.

    • Speaking of ancillary characters in the bible, I can imagine a Jericho mini-series where we meet and get to know the townspeople and they’re all pretty decent normal folks, and then an army shows up out of nowhere threating to kill them all, so they mount a defense, but their walls fall down, the army invades and they are to a man, woman, and child slaughtered mercilessly as an offering to the invader’s god. You think Christians would watch that series?

    • I’ve got the secret to a great Christian marriage! Buy my book for 19.99 to find out how! The seven secrets to a great Christian life? Only 12.95. Find out how to find the perfect mate that God has planned for you by following my 15 insights to dating. Only $19.95, plus the study guide for $12.95, the CD soundtrack for $9.99. Buy my new Christian diet plan! Prayer clothes! Holy water! Snake oil! Get your genuine snake oil. Guaranteed to cure what ails ya!

    • The more cynical side of my being, the side that remembers working in a Christian bookstore for five years, sometimes thinks that you could take any self-help book on the market, throw a few references to Jesus and a bible verse or two and sell it as a Christian ministry book.

    • Well, in regards to sibling marriage, if you’re a biblical literalist, you should be pretty cool with it. Where do you think Cain got his wife from? Where do you think Noah’s grandkids found their spouses? Abraham and Sarah were half-siblings per the bible. Isaac and Rebecca were first cousins. So were Jacob and Rebecca. So God was pretty cool with relatives getting freaky with one another back then.

    God changed his mind later on.  Or rather, the understanding and cultural tolerance of it changed and laws were added that changed the practice from a culturally accepted one to a taboo practice with civil penalties. Perhaps the Jews had a religious epiphany or perhaps they started to recognize that when cousins and siblings hooked up their children had some problems that other babies did not or perhaps they were rebelling against the practice since Egypt practiced it.

    So we do decide our own morality. Every one of us does. Even the church moved from a pro or neutral stance on slavery to viewing slavery as a grave moral evil, despite the biblical permission and laws on the subject. The bible is not an inflexible unchanging objective moral standard.

    • So if society decided that siblings and cousin marriages were okay IF the parties agreed to sterilization, then sure, society could do that. But how many people are clamoring for that right? Probably a small handful of folks that you could count on both hands. And would that societal change impact the church and its definition of marriage at all? No.

    • If you can’t make a civil law that contradicts divine law, then the 13th amendment to the Constitution is null and void. The “god” that handed Moses the Law gave guidelines about how to own people.

    • The Satanic statue is an image of Baphomet. Random fact: One of the accusations against the Knights Templar was that they were worshipping Baphomet in their secret ceremonies back when the French King Philip wanted to get his hands on their wealth.

    • The Satanists are, for the most part, not actually devil worshippers. They are atheists who enjoy trolling Christians.

    • Some founders were Christians. Some were not. I don’t find much evidence to support that they ever intended to establish a Christian nation.

    Now, we do, in this country, have a blended national religion which tends to venerate the doctrines of American Exceptionalism, gunboat diplomacy, unfettered capitalism, individualism, the veneration of wealth and consumption as a sacrament and dresses it up in the language of Christianity as if the trinity consisted of Jesus, Mammon, and Ares. This is typically what is meant when one says America is a Christian nation.

    • If the Founding Fathers meant to enshrine Christianity, then they should have specified it clearly in the First Amendment. Instead they deliberately used the generic term religion.

    • I’ve never been happier since my smart phone broke and I chose not to replace it. I probably should have a phone for emergencies. I just need to work on unplugging when I’m at home. 😛

    • Never call the police unless the situation is already such that someone is likely to die. And never talk to the police without a lawyer present. If you are forced to interact with the police, treat the officer as you if you were forced to interact with an armed gang member. Use caution. Be respectful. Try to get away peacefully as soon as possible.

    • My like and my Bieber this week is a no-grain, low carb diet. I like it because, combined with an exercise program, it’s working and working quickly. I dislike it because I really, really miss potatoes.

  12. Society has redefined what families are since there have been societies and families.

    Even today, in 2015, there are different ideas about families and what constitutes a family throughout the world.

    None of this implies a moral value judgment, since what is legal and what is cultural can differ from what is moral.

  14. I am concerned about the slippery slope of limiting which two consenting adults can get married? I mean won’t that lead to not allowing handicapped or diseased people to get married? The slippery slope argument cuts both ways.

  15. I guess that is what is difference between being just ex-pastors and being drunk ex-pastors – one kid. Besides, Jason is rarely happy. Except for the day you recorded this podcast, I think he has only mentioned being in a good mood 1 or 2 other times. Wait, did Jason have another kid?

  16. I did think that was interesting point. However, I think the slippery slope argument is typically deployed in the direction of recent change. In this case marriage restrictions were removed, so that is movement toward even further restrictions being removed. On the other hand, if we were to reverse course and somehow limit marriage back to just between one man and one women, then a slippery slope could be argued that we are heading for even more limits.

  17. Have 2 more and let me know. I just had my 3rd back in July.

    The article did say that the parents wanted large families.

  18. Now, we do, in this country, have a blended national religion which tends to venerate the doctrines of American Exceptionalism, gunboat diplomacy, unfettered capitalism, individualism, the veneration of wealth and consumption as a sacrament and dresses it up in the language of Christianity as if the trinity consisted of Jesus, Mammon, and Ares. This is typically what is meant when one says America is a Christian nation.

    Yep.

  19. I think the moral value judgments come in when we think about the children produced in these varying relationships. For example, rights such as a child knowing who their biological mother and father are; they have a natural right to know their natural parents (not just their legal parents). I want the rights of the child protected – or at the very least be a point of conversation. The institution of marriage is not solely for adults, but that is usually all we hear talked about.

  22. Not at all. Although, I’m against lying to the child.

    However, unlike discussions about marriage, adoption is typically very focused on the welfare of the child and not simply the desires of potential parents.

  23. I agree with David C. Jones. This was my point. People wanting to get married doesn’t have to do with them wanting to have sex and/or kids. They’re already doing that if they want. It’s about next-of-kin, finances, etc. If a brother and sister (or me and Jason) want to have the rights of “marriage” in the eyes of the state, would that mean they’re necessarily acting in an immoral manner? Marriage according to the state shouldn’t be a moral or immoral issue. If you want it to be that way in the church, then go for it.

  24. Isn’t that what you’re arguing for? I don’t want to go that way because it’s more important to me to not have marriage limited (for example, an interracial marriage, which used to be illegal) than it is that we keep a few fringe, crazy Targaryens that want to get married to get the financial benefits of a relationship they are already having whether or not society approves from getting married. If brother/sister marriage were to be legalized, it’s not like a bunch of people are all of the sudden going to start committing incest, because, “Woohoo! Incest is finally legal!”

  25. I’m all for having some sort of easy legal arrangement that adults can enter into to help handle such things like next of kin and the like. Things that you could do anyway through a contract anyway, but without the lawyer being needed. Whether or not it should get all the benefits of marriage is another question – that is probably where are views diverge.

  26. Maybe there are people on the fence and the presence of the law is all that stands in their way?

    If there are going to be financial benefits, there has to be reason to give them. What interest should general society have in any given relationship to deem that it should be incentivized? Giving marriage, traditionally speaking at least, benefits makes sense. They are undergoing hardships to raise the next generation of society, that should be encouraged and protected. However, I see no reason to encourage/incentivize incestuous relationships. If society doesn’t approve, why should they get benefits? They can just do whatever, let it be legal (maybe), but not given benefits.

  27. Hey guys, check this out! I didnt think it was possible for the marriage equality/slippery slope conversation to be elevated to new heights, but here it is. Very unique perspective. Highlights are marriage inflation (this is the most interesting portion), correcting the slippery slope label to reductio ad absurdum, and questioning if society even has the sociological ability to redefine the ideal. Its a real treat. I know my catholic friends will glow approvingly, but im interested in hearing a liberal response! Hope yall take the time to read it 🙂

    http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/08/marriage-inflation.html?m=1

  28. Edward Feser is the man! I really enjoy reading his stuff.

    What “marriage equality” gave with its left hand, it threatens to take back with its far left hand.

    lol

  29. He is a beast! Everytime I buy one of his books this same thought cycle occurs.

    Wow, that’s really cool…… my mind is numbing….. wtf is he talking about? ….. Wow, that’s really cool…. mind is numbing…..

  32. Read it. Suffice to say, I disagree with it.

    He speaks of marriage culturally, but forgets that marriage is a also a very personal business. It is a commitment between people who love and cherish one another. Thus a gay couple marrying one another does not diminish my marriage to my wife at all, nor does it diminish the deep friendship, companionship, and love we share for one another.

    He seems worried about the redefinition of language, and ignores the relationship factor.

Related Posts