Not so sweet

 

I know the "slippery slope" argument is regarded as a logical fallacy, but that is simply not always the case. If, say, thirty years ago, one would have been thought crazy to suggest that marriage would in 2016 be available to couples other than a man and woman, who is to say that in thirty more years marriage won't be available to people and robots, or animals, or people in large groups, or children, or public buildings? All the argument in this instance posits is that once you radically change the agreed definition of some traditional institution, anything can happen. So it's best to stick with the traditional meaning, and come up with a new institution for new arrangements.
Glenn Hardesty | 15 November 2017

I see you found Bernardi's Best Bakery too, Fiona. Not many people know about it.
Bill Venables | 15 November 2017

not very imaginative! why not a cake for women and a different one for men?
pastry cook | 17 November 2017

Forgive me Glenn but your argument sounds a little like that of a dear friend of mine who swore that 'if the King James version of the Bible was good enough for Jesus it was good enough for him'. The permanency that you perceive in marriage is a mirage. Marriage is not something fixed and unchanging. Its meaning, purpose, and format has been continuously changing over time and will continue to do so. There will be those in the future who will resist change and others who will anticipate it. Together, they will resolve the conflict, just as in the past, and now. All that you and I need to do is focus on the present. There are more than sufficient truly moral issues around on which we can focus our attention.
Ginger Meggs | 19 November 2017