Children’s Books of the Tomorrow?

Children's Books of the Future?
click on image to enlarge

It seems to me that Christians should abandon the slippery slope argument as it relates to marriage. Yes. I’ve finally seen the light. That slow, gradual descent into sexual confusion turned out to be a bad analogy. It turns out we were wrong. Instead, I think we should use a more appropriate phrase. I recommend that we now use “sheer cliff”. It’s a much more appropriate analogy to describe the pace of the descent of marriage and acceptable sexual behavior in today’s society.


PS – The above is satire, mostly.

PSS – These don’t have to be the books of the future. We can still take charge and start the change by doing what the enemies of marriage and acceptable sexual behavior have been trying to do: teach our children what marriage and acceptable sexual behavior are (and why any alternatives are unnatural and unhealthy). You can help!

content © 2014 Joshua Warren


2 thoughts on “Children’s Books of the Tomorrow?

  1. You need better arguments. Gay marriage is being introduced in more and more places. It recently became legal in Britain. Several more US states recently legalised it, and it seems likely that the rest will eventually follow – perhaps sooner rather than later if a ‘tipping point’ becomes reached.

    The bottom line is that the general population simply doesn’t see gay marriage as being anything like pedophilia or bestiality. They don’t see it as being a sheer cliff or even a slippery slope to those things. They meet gay couples and draw no parallels between a man having sex with a dog. Tell them the two are similar all you like, it just doesn’t match people’s experiences.

    And in those places where gay marriage is legalised it hasn’t led to the dire consequences predicted by the religious right.


    1. The cartoon wasn’t a formal, elaborate argument. It was to start a discussion on the topic of marriage.

      What I gather from your message is that places around the world are legalizing gay “marriage”, therefore it proves that society doesn’t have a problem with it. Is that a fair summary? (If not, feel free to provide a more concise summary. I’ll continue as if I did characterize you fairly and correctly.)

      Are you making the point that if a society approves something therefore it is right? Any danger in that perspective? If so, what?

      Technically speaking, you’re correct to distinguish homosexual behavior and bestiality. They are different behaviors (both unhealthy and unnatural, if I might add). However, that’s not the point. The point is: When you redefine marriage to be an institution which embraces any two people who “love” each other, then where does the standard come from? Are there any limitations? The number of people involved? Why limit the number? Why limit the species? (I just saw a news report in which a British woman married her dog. Do you disagree with her behavior? How can you deny her the “right” to marry the species she loves?)

      Well, I won’t speak for the “religious right” because that includes people that I probably don’t want to be associated with, but I will say that to say that legalizing gay marriage “hasn’t led to the dire consequences” is to be misinformed either about what predictions were made or to be reading pro-gay literature only. As evidence that you have read them, provide us three consequences of legalizing gay marriage predicted by opponents to gay marriage.

      I’ll wait…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s