In arguing this way, Bork is saying that legitimizing same-sex marriages crosses a line. Once crossed, no other moral barrier will hold against the onslaught of even the most bizarre proposals. How bizarre can bizarre become? Well, how bizarre is the proposal to legitimize pedophilia? After all, if a teenage girl no longer needs to receive parental permission to obtain an abortion, how far are we from legally approving intercourse between an adult and a consenting teenage boy? This is one of the most disturbing aspects of the floodgate principle. Mary Eberstadt shows that "the taboo against pedophilia is weakening."

And herein lies the crux of the fallacy. If all sin and righteousness was determined by social taboo, there would be nothing at all wrong with comitting adultery in your heart as long as you don't act on it. And then society and traditions of men would determine what is and isn't acceptable. Or do we live of the world?

But it is not determined by social taboo, but by morality. And morality dictates that preying on a child is an awful crime due to consent. And how can someone consent if they have no knowledge about what is being done to them, as a child?