So-called liberals and progressives often fail to grasp or refuse to acknowledge the implications of their ethical principles. The former problem is with the intellect; the latter problem is with the will. Happily, we can help with the former problem.
Consider, for example, Barbara Pierce Bush’s stated ethical position on marriage “fairness” and “equality”,
“everyone should have the right to marry the person that they love”
Take note of the young sage’s use of the indefinite pronoun “everyone” which refers to all people. Also, take note of the use of the inclusive term “person” in place of the more conventional and restrictive terms “adult” or “consenting adult”.
Now, without equivocating on the meaning of “love”, let’s quickly flesh out one obvious and shocking implication of her marriage equality premise (p1),
P1: Everyone should have the right to marry the person that they love
P2. 70 year old George loves his 35 year old daughter Barbara
C. Therefore, 70 year old George should have the right to marry his 35 year old daughter Barbara
A shocking and absurd conclusion? Yes. An entirely predictable conclusion? Yes. The solution for a rational person? Re-examine and ultimately replace premise 1 (P1) with a sound premise (see Aquinas for help). The progressive “solution”? Bite the bullet, demand marriage equality between fathers and daughters, and viciously attack and destroy those who disagree with you.
And by the way, that’s not the only absurd conclusion implied by the sage’s P1.