Now that Obama has announced his personal support for gay marriage (and Romney, after a very awkward pause, came out against it), the standard idiotic reasons for why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed have been dusted off and marched around Fox News once again, namely the slippery slope fallacy. If you're not familiar with the slippery slope fallacy, it goes basically like this:


We can't allow A to happen, because once we let A happen, it will lead to B, C and D! I have no problem with A, per se, but if B, C or D happens everything's over!

OK, class, can you spot the problem here? If you can't, see me after class.

The issue here is that we have no problem with issue A. Issue A, as far as the person using the slippery slope, seems to be just fine. But we need to ban issue A because we're afraid of issues B, C and D. The obvious question here is why we don't just ban B, C and D and let A be free to do whatever it is A does?

This argument is most often used when arguing about gay marriage. The argument tends to be "If we let the gays marry, then what can we marry next? Multiple wives? Children? Box turtles?" (For more information about fucking, if not marrying, turtles, goats and dogs, please consult with @PrisonerxOfxLove, who is apparently very well-studied in bestiality based upon his comments). I really hope you see the problem in the argument here. If your problem is with people marrying multiple wives, or children, or box turtles, than make it illegal to have multiple wives, child brides, or box turtle partners. If your problem isn't with gay marriage, then there's no goddamned reason to ban gay marriage! How is this not obvious to everyone?

If we had listened to the slippery slope argument decades ago, think of how successful the argument against interracial marriage would be? "We can't let blacks and whites intermarry, because if we let that happen then the homos will be able to marry!" The slippery slope allows people to scare others into falling into beliefs they aren't sure about. If gay marriage makes you uncomfortable and uncertain, then let us make up your mind by associating it with child rape and bestiality!

Reading the more intelligent arguments against gay marriage we're encouraged to ask questions beyond the scope of just gay marriage. Should insurance companies be obliged to provide coverage to multiple partners? Do employers have to provide benefits to second or third wives? At what age can someone consent to marriage? If underage people have children, who is obliged to care for them? All valid questions. And all completely irrelevant to the topic of gay marriage.

If you don't approve of gay marriage, argue against gay marriage. If you're arguing against gay marriage because you're against man-on-giraffe relationships, you're a fucking idiot.