Does the slippery slope fallacy apply to my argument about gay marriage & government?

[jongib369]

Was having a conversation with my girlfriend on whether or not government should be the ones to pass laws so they can rightfully get married. My position being that whether it's the people voting or the politicians themselves shouldn't have the power to have a say on such things. Loving who you want to love is up to you, and giving federal, state etc power to say yes or no to individual rights like this could potentially lead to other rights or the same rights being violated in the future . While regressing back to shaming homosexuals with the views of years past is not only unlikely but impossible since I believe we're progressing as a species even if slowly. I just think it's important to set the precedent that people or politicians have no right to vote on what other people do with their lives as a precaution.At least in instances like who someone may or may not marry. I think of it as a church by church issue. If one wants to go by the old ways and not marry a gay couple, so be it. Even though I disagree with it I'm not going to tell a religious institution what to do on issues like this. And I also don't want them to be able to have the power to be backed by law to prevent everyone from doing it if they have a lot of support. When another church is open to it, they should be allowed too and get the same benefits a straight marriage would. Unlike the differences we see today between marriage and a civil union.

From what I know about the slippery slope fallacy it's a belief that said outcomes will happen because of allowing one thing to happen without any rational evidence or reason to think it will occur...So my question is, was my GF correct in saying it's a slippery slope fallacy considering governments history to violate human rights?

I consider myself an open minded person, too much sometimes..... so in no way are my views "stuck", so I hope to not piss anyone off or annoy anyone if my reasoning is way off base.

[jongib369]

Also not just the churches, because people don't always get religiously married

[Dunaprenti]

Isn't gay marriage against the constitution in most states? If so, it's on the government and the people to change it.
I don't see how allowing gay people to marry may open the door to human rights violations. Government has all the power to do it anyway (I'm not talking about the US exclusevly).
You seem to talk out of your heart so it's kind of hard to describe your argument as a slippery slope.

[Rasheed1]

Government's job is to treat ALL citizens equally.. Gays included.. There are a a lot benefits that come to people who are legally married. Gay couples don't get to have those benefits if the state does not recognize their marriage.

the government also is no a religious institution.. Churches and Mosques Synagogues can merry or refuse to marry whoever they please, but the state has an obligation to treat all citizens the same.

When you get married, the state is involved in your relationship in different ways (e.g. taxes)..

Gays need the same access to those options that heterosexuals have.

[Nanners]

one of the gayest things a man can do is worry about what other men are doing with their d*icks

[kNIOKAS]

So my question is, was my GF correct in saying it's a slippery slope fallacy considering governments history to violate human rights?
[/QUOTE]
That does not make sense... So government is known to violate human rights, then does not matter what the policy is or is leading to now, they could violate it anytime, or not. ??

[Derka]

Government's job is to treat ALL citizens equally.. Gays included.. There are a a lot benefits that come to people who are legally married. Gay couples don't get to have those benefits if the state does not recognize their marriage.

the government also is no a religious institution.. Churches and Mosques Synagogues can merry or refuse to marry whoever they please, but the state has an obligation to treat all citizens the same.

When you get married, the state is involved in your relationship in different ways (e.g. taxes)..

Gays need the same access to those options that heterosexuals have.

End of thread, end of argument.

[longtime lurker]

Government's job is to treat ALL citizens equally.. Gays included.. There are a a lot benefits that come to people who are legally married. Gay couples don't get to have those benefits if the state does not recognize their marriage.

the government also is no a religious institution.. Churches and Mosques Synagogues can merry or refuse to marry whoever they please, but the state has an obligation to treat all citizens the same.

When you get married, the state is involved in your relationship in different ways (e.g. taxes)..

Gays need the same access to those options that heterosexuals have.

:applause: well said. These simple fact is always lost on the anti gay marriage bandwagon

[jongib369]

End of thread, end of argument.
Right but cant they get those benefits without the government "allowing" them too? Hope I didn't come off as an Anti gay marriage advocate. I'm 100% for it, just not in the same sense some people are I assume....But since talking more about it with people since it makes more since with them involved in some ways

[ZenMaster]

Government's job is to treat ALL citizens equally.. Gays included.. There are a a lot benefits that come to people who are legally married. Gay couples don't get to have those benefits if the state does not recognize their marriage.

the government also is no a religious institution.. Churches and Mosques Synagogues can merry or refuse to marry whoever they please, but the state has an obligation to treat all citizens the same.

When you get married, the state is involved in your relationship in different ways (e.g. taxes)..

Gays need the same access to those options that heterosexuals have.

Not mixing religion with politics in the US is a ship that's already sailed.. Been so for a long time, George Bush even referred going to war in the middle east as a crusade.