I'm quite interested in your perspective on this. I don't understand why you think there is some sort of "slippery slope" involved here.
Please return to my original message. Suppose same-sex marriage becomes law in 2005. How will YOUR marriage be adversely impacted? Will your behavior toward your spouse change? Will you talk to one another differently? Will you love each other less? When your children reach marrying age, how will a married gay couple down the street adversely impact the decisions made by your kids? If you and your wife teach YOUR values to your kids and they assimilate those values and pass them on to their kids, then what difference does it make if they know there is a law permitting same-sex couples to be married?
My church will be impacted as they have to defend themselves from ACLU lawsuits for refusing to violate biblical teachings by refusing to perform same sex ceremonies. Some churches will embracy sodomy and run off faithful church members who find problems with homosexuality and abortion advocacy in church.
My society will be impacted as same sex couples push for adoption of children they might have been denied in the past. Those adults may consent to live in an alternative lifestyle but that child has rights too and they will be ignored so that a homosexual couple can have a kid. Decades later many of them will still be going through counselling.
Homosexuals getting married would cheapen the word "marriage" for me. Homosexuals are more inclined to "divorce" than heterosexuals (I will try to find the numbers for you), and are much more promiscuous than heterosexuals. The video "It's Not Gay" is profound in its message of dysfunction and devastation of lives, and that homosexuality is severely unhealthy without even going into the disease aspects. The video was produced by an abstinent AIDS sufferer. I believe he has since passed away.
Why do homosexuals deserve to be given the right to utilize this heterosexual institution? To me it would then mean that any disordered combination would then fight for THEIR right to marry also (hence, the slippery slope).
Those of you who support invasion of marriage between men and women, which has worked for so long even with its imperfections, don't seem to understand that all-inclusiveness is not a right to be handed down just because it's politically correct.
Your question to me would be a "no." At least I cannot come up with anything, as I write this post, that would impact me persoanlly, but it would initially devasate my belief in fairness and common sense. I can guarantee you that scenarios will arise that would turn my no into a yes.
When homosexuals were given the right to adoopt, no one could come up with a bad reason for it. "Homosexuals were willing to adopt the children no one else wanted, etc." Now, we're hearing about issues that couldn't have been foreseen as this "right to adopt" has become more common; lots of weird scenarios that weren't imagined initially.
It been proven that heterosexual children who are adopted by homosexual couples have a higher incident rate of becoming or adopting the homosexual lifestyle that they experience in their new family.
I do not believe homosexuals are born, except in hormonally imbalanced individuals or morpnodite-ism (?). I believe they become homosexual due to imbalance in their early environment, molestation, early titillation from exposure to pornographic behaviors and materials. Just check out www.malesurvivor.com. Read some of the posts of those men who act out homosexually and who are very disturbed by their early molestation. The numbers of men who are molested as young boys is almost as high as young girls, but is not nearly talked about enough. The impact is horrendous on their lives. Molestation plays a big part, but homosexuals don't talk about it. They don't want to give fodder for argument to heterosexuals.