Umm, that's exactly what a "slippery slope" arguement is.. An arguement that's based on, "if this happens, then this will, then this, then this, then..."

It's like the arguement people used in KY this past november. We passed a "ban" on gay marraige this past November. A lot of people said they voted for it because, "If they make gay marraige legal, then we'd see gays walking down the street kissing...". Bullshit. I can already go to where the gays hang out in this city, and see people walking down the street kissing...

Not to mention, we 1)already had a ban against gay marraige, 2)we NEVER had any push to "legalize" gay marraige, and 3)the constitutional amendment in our state went WAY too far in its wording. I voted against the amendment for those 3 reasons.

Some legal genius got our amendment to restrict "marraige-like" rights to ANYONE that is not married, and made it illegal for gay marraige. Unfortunately, some of those "marraige-like" benefits would include un-wed couples... For instance, a guy knocks up a chick. The chick goes is in the hospital; the guy is no longer legally allowed to visit her. Why? Because they're not married. He could visit the baby, because he would be the father. But technically, he's not allowed to visit the mother. Now how assinine is that?