One thing I've been noticing a lot lately is the whole "slippery slope argument" used to argue against legalizing gay marriage. It usually takes some form of the following:
"But if we let gays get married, what's to stop pedophiles from marrying children? Or necrophiliacs from marrying corpses, or zoophiles from marrying animals?"
I am not here to discuss the merit of this argument. It has none. Anyone who spends even the most cursory effort to think about this will realize that the basis of most sexual law is informed consent. Adults whose reason is not impaired (such as by drugs or mental illness) are the only ones capable of given legally meaningful consent. Children, animals, corpses, and inanimate objects can't. It's that simple.
No, rather, what I wanted to discuss is why this argument seems to be so prevalent these days, and why it seems to resonate so well with the opposition to LGBT rights. Simple ignorance obviously accounts for much of it, but my personal theory is that there is a deeper reason for its popularity.
My theory is this: opposition to LGBT rights is informed primarily by personal repugnance to LGBT persons/activities. As this revulsion is at the forefront of an anti-LGBT person's thoughts on the subject, they cannot conceive of the arguments in favor of LGBT rights. Therefore, when they see people arguing in favor of one thing they find repulsive, they assume that these people would also support other things they find repulsive, like necrophilia, pedophilia, et al.
So what are your thoughts on this? Do any of you know of other reasons this argument might be so prevalent? Any ideas on how to combat something like I described above?