However, I noticed that the blog of CBE, The Scroll, was discussing this very matter recently. I chose not to resist the impulse to participate briefly and posted a couple of examples that indicate it might not be so obvious a fallacy after all.
Drat, I forgot the best one of all. It comes from one of the current darlings of the movement, Professor John Stackhouse of Regent in Vancouver. In his book, Finally Feminist, Stackhouse lets the slope slip a little too much for anyone to legitimately deny it. See page 89 where you will find this admission:
I acknowledge that in this deeply troubled world some people will find the first serious and genuine love of their lives in a homosexual relationship. I believe therefore that such relationships can be condoned, cautiously, for pastoral, therapeutic reasons as temporary accommodations to some people's particular injuries and needs. The church nonetheless does not "bless" such unions, let alone "normalize" them, but upholds scriptural sexual and relational ethics as the ideal toward which we strive. In the meanwhile, however, we can appreciate the sad truth that some people will have to take the long way home, and a caring homosexual relationship may be a necessary part of that journey. This is clearly a difficult area of pastoral ethics and requires deep theological, psychological and spiritual wisdom.
This is passing strange, coming from one who claims he wants to make the case for religious feminism. Why include this note? I don't believe the professor to be naive on this score - he had to know it was inflammatory.
So why include it, unless it truly is on the inevitable trajectory of religious feminism.
Looks to me like the slippery slope does, indeed, exist.