The violent murder of innocent civilians by Omar Mateen, a psychotic and ideologically deranged individual, has led to further polarization in American politics. It has also opened up the wounds that so many citizens in the LGBTQ community have suffered at the hands of sanctimonious ideologies. Yet when such wounds are opened and the pain is laid bare to the world at large, there can be moments of introspection and learning for even the most inveterate ideologues. Within the Muslim community, the radical Islamists terrorists (and Yes, they deserve to be called such since they use Islamic scripture as a misguided excuse for their actions) remain defiant about their views on homosexuality. However, many moderate Muslims have started to ponder about the limits of scripture as a literal guide. Social media is awash with intense debates about this issue. Many Muslims are taking on the usual Christian refrain of "love the sinner but hate the sin" to modulate their views on homosexuality, embarrassed perhaps that scripture could be used as an excuse for such mayhem.
Some scholars are arguing that Muslims should have the "freedom of religion" to object to certain lifestyle choices but still be on cordial terms with the perpetrators. On his public Facebook page one professor compared homosexuality to alcohol consumption, noting that he has many close friends who consume alcohol, even though he does not approve of that action personally. Other Muslims and subscribers to traditional "heterosexual-centric" worldviews are trying to differentiate between biology and psychology in differentiating their approvals. There is ostensible compassion for biological causality but an impulse for curative intervention for psychosocial causality. And then there are those who relegate this all to a matter of choice and heap scorn on those who "choose" to lead such a lifestyle. The LGBTQ community is all too familiar with this spectrum of acceptance and rejection. The negotiation of these norms which society struggles with is an essential process of change but unfortunately encounters inertia due to a fear that accepting one change will lead to an irrevocable process of accepting all changes - this fear factor is often termed "the slippery slope."
In common parlance, we use a fear of the "slippery slope" when we don't have the time and energy to invest in an argument. It is an easy excuse for absolutist perspectives and all too often used across the political spectrum. Often progressives and conservatives alike use it to justify their own perspectives on "freedom of speech." The National Rifle Association uses it to justify unfettered access to guns lest prohibition of one weapon might lead us down a slope to a gun-free chasm. Religious detractors of homosexuality use the same argument to suggest that sympathizing with LGTBQ lifestyles would somehow lead us down the slippery slope of public fornication on streets! Sadly, the Orlando massacre has highlighted all these various attributes of how the "slippery slope" argument impedes progress.
What is often less known in the general public about such argumentation is that legal scholars have found ways of deconstructing this argument and much of contemporary jurisprudence relies on our willingness to work through such nuance. Just as jurists have challenged the primacy of slippery slope rhetoric, the general public must also have the courage and willingness to engage with argument complexity if progress is to be made and sustained. This is important not only for social progress but also for economic and political efficiency as convincingly argued by Eugene Volokh in his classic article on the topic. Slippery slope reasoning leads to linear policy solutions that do not reflect natural or social reality. Wrestling with complexity and adapting to changing times does not mean that limits of particular arguments cannot be negotiated. Modern social media can provide a mechanism for people to more personally engage with arguments as well if one steers away from the dead-end path that a slippery slope argument can determine. Arguments are neither stones that must obey the laws of gravity nor is the social fabric of our society an inviolable slope. Let us give human intelligence and agency more credit, and the most fundamental virtues of love and liberty will help us find reasonable mechanisms of regulating and deregulating our behaviors with changing times.