When you have repeatedly failed to actually engage in any kind of conversation or offe rany rational thought against what I've been saying, it's rather laughable that you want to get uppity over me not answering a non-sensical question that you posed.I get to ask some questions too so, again, is this true or not
No, a systme of law bulit on personal freedom is not singularly built upon a "slippery slope" argument. If it was, we would have no laws on the books because it'd potentially lead to more laws that would remove personal freedom. If our foundational system of law was built SINGULARLY on slippery slope arguments...as your apparent counter is since you've given NO attempt to provide anything beyond the slippery slope...there would be no laws against libel/slander. There'd be no laws about public decency. There'd be no laws about fraud. There would be no laws regarding self defense. And it would go on and on, because ALL of those kind of laws could be argued against from a "slippery slope" notion that they could lead to even more restrictive and problematic laws."the slippery slope kind of argument is really the foundation of a system of Law that's built on personal freedom." .
This is why the slippery slope, by itself, is a worthless argument and a fallacy. If the ONLY argument that can be put forward is that something else MIGHT happen that would be bad, then you have no actual argument AGAINST the thing in question. You're basically acknowleding that the thing in question has no fault of it's own (since you would be refusing to actually highlight any), and that it's only fault is that it MIGHT at some point in an indeterminate future lead to an indeterminate other law that may have problems relating to it.
Now, I've answered your non-sensical question. How about you FINALLY actually offer an argument for why you think our marriage laws are NOT unconstitutional discrimination based on gender.