Or do you just care about the "Domino Effect" on issues you don't agree with, and thus need an extra excuse to argue against them? Why is it that the "Domino Effect" seemingly only exists in cases of things people dislike?
Support for Gay Marriage or unions of some kind is at the very least right around the 50% market. I dare say far higher than the mark for people agreeing with the notion of people walking around nude wherever they please. Not to mention that one does not directly correlate to the other so trying to argue against one because it may somehow, someway, potentially, lead to a thought process that might, potentially, possibly, in some way lead to the other happening. Its ridiculous and on par with saying we shouldn't reform Medicare in any way because it could lead to use stripping all veterans of any form of insurance due to the "domino effect".
People have such a hard problem actually finding and presenting legitimate fault in THIS argument that they have to reach for hypotheticals that are absolutely unprovable and unknowable and attempt to argue against those things as a means of trying to discredit the issue at hand. "If this happens it may cause a thought process that might possibly lead to x happening" is not a good argument against the initial thing, unless a distinct, measurable, realistic expectation of the latter possabilities can actually be presented. That's not the case here.
Furthermore, the purpose is not to chuck away at the meaning of marriage to just one of contractual. If it was there'd be talk of banning the use of the term in the private sector, which simply isn't the case. Ones marriage cna continue to be as holy and special to them as they wish it to be. However, by having it involved in government it MUST be constitutional...no matter how much it might offend your christian morals...or else you're chucking away the meaning of the CONSTITUTION.
I find it funny that you X, a person who so routinely speaks of the constitution and being a conservative and caring about "limited government" are at the same time so horribly concerned with the GOVERNMENT interjecting itself into peoples lives to tell them what to do. Might I ask, what portion of the constitution suggests it is the role of the government to tell the people how to live a moral life? You and others like you ask where in the constitution it says we have a right to health care, or where the government has the ability to tell us what to eat, or what cars to drive. Well, where does it have the authority to tell me how to live my life morally when its not directly infringing upon the rights of another person?
Marriage is hardly the only morality based law. Hell, up until this debate it wasn't even deeply rooted as a morality based law. To suggest that somehow allowing any two people instead of one man and one woman to get married is somehow going to destroy the notion of morality based laws is ludicrous and akin to suggesting that tweaking welfare means the end of all entitlement programs. (oh, if only).
Its a slippery slope argument not based on reality but pure apocolyptic fantasy out of fear that the persons sensabilities may be offended.
I find it hillarious that Mac speaks about the "will of the people" and how "important" it is...and yet, with poll after poll showing more and more support for gay marriage, I somehow doubt that when 51% of "the people" show that their "will" is for its legalization that Mac would be sitting there saying "Well, its important we follow the Will of the people so make it legal".
Maybe someday there will be some big movement to allow people to bang wherever they want. That said, there's no such movement now. There's no significant public support for it now. There's not even as sound of constitutional arguments in favor of it as there is in regards to gay marriage. So attempting to use that as a shield for why we shouldn't legalize gay marriage is a bit ridiculous.