Our beliefs and perspectives evolve over time, shaped by our experiences and the changing world around us. This evolution is why open, constructive conversations—especially about divisive topics—are so critical. They allow us to explore our assumptions, challenge our thinking, and grow together, even when we disagree.
Today, I want to explore the concept of the slippery slope—a fear that often emerges in debates about rights and regulations. It’s a concern that touches on issues as varied as gun control, LGBTQ+ rights, and abortion, though people often apply it inconsistently.
Consider abortion. What began with seemingly small and “reasonable” restrictions—like waiting periods, parental consent laws, and limits based on gestational age—has snowballed in many places into outright bans. These bans have very real consequences: women denied life-saving care, doctors afraid to treat miscarriages for fear of legal repercussions, and families forced to carry pregnancies that put their physical and emotional well-being at risk. The slippery slope in this case isn’t a fear; it’s a reality.
For those of us in the LGBTQ+ community, that reality feels all too familiar. When lawmakers target gender-affirming care for children or restrict discussions about LGBTQ+ topics in schools, the stated reasoning might sound protective or logical to some. But as a gay man who is married, I can’t help but wonder where it might lead. Could these “reasonable” restrictions pave the way for further erosion of LGBTQ+ rights? Could my marriage, my home, or my very existence someday be under threat?
And then there’s gun control. Here, the slippery slope argument is often invoked more loudly and consistently than anywhere else. Even the most basic and widely supported measures—like requiring universal background checks, mandating safe storage of firearms, or banning high-capacity magazines—are met with fierce resistance. Opponents argue that these actions, however sensible they might seem, are the first step toward an outright ban on firearms and the erosion of the Second Amendment.
This fear can sometimes override the actual intent and potential benefits of these regulations. The statistics tell a grim story: gun violence in the U.S. claims tens of thousands of lives each year, yet efforts to address it are stymied by the fear of a slippery slope. Advocates for gun rights ask: If we ban assault weapons, what stops the government from banning handguns? If we require registration, what prevents confiscation? To them, it’s not just about any single law—it’s about the broader principle of maintaining their rights in full, with no compromise.
And yet, many of these same voices dismiss the slippery slope concerns raised by abortion advocates or LGBTQ+ individuals. They fail to see the parallels between their fear of losing access to firearms and our fear of losing access to healthcare, marriage rights, or simply the freedom to live authentically. The inconsistency is striking.
This raises a critical question: how do we reconcile these fears across issues? How can we enact laws that protect people from harm—whether from gun violence, healthcare inequities, or discrimination—while ensuring that such laws do not open the door to broader overreach? These are hard conversations, but they are ones we need to have.
Bridging the Divide Through Better Conversations
The path forward begins with meaningful dialogue. Here are some ways we can start having better conversations, even about the most polarizing topics: