The "slippery slope" argument doesn't appeal to me for most of the reasons stated here. 

You said "to argue that because we are all sinners means we should accept gay marriage..." I did not argue that we should accept gay marriage, although I do think we should respect them and stop looking at them like they are some abhorrence to God. I argued that sex between gay married people should arguably not be a basis to deny attendance at BYU. 

"If BYU accepts gay married couples than it can no longer expect its students to keep the Law of chastity." I think sex between married gay people is far different than sex between unmarried people (gay or straight). That's my opinion. If the Church is married to the position (pun intended) that sex between gay couples who are married is an egregious sin, then your point has some merit. But my sense of morality draws a distinction between premarital sex and marital sex, and less of a distinction between married straight sex and married gay sex. In my moral sense, married couples (gay or straight) who generally subscribe to the tenet that "successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities" are good in God's eyes, and sex in that type of marriage doesn't offend God. Again, my opinions only, which are based in my personal sense of right/wrong.

Historically, gays couldn't be married, so naturally any gay sex would necessarily be premarital sex. There was no need to distinguish married gay sex versus unmarried gay sex. So a blanket "homosexuality is a sin" worked. But I think that blanket tenet was a product of homophobia and social norms of the past (a la blacks being banned from the priesthood). In today's world, I think it would be good for us to consider the goodness that exists in gay marriages that are "maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities."

"because the entire mission of the church educational system is to provide learning in a faith based environment were everyone shares the same values." Fine, but I think our shared value should be that sex is reserved for a committed marriage, as opposed to homosexual sex after marriage is a sin. A list of sins is not a list of values. And valuing marriages between a man and woman doesn't necessarily mean that gay marriages are "bad". Perhaps they are less than ideal, but bad?  

"BYU is the church and shouldn't accept a devolution of morality just so it can continue to exist." I disagree that BYU is the Church. Is the Deseret Industries the Church? How about the cattle ranch business the Church owns and operates in the South? The way I see it, the "Church" is just a group of people that worship together and hold to some core, very basic, doctrines. I don't think that one of those doctrines is that gay sex within a marriage is a sin--and to the extent some leader said it was, I think he's wrong.

Ok Cougarboard, let me have it! I'm ready.