Tony, I know of many advocates for gay marriage who have said polygamists and gay advocates should join forces. The reason cited is the case for both polgamy and gay marriage follow similar arguments on individual liberty, consenting adults, covenanted relationships, etc. Also, if an advocate for the GLB community then wouldn’t polygamy and bisexuality go together? Should we really expect bisexuals to live in fidelity to one specific individual? Isn’t this a denial of their bisexuality?

Civil marriage is a legal contract between two persons. Same-sex marriage acknowledges that the two persons in a civil marriage are legally equal, and things that are equal to the same thing are equal to each other.
SSM will not lead to legal polygamy because 2 is not equal to three. The thousands of laws that apply to married couples can apply to any *couple*, but they cannot be readily translated to sets of 3, 4, or more. The issue is a red herring.
So why do people keep dragging in these up herrings? IMHO it’s because truly traditional marriage (from 1919 back to the dawn of time) is *not* a contract between legal equals. It’s an arrangement between a person with full human and legal rights (the “man”) and a person with less than complete rights (the “wife”). Once a woman has the same legal rights as a man — the right to own property, to sue for divorce, to vote, whatever — old-fashioned, traditional is already dead. SSM is just the nail in the coffin, making explicit what had been only implied, and *that*’s why traditionalists feel it undermines their marriage — because it does, because any demonstration that married people are legally equal partners undermines tradition.
Polygamy is also a red herring, because traditional polygamy, like other traditional marriages, is *not* a contract between equals. Historically, the line between traditional marriage and polygamy has been a fine one, because a man (a fully-featured legal person) can have limited contracts with a number of partial legal persons (women).
When marriage becomes a fully reciprocal contract between 2 complete people, it’s much harder to extend that to 3 people or more. Who gets to make medical decisions? Who’s the default heir? There’s no legal precedent or structure to deal with these issues, to see how they would work in practice — and given how many hundreds of years and millions of lawyers it’s taken to develop the marriage law we have, I don’t expect to see legal polygamy any time soon.

The slippery slope argument is one rooted in fear.
The gun lobby has been using it for years. It goes something like this: If they take away our right to have an assault rifle that can shoot 100 rounds per minute (something that even the hard core gunner knows is a silly thing to allow people to have), then next they will take away high caliber hunting rifles, then regular rifles, then shotguns then hand guns then toy pistols then super soakers until even the smallest of children will have sad childhoods because they cannot have fun in the sun. It assumes an acceleration as you head down the slippery slope.
The anti-abortion folks (not that anyone is pro-abortion) use this same tactic when they won’t support legislation that bans late term abortions if there any exceptions allowed. For instance, if there is an exception that allows the procedure (for lack of a better word) in cases of incest or the Mothers life is threatened then it is no good because if there is one exception soon there will be two then three pretty soon there will be so many exceptions that we will all be forced to have abortions.
IMO, the slippery slope argument generally comes into play when the person is trying to support an unsupportable position.
We saw a lot of this sort of fear in the recent election. If we start electing people like B.O. then the country is going to head down a slippery slope and go to hell in a handbasket; as if the past 8 years were so wonderful.

Bigotry is the only reason for keeping gay marriage exclusively for gays or for two individuals. Who cares if two is not equal to three? If two is good, three is even better, and anyone who says otherwise needs a clear reason for doing so. (And a bisexual definitely requires two spouses.)
To suggest, as Dr. Science does, that marriage “cannot be readily translated to sets of 3, 4, or more” is just pure bulls#!t without any justification. Remember, the basis of gay marriage is that it’s a temporal romance or cohabitation contract. So, anyone who either wants to cohabitate or have a romance should be able to enter a “marriage” sanctioned by the State.
Other of Dr. Science’s points need to be answered as well. Traditional marriage was a permanent family contract arising from the fact that heterosexual sex acts place women and children at long range economic risk. Contracts have to do with situations where partnerships between individuals carry grave economic consequences. And so traditional marriage ensured that women and children would be protected from desertion and economic destitution. This is just as necessary today, as single parenting continues to place both parent and children at grave economic risk.
marriage has always been tied to sex, as the act of sex for heterosexuals is what launches the long-term project of raising families—the enterprise being contracted to protect the individual members. Even gays understand that they are seeking a license that sanctions their sexual romances.
If marriage is extended to gays, I can see no reason why it can’t be extended to everyone who wants it. Why would we discriminate against all the other people and groups?

To preface my comment- I want government out of the “marriage” business altogether. I think homosexuals should have every right that heterosexuals do. AND I think same sex sexual activity is clearly out of bounds for Christ-Followers.
So- I’m not so interested in the slippery slope argument… but let’s not just write it off as though it’s silly to even think such thoughts. No Zach- it’s not as dead as all that.
2 reasons:
1. “The Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to give full marriage rights to homosexuals. In the United States some politicians propose “civil unions” that give homosexual couples the full benefits and responsibilities of marriage. These civil unions differ from marriage only in name.
Meanwhile in the Netherlands polygamy has been legalised in all but name. Last Friday the first civil union of three partners was registered. Victor de Bruijn (46) from Roosendaal “married” both Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) in a ceremony before a notary who duly registered their civil union.
“I love both Bianca and Mirjam, so I am marrying them both,” Victor said. He had previously been married to Bianca. Two and a half years ago they met Mirjam Geven through an internet chatbox. Eight weeks later Mirjam deserted her husband and came to live with Victor and Bianca. After Mirjam’s divorce the threesome decided to marry.” http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301
2. Anyone know the Muslim stand on polygamy? Anyone looked at the rates of growth in the Muslim population here and abroad.
Like I say- I’m not afraid of a slippery slope. But I don’t think it’s a silly argument either.

The UN Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women states that polygamy contravenes women’s equality rights and also harms their children.Polygamy impoverishes women because the extra “wives” have no legal standing. They are concubines in the man’s harem, and thus cannot benefit from his health insurance, life insurance, pension, and immigration rights. Nor are they automatically entitled to share in the man’s property should he die. There is also a psychological aspect … many women fighting for the attention of one man. He has a sex fest while they are rationed for sex and have to stand in line until he chooses them. It’s notable that in the countries where polygamy is common, women are regarded as second-class citizens and have few rights, while in the illegal polygamous communities of the US and Canada,the level of education is abysmal, very few of the practioners ever graduating from high school. Polygamy is a patriarchal practise that stems from ancient times when men traded women like cattle.It should have been kicked into the garbage can of history centuries ago. The year is 2008 AD, not 2008 BC.

Hi! Sorry, but somehow my name got left off the above comment about the UN declaration on the equality rights of women. Strange, because I typed it in! I’ll try it again.

If people want to have polygamous, or polyandrous, marriages, by all means they should, if only to see all the lawyers foaming at the mouth trying to figure the permutations out.

To bob,
Of course the “slippery slope” argument is not silly: It’s perfectly logical and legally certain.
In contrast to heterosexual marriage, “gay marriage” is a love and cohabitation contract. The legal and logical consequence of this is that any people who profess a desire to love or cohabitate with each other should be able to get married. Why not? To deny anyone access to marriage is pure bigotry and discrimination.

A Walker, you remind me of Sisyphus.

Interesting take from Russia…
04 Dec 2008 15:22:55 GMT
MOSCOW, Dec 4 (Reuters) – Moscow has banned gays and lesbians from promoting their way of life because they can help spread HIV/AIDS, the Russian capital’s 72-year-old mayor was quoted as saying on Thursday by RIA news agency.
Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, speaking at an HIV/AIDS conference in Moscow, also said there was no scientific proof that condoms provided full protection against sexually transmitted diseases.
“We have banned, and will ban, the propaganda of sexual minorities’ opinions because they can be one of the factors in the spread of HIV infection,” Luzhkov was quoted as saying by state-owned RIA.
“Some home-grown democrats consider that sexual minorities are a major indicator and symbol of democracy but we will continue to ban the spread of their views,” Luzhkov said.
Luzhkov’s administration has banned several gay rights marches in Moscow in the interests, it argues, of ensuring security and preventing public disorder.
———-
How does the public health risk issue factor in to this debate?

Tony,
That post I wrote was based off a Washington Times article about certain fringe groups who are trying to include polygamy in the marriage argument and see that approved. So it is not just theory.
And with Zach, I sent him the link to show in his own state of Arizona the Libertarian Party is formally proposing that polygamous marriage is accepted in the same way gay marriage is.
I took down the post, as the comments were going in directions that weren’t helpful – and I don’t want to have that be an issue that is turned into a bigger issue in what I am posting on. It was a hypothetical question I was asking, based on actual proposals being made. If the arguments they are using for polygamous marriage were valid in the same way the ones for same-sex marriage.
Peace,
Dan

Regarding the slippery slope. Way back in about 1973 when the men in black robes overthrew abortion laws in all 50 states, pro-lifers argued that abortion would lead to infanticide and then euthanasia. They were routinely dismissed as alarmists and told no such thing was on the horizon. Today, we have a president who has stood in the way of laws against live-birth infanticide, repeated attempts to block partial birth abortion have been actively resisted by various groups on the secular and religious left and Oregon and Washington are moving down the path of active Euthanasia. I guess a slippery slope argument isn’t quite as silly as we were once told.
There is no question Mormons in parts of Utah would favor polygamy, as would many fringe Christian groups and for that matter many Muslims. There is no question the North American Man Boy Love Association would love to see marriage further redefined to include various “rights” for “consenting” minors.
Those who think gay marriage won’t lead to further and further erosion of sexual restraint are simply not being honest with themselves or anyone else. Nor will they own up to the wreckage such relationships will cause to individuals and society at large.

I’m pretty sure I wrote, “Polygamy, as it stands in the mainstream culture of marriage, is already dead and buried and it’s not coming back.”
So if there are is a situation in Denmark or a fringe political party in my own state who are clamoring for polygamy, that hardly puts a scratch on my point.

Their success will come from the ability to show that the overwhelming majority of experiences of those involved in or touched by SSM have proven to be hurtful and devaluing.
Perhaps this has already been hashed out…Who is going to make that call about “hurtful and devaluing”? Not an expert by any means but “what if” somebody is in a SSM as a result of being hurt and devalued? Could those circumstances “cloud their perspective” as to whether or not their present reality (SSM) is hurtful and devaluing? Does the obvious hurt and devaluing that is so easy to identify with regards to polygamy reveal itself in the same way to those who are outside looking in? Is it comparing “apples to oranges”?

Glenn, you wrote:
Should we really expect bisexuals to live in fidelity to one specific individual? Isn’t this a denial of their bisexuality?
Where did you get that idea? Bisexuals are attracted to both sexes but they are perfectly able to make a commitment to one person just like you can.

Glenn – you wrote: Should we really expect bisexuals to live in fidelity to one specific individual? Isn’t this a denial of their bisexuality?
Where did you get that idea??? Bisexuals are attracted to both sexes but can make a commitment to one person just like you can – it might be with a person of the same sex or the opposite sex. Being in a committed relationship with one person would in no way be a “denial” of their bisexuality.