Polygamy and onther such questions?

I’m not real fond of “slippery slope” arguments, but you are right that there is a “slippery slope” argument that could be made that starts at “traditional” marriage and ends up with intraspecies relationships. If you eliminate the “tradition” of male/female marriage, then there really is no basis for “two person” marriage or “above the age of consent” marriage or “same species” marriage. The “slippery slope” applies in the opposite direction as well. There are appellate court decisions all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court that upholds the government’s ability to regulate the number of spouses which may be married. If you can regulate number, I see no reason why you can’t regulate gender. After all, a polygamist Mormon can assert as a defense that prohibiting their marriage violates their 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion, a same-sex partnership cannot make as strong a constitutional claim.

I’m not entirely sure from your question whether I am answering it. Perhaps if you rephrased it I could be more direct.

well maybe someone should create a gay religion!

xgunther, that is indeed a provocative statement. While I have no idea what the theology of a “gay religion” might be, I do find it curious there are so many groups within established denominations (I’m going to limit this to Christianity, as I’m not sure how other religions are handling this, other than those like Islam that have very little tolerance for homosexuality) that seek to change that denominations position rather than simply forming their own denomination. This obviously isn’t limited to just homosexuality, there are other divisive theology and policy issues within denominations, such as the role of women in ministry, and many others. Certainly that is anyone’s option, I just wonder why people choose not to simply form their own denomination more often. Or perhaps they do, and I’m simply not aware of it, but I can’t recall any examples of homosexuals (I guess I just prefer that as a more precise term than gay) forming their own denomination.

The terrace on this slippery slope has to do with autonomy and agency. Gay marriage and multiple-partner marriage are still between consenting adults (in theory, right? I think we’re assuming that they’d be regulated like “traditional marriage”). Child marriage and interspecies marriage involves one of the partners not being a consenting adult. Animals, by definition, can’t consent to this sort of thing. Neither can children.

So I’m not worried about the slippery slope at all. We will have to change the spousal privilege rules (so that the mafia doesn’t marry up), the tax code and the insurance rules.

Definitely the ability of all parties to consent is a distinction. Jonsonite, that is a very clever concept that hadn’t occurred to me (as a lawyer, it should have) that the mob could just enter same-gender unions so privilege would apply. I would love to see the FBI’s efforts to discredit those marriages without being politically incorrect (after all, can’t two murdering extortionists still have a serious same-gender commitment?). Hmm, sounds a bit like that “Chuck and Larry” movie.

The slippery slope does still exist. I really see no way our legal system could approve same-gender marriage, but continue to prohibit polygamy, which a surprising number of pro-gay marriage people seem to wish to continue to prohibit. I really see no useful distinction between regulating gender and regulating quantity.

I like the word you used: “terrace.” That is a great way to describe it. The slippery slope does NOT end after same-gender or polygamous marriage, but there is a “terrace” or “big ‘ol speed bump” there. But there are already groups like NAMBLA arguing the age of consent is an artificial distinction that should be removed. Inherently, a concept like “consent” is so situationally variable that the legal system has to have bright lines like specific ages. Do I believe some 13 year old somewhere might be capable of making an intelligent consensual decision and have a successful relationship with an adult? I guess it’s possible. Do I think it’s probable? No. Do I think it’s likely the adult has an unfair advantage prone to manipulation? Yes. Do I think we need age limits? Of course. They may not ALWAYS be fair in a specific situation, but they are intended to be just on the average.

And somewhere, right now, there is somebody just waiting to have us slide far enough down the slope to start arguing that clearly their pet loves them so much that their willing, loving consent is clearly indicated by their conduct, and who cares what they do in the privacy of their own home. . . and I’m hoping PETA will be there to nip that in the bud, because by that time, trying to make a “tradition” or “morality” argument will be long gone.

I find it extremely offensive when gay marriage is linked with animal/human marriage, as if we’re on the same level as dogs.

I’m not trying to link them as moral or practical equivalents. The point of a spectrum is to DISTINGUISH the individual items on the spectrum, not to link them. If I was to link them, I wouldn’t be spending so much time on the differences. As an example, I could provide a spectrum of religions including Unitarianism, Baptist, Roman Catholic, Islam, Buddhism, Wicca, Satanism, and shamanism. In no manner am I linking them, other than they are all religions (just as heterosexual, homosexual, polygamous, pedophilic, and interspecies marriages would all be marriages). The purpose of the spectrum is to serve as a useful analytical device, but not to draw a “link” between Unitarianism and shamanism. If you choose to be offended by ANY discussion, I can’t do anything about that. I think Jonsonite’s “terrace” metaphor is very apt, and useful analysis.

But if you want to avoid these comparisons, then I suggest we follow my proposal and eliminate the term “marriage” as a legal concept, and make it solely and individual religious concept. This should make some sort of common ground between “traditionalists,” pro-same gender marriage” and “separation of church/state” groups. It isn’t everything anybody wanted, but it is middle ground.

And xgunther, if you haven’t gotten it yet from my other posts, I am all in favor of same-gender civil unions as a legal concept, although my concept of what civil unions should be, regardless of the parties involved, is much more contractual than moral.

That wasnt directed at you, I’ve just heard people use it in an offensive and ignorant way.

OK, I misunderstood and felt a need to clarify. No harm, no foul. Thanks for the explanation. I think many of those that cite to Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality seem to conveniently ignore some of the other conduct included in those lists. The old “seeing the speck in another’s eye and ignoring the beam in your own” parable seems to be apt for those who focus on one prohibition while conveniently letting slide prohibitions against fornication, adultery, drunkenness, failing to aid the poor, etc.

As an example, a church member once suggested to me that he did not like to see another church member sing as part of the service because this particular singer has some mannerisms consistent with gay stereotypes (ignoring that this person is apparently happily married to a spouse of the opposite gender). I tried to politely suggest that as he had divorced and remarried, yet had a position of leadership in the church, he might be a little more sensitive to people being censored for conduct in apparent conflict with certain interpretations of certain Scriptures. I don’t think he likes me very much now.