patrick.net

Further, why do these "slippery slope" type arguments persist? We can allow citizens to own guns but not missiles, right?

Therefore, we can allow gay marriage without polygamy and bestiality. It stops there. That is it. We do it all the time.

CL says

Further, why do these "slippery slope" type arguments persist? We can allow citizens to own guns but not missiles, right?

Therefore, we can allow gay marriage without polygamy and bestiality. It stops there. That is it. We do it all the time.

Do you compare polygamy to owning missiles?
I would say we can allow polygamy without gay marriage and bestiality.

Well, the idea of state defining, registering, and enforcing marriage is all non-sense. It did not exist before the 16th century when Protestants invented it.

Prior to this there were all kind of recognized and honored marriages including Jewish (blessing of the woman to belong to a male), Christian (blessed by the Church, but never required) etc. In general, the Church considered marriage a natural sacrament valid without any ceremony or registration.

Unfortunately, modern marriage mostly follows the Calvinist approach, which required state registration. It is based on the idea of completely fallen human nature, which has to be fully controled by authorities. All we need is just to get rid of this crazy idea.

Governments should not be involved in this business at all. If necessary, tax or whatever social benefits should be linked to raising family or maintaining a household. If any society (religious, or local, or any other is interested in blessing, celebrating and recording marriages, it's up to their rules. )

Ah Calvinism. And the periodic reactions against it.

The dynamic at the heart and soul of American religion/culture/philosophy for the last 400 years.

Buster says

There are thousands of reasons why this is not allowed as the entire English case law would have to be rewritten to accommodate such multiple, more than 2 adult, relationships, e.g. who, upon the death of a spouse, gets to inherit, who gets custody of the kids, the cash, the house, how is social security and medicare benefits apportioned. There are no easy answers . As for same sex marriage, all the laws currently on the books would simply transfer over to couples married who are gay.

In other words it isn't about justice or equal personal rights but about legal convenience.
Well, even this does not work well. Look at all legal cases, in which two former wifes (or a real wife and an officially registered one) are fighting for inheritance. One hears about such cases every day. Just look at today news:
http://www.loansafe.org/legal-tussle-over-thomas-kinkades-multi-million-estate-heads-back-to-court

Funny the only party even using the word hate are the Liberals.

CL says

Further, why do these "slippery slope" type arguments persist? We can allow citizens to own guns but not missiles, right?

Therefore, we can allow gay marriage without polygamy and bestiality. It stops there. That is it. We do it all the time.

I agree that such slippery slopes arguments are dumb as they have been empirically disproved by interracial marriages and other instances.

However, why should polygamy be illegal? I'm not in favor of it, but then again, I'm not in favor of traditional marriage. Why should marriage be a legal institution at all? And if it is, why should polygamy be illegal?

All objections to polygamy and gay marriage are based on religious beliefs. Last time I checked, America wasn't a theocracy.

Now obviously bestiality can't be recognized because as far as the state is concern, marriage is simply a contract and a legal structure. You can't enter a contract with a horse. You can enter a contract with multiple adult humans.

MB says

It isn't an argument against same-sex marriage, it is an argument against goverment dictating anything related to your own morals.

Exactly!!! The ugly thing about all this same-sex marriage fight is that it's not about what's right (get rid of government envolvement where is does not belong) but about twisting the all fallen system to be (or just to look) a bit more equal to those who are considered more equal.

No religion involved in this comment. I was taught evolution in school especially as a science major. Polygamy actually helps to propagate our species and gives us more chances of positive mutations. Homosexual acts from species hinders or eliminates it's propagation and is eventually selected out. Always find it interesting why this is considered a "religious" topic.

OW says

I was taught evolution in school especially as a science major. Polygamy actually helps to propagate our species and gives us more chances of positive mutations.

They forgot to tell you that human biological evolution ended with the elimination of neanderthals. (Somewhat 50000 years ago) Since than humans had only social evolution. Interestingly enough, the resulting human genom allows for about 2% of strictly homosexual males, and up to 10% of essentially bi-sectual, who may become or not homosexual based on various social conditions.

Maybe whoever created human race (be this evolution or whatever) has consired certain percent of homosexuals beneficial for our social evolution. Indeed the percentage of homosexual "intelectuals" is very high throughout human history from greek philosophers through great european artists and composers to modern American universities professors.

BTW, all this has nothing to do with the same sex marriages. I don't think having a registered marriage with that guy would stop Van Gogh from cutting off his ear after breaking out. :) or (:

OW says

Homosexual acts from species hinders or eliminates it's propagation and is eventually selected out.

Only pure homosexuality prevents reproduction. Bisexuality, which includes frequent homosexual acts, does not as evident throughout nature.

Furthermore, chastity and abstinence prevents reproduction. Yet, no one has ever proposed outlawing abstinence.

In any case, even pure homosexuality does have a selective advantage in terms of kin benefits. Gay uncles can funnel their resources to nieces and nephews.

But even if nature selected against homosexuality, which clearly it doesn't given the prevalence of homosexual relations in nature, why should government outlaw it? Nature selects against "nice guys". Does that mean government should mandate that all men be assholes?

OW says

Homosexual acts from species hinders or eliminates it's propagation and is eventually selected out.

Well you have a point. Homo erectus, the gayest of all species, is extinct.

OW says

No religion involved in this comment. I was taught evolution in school especially as a science major. Polygamy actually helps to propagate our species and gives us more chances of positive mutations. Homosexual acts from species hinders or eliminates it's propagation and is eventually selected out. Always find it interesting why this is considered a "religious" topic.

I really have to question your knowledge and experience here. Lots of gay people have children; among my friends and family I know more gay people with children than without. How many homosexuals do you even know?

Dan8267 says

However, why should polygamy be illegal? I'm not in favor of it, but then again, I'm not in favor of traditional marriage.

I don't care either. My point is just that we can and do draw lines all the time. Even the NRA doesn't condone individuals owning Nukes (I think---could be!).

"Free speech" has limits. We can draw the line at gay marriage and still be fair to all citizens who want to join in the bilateral contract.

true