The equation of gay marriage with polygamy, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, etc., seems to me to be the manufacturing of slippery slopes out of nothing. The argument that "well, if we allow gay marriage, then we have to allow everything" represents to me a lack of critical thinking about the nature of marriage. The fundamental principle, to me, should be "opportunity for equality" in marriage. A marriage between two adult, consenting homosexuals is a marriage between coequals just as much as is a marriage between two consenting adult heterosexuals. A marriage between one man and three wives is not a marriage between coequals. Neither is a marriage between an adult and a child, or a human and an animal. It's just not possible, no matter how one tries to rationalize or idealize it. A marriage between a parent and a child (even an adult child) will never be equal, although I suppose you could argue that a marriage between two cousins who weren't raised together could be equal. In that case, medical concerns may or may not trump the equality issue (although I believe that some states permit marriage between cousins).

Well said. What bothers me most about the polygamy comparison, is that a polygamist is still allowed to marry SOME individual he loves, gay people are forbidden marrying ANY individual they love.

As for the other vile comparisons of the Santorum type, they are dishonest, meanspirited, and unworthy of serious discussion.
Comparing the human being I love to an animal is just pure, stupid malice.

How do you define "equality"?

So I guess by that standard the ideal would be marriage between identical twins.

I think your argument is silly. Marriages are rarely equal, and many aren't even looking for equality out of a marriage.

To Ketone,

The slippery-slope argument is exactly pertinent, coming on the heels of the raid on a polygamist compound in Texas. What's so sacred about the number two in a marriage? Well, of course, the answer is that there are two distinct sexes, and only in direct and exclusive combination can they create a new human being. Marriage was, after all, was created precisely for the purpose of passing on values and property to the next generation in an orderly manner.

Polygamous impulses in males are every bit as scientifically verifiable as homosexual ones, but closeted polygamists (Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer) must not be permitted legal rights, while homosexuals must? Weird. Right now in Ohio we have a political crisis caused by an Attorney-General who has been outed as a polygamist. And our local gay newspaper speaks bluntly about going beyond same-sex marriage to a legal recognition of 'polyamorous' relationships. As usual, the 'right-wingers' are not being paranoid - they are being prophetic.

I find that supporters of same-sex marriage are either in deep denial about the far-reaching implications of saying that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equal in terms of their utility to society, or else are being deliberately cynical, like all those progressives who swore up and down during 1960s that civil rights laws would not lead to racial quotas in hiring and school admissions, busing orders, contract set-asides, and the like. As soon as they got their laws passed, the hammer came down from the courts and the bureaucracies. Canada is already having to deal with polygamous issues after its happy-face legalization of same-sex marriage.

NO PROOF OF YOUR CLAIMS AT ALL,NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY LEGIT RESEARCHERS HAVE COME TO YOU CONCLUSIONS AND AGIAN YOUR POST IS MORE PROOF OF HOW WRONG YOUR SIDE IS .

DrinkYourMilkshake:

The slippery-slope argument is exactly pertinent, coming on the heels of the raid on a polygamist compound in Texas. What's so sacred about the number two in a marriage?

Well, I would contend that you don't have the potential of any sort of coequal relationship with more than two people in a marriage. I think the case of one man with three wives puts the women in an inferior role simply by the structure of the relationship.

DrinkYourMilkshake:

Well, of course, the answer is that there are two distinct sexes, and only in direct and exclusive combination can they create a new human being. Marriage was, after all, was created precisely for the purpose of passing on values and property to the next generation in an orderly manner.

Sure it was. But is that how it should be? Do you care whether two infertile heterosexuals marry? Or is your problem specifically with the homosexual lifestyle?

Angstrom:

So I guess by that standard the ideal would be marriage between identical twins.

I don't think that marriage to anyone who was raised under the same parents can really be equal -- there are natural inequalities built in to that kind of relationship. And in the case of opposite-sex couples, there are medical/genetic issues associated with procreation, as I mentioned.

Angstrom:

I think your argument is silly. Marriages are rarely equal, and many aren't even looking for equality out of a marriage.

You missed my point entirely. I never said that actual marriages had to be equal, just that it doesn't make sense to me to have an institution that makes a relationship unequal essentially by structure. What I'm contending is that the institution of marriage should be structured to permit the possibility of equality and to exclude inherent inequality. Whether or not any actual couple who gets married wants or gets equality in their relationship is up to them, but that's their choice.

DrinkYourMilkshake:

I find that supporters of same-sex marriage are either in deep denial about the far-reaching implications of saying that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equal in terms of their utility to society, or else are being deliberately cynical, like all those progressives who swore up and down during 1960s that civil rights laws would not lead to racial quotas in hiring and school admissions, busing orders, contract set-asides, and the like.

What are those far-reaching implications for same-sex marriage that you envision?

DrinkYourMilkshake:

As soon as they got their laws passed, the hammer came down from the courts and the bureaucracies. Canada is already having to deal with polygamous issues after its happy-face legalization of same-sex marriage.

Well, as I said, I think that's more due to a failure to examine the fundamentals of what's actually important in the institution of marriage, and getting lost down a slippery slope that doesn't really have to exist at all.

Question:

If two "consenting, equal, homosexuals" decide to marry, and then later one of the marriage partner decides he or she is no longer homosexual, will they still be equal? Homosexual marriage is about more than equality and opportunity. It is also about the assumption that a man or woman is "born gay". We don't debat that all that much anymore, but actually, there's no physical difference between gay and straight. All it takes to move from one team to the other is the choice to do so. That's not slippery-slope material, but it is the stuff of legal confusion...

What if two purportedly heterosexual persons marry, and then later one of the partners announces s/he is actually homosexual? Heterosexual marriage is about more than taxes and child support; it is also about the assumption that the partner you married is also, in fact, heterosexual.

It's not like this situation never happens. When it does happen, either way, the remaining partner has some hard choices to make. I know purportedly hetero couples who keep up appearances "for the kids", as well as a couple who had an amicable divorce and are now friends.

I don't think it is really a new legal issue.

Freki

Ketone -

At least you ask good questions, rather than simply use a post to say 'I hate people who disagree with me.'

Yes, I do have problems with equating homosexuality and heterosexuality. The latter is more important to the human race and its communities than the former. There is no social utility to granting same-sex marriage. If homosexuality died out in the human race, life would go on. I'm just stating a fact, sorry if it is bluntly expressed. The 'infertile couple' question is clever, but it is the nature of the law that it can't take up every single possible exception in its broad scope.

Some of the 'far-reaching implications' I was referring to have been raised by other readers in subsequent posts. The implications I was thinking of refer to the opening of the door to court challenges of traditional marriage that would probably offend most gay activists, too, such as the quite alive and relevant laws about polygamy. The 'equality' questions is again clever, but there is no intrinsic and all-encompassing way you can characterize every such relationship as 'unequal'. I mean, how is such a thing measured?

I think the redefinition of the purpose of legal marriage to the validation of a traditionally taboo sexual orientation would be irresistable to activists for other sexual identities. I also foresee court rulings irresistably equating anti-gay prejudice with racism, sexism, etc. The results of judicial efforts agains the latter have been bad enough - the PC measures I cited above are illustrations. But race is something you 'are'. Sexual orientation involves something you 'do'. Sorry, but I think the spectre of private organizations and private owners being forced by anti-discrimination laws to admit persons whose actions, not just their identities, are anathema to them, is an abrogation of liberty and the right of free association. Anti-discrimination laws are the 'happy-face' of the campaign; the enforcement mechanism of 'tolerance police' is the ugly side.

"A marriage between one man and three wives is not a marriage between coequals."

Says who? Granted, polygamy as practiced by Jeffs and his ilk isn't remotely equal; my understanding of human nature suggests that equality would be hard to achieve under those conditions. But if a group of three or more people does come along who ARE equal, who am I to get in their way?