Refuting the polygamy "slippery slope" argument

[NicoleM]

I keep hearing RWers say that if we allow gay marriage then polygamy is next. But I never hear anybody try to refute that. I don't know why, it shouldn't be that hard. The state has an interest in prohibiting polygamy for a whole bunch of reasons. Here are some that I've come up with in the last day or so. Assume DH and I marry four more guys.

Who has parental rights over any children we have? Just the bio parents? All of us? What about custody in the event of divorce?

Speaking of divorce, how do we divide the property? Let's say that I want to divorce all of them. Are all the guys still married to each other? What about spousal support? Who would be responsible for that?

I end up in the hospital, and somebody has to make decisions regarding my care. Who does that? DH #1? Do they take a vote? Do I have to appoint one of them beforehand? How do we document that?

Let's say DH #3 dies. Who, if any of us, is entitled to Social Security benefits? He's not the biological father of any of my children. Are they entitled to SS or not?

Would any one of our employers be required to provide health care for all of us?

Will there be a limit to how many people can join a polygamous marriage? If so, how do you decide what the number should be?

Polygamy raises all kinds of problems that same-sex marriage doesn't. There are no "special rights" involved in same-sex marriage--legally speaking, it doesn't create any different rights for the same-sex couple than an opposite-sex couple has.

Thoughts?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Good luck

I don't disagree with you, but prepare to be flamed.

[NicoleM]

2. By whom?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. Just wait.

I've seen it before.

[Muddleoftheroad]

3. Even on DU, some defend polygamy

Like it or not, if we change the nature of marriage, it will be the next battleground.

Personally, I think we should propose a Constitutional amendment making marriage between two adults (not closer than second cousins).

[evil_orange_cat]

6. no marriage in the consitution plz... gay or not...

it's a religious institution... the gov't has the power to license unions... that's how it should be. All marriages, in the law's eyes, should be civil unions. "Marriage" should be left up to religious insitutions.

Historically, polygamy has been exploitation of women... but if 3 or 4 people wanted to form a union, I wouldn't exactly object. However, I think the gov't licensed unions should be between 2 people.

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. I would object

I think it is bad women, children and society in general.

[evil_orange_cat]

14. perhaps... but does gov't have the right to legislate such matters?

I personally don't think so... the family structure and social policy is not the business of the government.

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. Yes it does

Promote the general welfare.

[evil_orange_cat]

21. depends on how general you want to interpret that...

I'm very socially liberal, so I don't want the government meddling in such social policies. If a household union of 3 people want to raise children, it is not the government's business.

Plus, there are many more factors and unstable environments that affect children. If we are going to shape social policy, it should be prioritized.

[Muddleoftheroad]

23. I am not that socially liberal

And I would oppose any sanctioning of that union.

[evil_orange_cat]

37. believe it or not, we somewhat agree...

I think gov't recognized civil unions (hetero and homosexual) should be between two people... but ideologically, I don't think the government should actively enforce any kind of social policy regarding communional unions.

So in essence, I'm ideologically opposed to the use of government power in making polygamy illegal... but rather, I would have government only issue civil union licenses to couples.

[htuttle]

25. A union of 3 or more people is already possible...

...it's called a 'Corporation'. You can get a license from your local Secretary of State.

[outinforce]

49. Corporations?

Can one member of a corporation sponser another member, who is living in a foreign country and who is not a citizen of the USA, into the United States and thereby allow them to get a permanent resident card?

[htuttle]

54. Well...

They could probably get them an H1-B visa...

[outinforce]

60. If You Are Married

you can get your spouse an Non-Resident Alient Card (a green card).

With that card, your spouse can work in any job, and s/he begins a five-year waiting period to become a US citizen (shoudh s/he decide to do so).

An H-1B visa allows work in only certain occupations. And it is useless in terms of the 5-year fresidency requirement for citizenship.

Separate but not equal.

[NicoleM]

7. Why not first cousins?

Or siblings?

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. Unhealthy

Both physically and mentally. Further, it destroys the family dynamic and that is a big issue.

[NicoleM]

13. There are a lot of people

who think that homosexuality is "unhealthy." That's one common reason people have for opposing same-sex marriage. That and the destruction of the family.

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. They are wrong.

[wuushew]

17. We applaud the disabled and infertile having children

it is rank hypocrasy to deny close genetic relatives that as well. Very unlibertarian.

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. We aren't denying the right to have kids

We are denying them the legal sanctioning of their union.

[evil_orange_cat]

18. actually, studies have shown the risk of defects to be...

... only slightly higher than reproduction from non-related individuals. Many cultures, especially in the Muslim world, practice the custom of first-cousin marriage.

It's still gross... but scientifically, not as dangerous or bad as propagated.

[Blue_Chill]

32. That's just gross...sorry but ewwww.

You are defending siblings hooking up? Think of the dynamic you would be adding to the family unit by telling kids it's ok to fuck your sister/brother?

Sorry but I couldn't support that.

[trackfan]

52. Actually, first cousins can marry in 26 states.

see http://www.cousincouples.com

[formernaderite]

59. I would defend polygamy..as long as no children are involved...

I don't think the state or government should have a role in licensing relationships...period. Another DUer came up with a good solution...recognize all relationships as Civil Unions..then people can go to a religious institution if they want to get married.

[blondeatlast]

76. Please, no. Leave the restrictions for laws, not the Constitution.

[wuushew]

5. I would treat polygamy like incorporation

each member would share in property rights equal to their fraction. In case of custody battles biological rights would have preferance and the absolute maximum number of people allowed to marry would be defined by their ability to live under a common roof(no mass marriage moonie style fraud).

Really the only problem with legal polygamy would be poor Mormons who rip off child-welfare programs. Surely the additonal cost of this freedom could be had by increasing taxes on the rich?

[pnb]

9. The refutation is easy

Homosexual marriage and polygamy are two totally different concepts...there is no relation between the two so to say that one leads to the other is illogical.

Anyone who says otherwise is just guessing based on no facts whatsoever. How do you use logic to refute illogic other than to merely point it out?

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. We are changing the nature of marriage

Or at least we are trying. Once you change it, the question is what we are changing it to.

[mopinko]

29. the nature of marriage has been changing

throughout it's entire history. evolving along with society. it started out being about power and land. then it was about women as property. there is already pressure to allow polygamy, AGAIN. this whole arguement is a cause and effect red herring. both issues are a part of a re-evaluation of human rights and decency across the board. it's about freedom, which is messy. deal with it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. No, the nature has remained unchanged for hundreds of years

We are going to change it. The battle is what we are going to change it to. Ironically, based on some of the comments here on DU, it seems the right wing is correct. That the slippery slope DOES apply here and, once gay marriage is approved, polygamy will be the next battle.

So I urged a Constitutional amendment only allowing two adults to marry.

There are limits to freedom. The limits come into play when the actions harm others or society, which polygamy will do.

[mopinko]

34. sorry, you are quite wrong.

you don't know your history.

[Muddleoftheroad]

35. Yes, I do know my history

The nature has indeed remained unchanged. The attempts to change it were beaten back. The Mormon polygamy attempt for example.

[mopinko]

36. well you can did so did not till you are blue in the face

but you remain extremely wrong. marriage as legal contract that commoners can enter into is less than 300 years old. marraige as we know it was certainly unknown to native americans. no fault divorce is a legal evolution of the past 30 years. try google.

[Muddleoftheroad]

39. The nature of MARRIAGE has remained unchanged

For hundreds of years.

You make my point.

My point is not about its disolution.

[mopinko]

42. what part of wrong are you not getting?

the history of marriage is one of constant change. try google. seriously.
repeating your self over and over does not make you right. it may, however, make you a republican.

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. The history of everything involves change sooner or later

The nature of marriage has changed but not in hundreds of years.

[mopinko]

50. wrong wrong

it has not even existed at all for "hundreds of years". 300 years ago, it was the consolidation of landholdings of wealthy families. the actual individuals involved, especially the women, did not really have anything to say about it. kin marriage was the norm. it was not available to commoners at all. as little as 50 years ago, most women had no say in when or who they married. their fathers had legal standing to annul a marriage that they did not support. and i don't know how you can say that the ability to divorce does not change the nature of marriage.

seriously, really, google the history of marriage, and READ. the history of marriage is one of CONSTANT change and evolution. in fact, across cultures today there is a huge variety of possible legal forms of marriage.
so, i guess getting back to the original question of this thread, it is impossible to refute anything with some people, no matter how many facts you have on your side.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

72. Dissolubility (or lack thereof) IS an attribute. A very important one.

Hell was raised in many places over the right to divorce and remarry. In Brazil, we only got it during the 70's. And yes, the Church invoked tradition and spewed all sorts of fake arguments INCLUDING slippery slope.

[outinforce]

48. How Does Polygamy

harm society or others?

[mopinko]

56. not that i am opposed to it being legal

but it causes an excess of unattached males. this causes a lot of trouble and instability.

[outinforce]

58. And Why Do Unattached Males

And why do unattached Males (of which, by the way, I am one) cause "lots of trouble and instability"?

[mopinko]

61. because it is hard for them to get laid

of course. and therefore hard to pass along their genes, except by slipping them into another man's wife. when men have too many doubts about the parentage of their offspring, it really does undermine the family. and unattached males are responsible for the majority of crimes in all societies. nothing against you, personally. read- the moral animal- robert(?) wright,. evolutionary psychology. fascinating subject.

[outinforce]

65. I Think You Have Just Dissed

a whole gender (males) and a whole group of that gender (unattached males).

I think you are suggesting that males have a need to pass along thier genes. This will come as REALLY big news to me and to all of my gay buddies. We sit around all day and night feeling really, really frustrated because we don't impregnate women. And we secretly try to figure how to "slip our genes" into other men's wives -- secretly, of course, because slipping our genes into ANY women would make our gay buds think that we really weren't gay.

And I can't tell you how many unattached gay men I know who go out and commit all sorts of vile crimes -- again, because they can't get their genes passed along.

I will look for the book you suggest. It must make for fascinating reading.

[mopinko]

77. don't get your shorts in a knot.

no disrespect intended. the field of evolutionary psychology looks at human behavior through the lens of evolution. ie. what human behaviors evolved to further the ends of genetic survival. answer, pretty much all of them. it is a pretty complex subject. i can't really write the whole book for ya here. but the question of the "gay gene" is a BIG conundrum. especially since the gamble of certain paternity is a major issue as well.
but it is an undisputed fact that unattached males- gay, straight, whatever, account for the majority of crimes in all cultures.
i am not a big expert. but i do find the subject fascinating, and find that many of life's big questions have a plausible answer when looked at from "the monkey angle"

[mondo joe]

69. Slippery Slope the Amendment Instead. It works - I tried it.

If we can amend the Constitution to define marriage in this way, what's next?

That marriage is only between two people of the same religion?

Of the same race?

Is the next amendment that divorce is outlawed?

Or that you need the approval of a church to marry?

Or of a certain type of church?

[outinforce]

12. Not A Flame

But I would point out that the items you mention are merely legal issues that would have to be worked out if polgamous marriages were to become legal.

Take your first question, for instance, "Who has parental rights over any children we have? Just the bio parents? All of us? What about custody in the event of divorce?"

TO a straight person contemplating the possiblities of legalizing gay marriages, this very question couild be used to suggest that gays -- who by themselves can never have children -- should not be allowed to marry.

Any yet, in the case of children adopted by gay people, the issue is resolved.

In the same way, if polygamous marriages were to become lega, all of the issues you pose could -- and would -- be resolved.

Difficulty in addressing legal issues is no reaason to deny people their civil rights.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. Are you arguing for the civil rights of polygamists?

[outinforce]

22. Yep

They have just as much right to be married, in my view, as monogamous adults.

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. A good reason for a Constitutional amendment

Defining marriage as between two adults (with the incest limitation).

[wuushew]

26. No more Confederate style weddings then?

Adults as in 18 send me to Iraq via the draft 18?

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. Confederate style weddings?

Either that's a slam at the South or I'm missing my guess.

[ihaveaquestion]

27. OK by me - but Bigamy is already illegal.

Does anyone know how the laws are written in most places?

[Hamlette]

40. are you willing to pick up the costs of polygamy?

Here in Utah the vast majority of polygamist families receive public assistance. It is not an ecomocially viable arrangement. It is not at all uncommon for a polygamist family to receive $60,000 per year in assistance.

[wuushew]

41. You could check the Defense budget

plenty of money there.

[Hamlette]

63. yes, plenty of money could be saved by cutting defense

but, sick as this may sound to some of you, I'd rather it go back to me than to support a life style choice which has no hope of supporting itself.

[outinforce]

47. Do They Lie in Order To Receive The Benefits?

Do the people polygamous families lie in order to receive public assistance? Or do they tell the truth, and are still entitled to receive the assistance?

If they commit fraud (that is, lie) in order to receive the benefits, then that is something the government should act on.

If, however, they legitimately receive the benefits, then I don't really see how this would differ from a person who has a large number of children and is thereby eligible for public assistance.

on edit: I willing pick up the cost of large families -- that is, I pick up the cost of people who have lots of children. Why would you suggest that people who wish to exercise their basic civl rights should be denied public assistance? Of course, I would be willing to pick up the cost of polygamous families. They would merely be exercising their basic civil rights.

And, come to think of it, do you not think that there will be additional costs associate with gay marriages?

[Hamlette]

66. I'm talking about the ones they get legitimately

and I'm talking about polygamist families with 30 children which is not at all unusual.

The poverty level for a family of 30 kids and 6 adults (5 wives) is about $96K, not many people make enough and many benefits are tied to poverty level.

You can pay for them. I don't want to. I think when possible people should make decisions that will put them in a position to support themselves. When they don't, I'm not happy about paying for it. I will forgive people who cannot provide for themselves. I will pay for people who make mistakes and want to move on.

These people think it is the right thing to do, to have 30 kids and let society pay for them. It might not be a huge amount of money but you are paying tens of millions of dollars annualy to support polygamists. A MUCH higer percentage of polygamist families are on welfare than the population at large. (At LEAST 50% of polygamists are on welfare and we think that number is ridiculously low for a number of reasons, we think it is much higher, versus 4% of the general population.)

[outinforce]

68. Excuse Me

But I have never found discussions of "welfare queens" to be particulary tasteful.

You know about "welfare queens", don't you?

Those are the people who "take advantage" of our public assistance. They are the people who some judge to be somehow unworthy of public assistance. They are the people who some think have the notion that is is the right thing to do, to have lots of kids and to let society pay for them.

Would you care to share with me your view of single moms who have five or six kids? Do you want to pay for their children? How many kids do you think a single mom should have before you determine that she has made one too many mistake?

Sorry, but we either have a social welfare system or we don't.

And we either give people -- all people -- their basic civil rights or we don't.

I'm in favor of basic civil rights for all -- and welfare for those who meet the qualifications. Are you?

[Mick Knox]

31. How does raising questions for the court

refute the position...

I think it will be up to the polygamist to take action.. and courts and legislature to ultimately decide. Maybe they raise a point..

I dont believe they are inherently interlinked...

I also dont believe you refuted anything.. you only raised problems that the court would ultimately face in any type of gov sanctioned union.

[NicoleM]

33. You're right.

My point was basically that they are not interlinked. They're two whole different things. I have no opinion either way on whether polygamy should be legal or not. Let the polygamists fight for it if they want it. I'm just saying, when people raise the polygamy argument, it's not hard to show how straight marriage has way more in common with gay marriage than it does with polygamy. So legal polygamy will not automatically flow from legal gay marriage.

[DemBones DemBones]

71. I agree that the original poster's arguments are not

refutations of the argument that if same sex marriage is made legal, legal polygamy will soon emerge as the agenda of a segment of the population, some of whom (Mormons, Muslims) have religious reasons for desiring legalized polygamy. Remember that a man has recently been on trial for polygamy in Texas (?) I'm not sure what the status of the case is now but some months ago his lawyer was planning to use the Texas court's overruling the anti-sodomy law to bolster his case.

I'm no lawyer but I think it will be found relevant -- and the Massachusetts ruling on gay marriage more so. I am no RWer, either, but I believe that it is very likely that if same sex marriage is legalized, and the ruling upheld by higher courts, we will see suits for the legalization of polygamy and probably for other unusual marriages, too, perhaps including arranged marriages in which one or both of the partners are young children (8-10 years old, I'd say.) Such marriages are already a part of the culture of a segment of our population, the"Irish Travelers" (AKA Gypsies or Romanies.)

There are legitimate reasons to believe that an attempt to give equality to gays' relationships in the context of traditional marriage will lead to some unwanted sequels. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but I'd hope ways can be found to prevent the unwanted sequels such as polygamy, child marriage, marriages between first cousins, siblings, even parent-to-child marriages and other marriages of children to adults, perhaps polygamous ones. Here's hoping some very good lawyers are at work on this.

[Astarho]

78. Small correction

Sorry to go OT, but the Irish Travellers are NOT Romany or Gypsy. While both groups share a semi-nomadic lifestyle often outside of mainstream society, they are from two completely different ancestries.

[NewJeffCT]

38. How about this for refuting?

Polygamy, incest & bestiality are illegal for EVERYBODY. It does not matter if you are black, white, green, gay, straight or bi, or something else. You just can't do it.

Marriage, under the proposed amendment, would now be permanently illegal if you are gay.

[Brotherjohn]

44. Exactly. The issue is equal protection.

Banning gay marriage denies rights afforded heterosexuals. Thus, the equal protection clause of the constitution is violated. Polygamy is illegal for everyone (just as any number of other actions are; murder, theft, vandalism...). There is no equal protection issue at stake with polygamy.

To equate gay marriage with polygamy, bestiality, etc. as Rep. Musgrave did the other night on Larry King, and as backers of the "slippery slope" argument continue to do, is simply bigotry at it's worst.

The point is, you can't make something legal for one group of people and illegal for another, simply by virtue of who they inherently are (minority race, female, homosexual, etc.).

[outinforce]

51. Easy

YOu appear to be saying that marriage should be open to anyone, regardless of race, color, and sexual oreintation.

But you appear to wish to define sexual orientation in a way that includes gay, straight, and bisexual people, but excludes others -- and it certainly excludes people whose total affectional needs are met by more than one person.

Why you do this, I cannot guess. I would hope that it would not be out of some irrational fear of polyamorous folks. Because I think that owuld be the same sort of bigotry that gay folks have endured for a number of years, and which has kept us from having out basic civil rights assured.

I have no desire the deny basic civil rights to polyanmorous people, and I see no valid reason for doing so.

[MAlibdem]

45. Slippery slope arguments in general are crap

And fallacies

[Muddleoftheroad]

46. Funny they always seem to work for OUR issues, just not THEIR issues

Slippery slope is constantly used in abortion, for example.

[yellowcanine]

53. People on all sides resort to the slippery slope argument but

it still is not a valid debating tactic so it doesn't need "refuting". It deserves to be treated like its cousins Red Herring and Straw Man - ignored.

[Brotherjohn]

55. You have to at least be on the same slope, though.

The people who want to outlaw abortion and go about it by making certain types of abortion illegal clearly have the goal of eventually making all types of abortion illegal. They see a compelling need to protect the unborn and can at least make a argument in principle that unborn fetuses and embryos have a right to life just as we do (whether or not you agree with that argument).

The people who want to make gay marriage legal clearly are NOT interested in making any imaginable form of union between any number of people and/or animals legal. There is no constituency for this, there is no principled argument for it, there is no compelling need or public desire for it. They merely want the same rights that others have. It is, as I said above, an issue of equal rights and equal protection. It is not an issue of the "definition of marriage".

The abortion issue is pivots between the goals of making it completely legal and completely illegal. The gay marriage issue pivots between the goals of making it completely legal and completely illegal. To say that legalizing gay marriage would be a slippery slope towards legalizing polygamy and bestiality is like saying outlawing abortion would be a slippery slope towards outlawing consensual sex among adults. You're jumping over onto a completely different slope.

I haven't ever heard any reasonable advocates for choice make that argument about abortion.

[Muddleoftheroad]

64. Clearly some do indeed

Have the goal of making either anything legal or ending the state sanctioning of marriage entirely.

I did not mention bestiality and see no relation since that does not involve consenting adults.

[Brotherjohn]

70. Well, others (incl. the sponsor of the amendment in Congress now)...

...Rep. Musgrave), have mentioned bestiality as well as polygamy in making the "slippery slope" argument.

Yes, "some" may have the goal of legalizing polygamy. But my point is, that is jumping to another issue entirely. You say bestiality has no relation (and I agree), but I say polygamy has no relation either. We are talking about a union between 2 consenting adults, which is very different from a union between a potentially unlimited number of consenting adults (read many of the points above which highlight the differences, from a standpoint of greatly complicating the civic issues involved).

Some have said that the slippery slope argument is invalid logically. But we are not speaking of logical arguments here. we are speaking of political arguments, and political realities. If abortions of some types are outlawed, it makes it easier for activists, and courts, to further to restrict that right. There is a large political constituency, and much political pressure, pushing for outlawing abortion. That makes it, in reality, a slippery slope.

While "some" may favor legalizing polygamy, there is no large constituency pushing for it (and likely never will be). Therefore, it is not, in the real world, a slippery slope.

[Muddleoftheroad]

73. Both are unions of consenting adults

They are linked.

And we don't need a major constituency pushing for it for the courts to rule.

[Brotherjohn]

74. No, but merely because they are linked does not mean that they...

...are the same.

Yes, a court could rule without a large constituency backing it. But my point is that in the reality of the political world, and simply in the real repercussions of it, polygamous unions present a host of different (and more complicated) problems if they were legalized as civil unions. See the very first post by the initiator of this thread for some examples.

Legalizing gay marriage would not create a single difference in the way any aspect of civil rights entailed in a civil union/marriage were exercised, except in that people of the same sex would be allowed to participate.

We're getting a little far afield from the abortion analogy, but my major point is that, in practice, gay marriage and straight marriage are alike, whereas gay marriage and polygamy are very different things.

[DemBones DemBones]

75. Regarding slippery slopes, polygamy, and bestiality,

The US could easily find itself in a situation of having polygamists constituting a significant segment of the electorate.

Here's how:

1) Immigration of Muslims continues.

2) American Mormons who practice polygamy have one or more settlements across the Mexican border and could decide to return.

3) Some percentage of American Mormons who are not currently polygamous may well have a desire for it, as may some Americans without Muslim or Mormon heritage.

In regard to bestiality:

A few years ago, I saw coverage on CNN of a peculiar hearing or trial in a small court in New England. I believe the man was charged with cruelty to animals, the complaint being brought because his regular sexual "partner" was his dog. He was arguing that the sex was consensual and in the context of marriage; that he and Lady considered themselves to be married, though the law would not grant them the right to marry. He admonished the court to refer to his "wife" as Mrs. John Doe, or Lady Doe, not simply as Lady. He maintained that it's speciesism to refuse to allow him to marry his, er, Lady love Maybe there'll be a coalition between PETA and NAMBLA?

We live in interesting times.

[uhhuh]

80. And?

As far as polygamous relationships go, I think that consenting adults are entitled to do as they please.
As unpalatable as this may seem to some, I also believe that ANY two or more adult people, who are determined to be of sound mind, and are doing so willingly, should be allowed to marry.
Yes, that includes relatives, even though I don't think I would do it, if someone else wants to do it, it not my place to say no. I am a little leery of the idea of parent-child relationships or other close family couplings where one had responsibility for raising the other, since the parent, or care giver, having raised the child may have undue influence, and for that reason there may be some question as to whether they are actually giving free consent, but if people are adults, I don't see it as the end of civilization if a very few strange couplings take place.

In the matter of bestiality, I think it would be impossible to prove consent from a dog, or any other animal. That guy claiming that he and his dog are in love doesn't make it true because he said so. I could train a dog to walk on its hind legs, but that doesn't mean it's what the dog wants to do. I think that those relationships could be reasonably curtailed. The same for inanimate objects.
If anyone thinks that there will be an explosion in these kind of relationships, I think their reaction is coming from a place of hysteria.
The majority of people, we are so often reminded, are very traditional in their views regarding relationships. I don't think allowing others to make up their own minds will "convert" very many into some strange new arrangements.
As to the point of the complications that would arise from allowing polygamous relationships, (custody, benefits, etc.) Things that change the status quo will have to be dealt with. Changes would have to be made. That's true of any monumental change. Ending state sanctioned, race based discrimination required numerous revisions of statutes. The institution of an income tax has created piles and piles of new laws and regulations.

The fact that these things would be difficult to legislate, or that they go against what appear to be, ugh, "traditional values", does not mean that they should not be considered.
I don't think the correct response to the polygamy slippery slope is to say that, of course, we would never allow THAT. I think a better one is to say, "so what?"

To those who are concerned about genetic issues that might arise from familial couplings, I again say "so what?". Are we to next pass eugenics laws that say that people with genetic defects can't be married? How about laws stating that smoking or drinking during pregnancy is a crime? Or not eating properly? Federally mandated doctor visits? I think any of these categories are as equally likely to result in genetic problems for offspring.
The answer is so hard to say, but so simple. Keep your prejudices to yourself and let others do as they wish with their lives.
I wish people would stop being so afraid to let others live their lives because they think what they do is 'icky'.

[mopinko]

57. our ? do you have a mouse in your pocket?

[Hammie]

62. Ask a gun owner.

They'll be happy to tell you what B.S. slippery slope arguments are.

[outinforce]

67. Or Someone Who Supports

abortionj rights.

I never hear the "slippery slope" argument from them.

[Nikia]

79. I agree

To allow gay marriage, the law only has to be changed to allow people to marry without regard to sex. To allow polygamy would allow big changes in marriage law. However polygamy would be written, it probably would not make all who participate in polygamy happy because there are various versions of it historically and lived by American polygamous groups ranging from patriarchal one man as head of household with many subordinate wives to egalitarian bisexual groupings.
I do think that it might be a bad thing if many people participated in polygamy as far as sex ratios if for example they were mainly one man/many wives and the financial advantage of such groupings. It could also be bad for children, particuliarly in case of divorce. They would probably give preference to biological parents but it could really hurt the children, especially if they were raised mainly by a non biological parent. For example, it might be advantageous for a man-woman-woman grouping to have one wife work and the other be a stay at home mom and take care of the other woman's children.
This might sound ignorant but do polyamourous groups (as opposed to male centered polygamy) really want to be legally married? Most that I have run into think that legal marriage is limiting.
I suppose that this does run into what is the definition marriage. I suppose that it fairly recent that marriage is thought of as a union of equals who love one another. There are people who are married today who married neither as equals nor because they were "in love".
There was also a time and also in other cultures when close friends declared their love and devotion for another but did not have sexual relationships with each other and this was not considered homosexual, adulterous, or a relationship that was a threat to their marriage even if they cared for one another as much or more than their spouse. These relationships were considered important and the friend was often part of the family. This was not marriage though.
I do not think that gay marriage has to change the legal definition much especially for those who are not so hung up on gender difference. Polygamous marriage would change the legal defintion and social defintion for sure.