I've received a couple of e-mails from folks asking what I have against polygamy. One even came from someone who is adamant that gays should not be allowed to wed but thinks one man should be able to be married to as many women as will have him at one time.
Tell you the truth, I have no opinion, positive or negative, about polygamy. The issue has never come up anywhere near me. I know lots of gay couples but as far as I know, no couples of any sort that are triples or quadruples or any other multiple, nor do I know of any who long to be. If it ever becomes a real issue, I'll try to decide how I feel about it.
My point obviously was that laws can be rewritten without opening them up to fantastic, overstated scenarios. When we had the debate in this country about lowering the voting age from 21 to 18, the only argument against it seemed to be, "Well, why stop at 18? Why not 16? Why not 10? What's to stop us from lowering the age so much that embryos are voting?"
Well, we lowered it to 18 and I haven't even heard anyone propose lowering it to 17, let alone sending ballots to zygotes.
I am real suspicious of "slippery slope" arguments. Once in a while, you hear a valid one…where the descent down that slope is obvious and a logical extension. Most of the time, you hear them when the person can't make a case against some proposal so they make it against something that might occur as a result. You want there to be a stoplight at the corner. I don't but I can't explain why. So I argue that once you build a stoplight there, you're opening the door to them building a nuclear reactor there…or something. The point is we can let two people of the same gender marry without letting 33 people all marry each other plus the Budweiser Clydesdales.