I'm not trying to start a "slippery slope" arguement here.

"If we let gays have marriage, then what's to stop (fill in the blank)"

But, what about the issue of polygamy?

For starters, I think polygamist have been arguing for their "rights" longer than gays have anyway, so you can't really say granting legal recognition of plural marriage would have resulted from any sort of "slippery slope."
It's been around in our society pretty much since this country was founded, whereas gay marriage has become a topic of wide debate only in recent years.

Frankly, I'm sort of on the fence about it, but I lean toward thinking it should be legal.

After all, if three -- or more -- consenting adults want to have a marriage together, who are we to say a man can't have more than one wife... or a woman more than one husband?

Why do you think plural marriage is illegal in our society? Is there good reason for it being illegal -- or is it just more social stigma restricting the choices of consenting adults?

Of course it's social stigma.

There are a couple of problems I can see with polygamy. I don't know how they can equally divide death benefits to multiple spousal survivors...especially in terms of S/S, pensions, etc. What would keep a man from marrying his babysitter when the wife is away for the weekend, only to return home and find she's married?

But, I don't care if more than one person wants to marry. As Ben said, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

...and, just for the record, gay people have been partnering as long as polygamous marriage has been around - LOL - probably far longer

Tristan, I never said they weren't partnering. I said the issue of whether to recognize gay marriage is very recent, whereas polygamists have been openly requesting legal recognition since at least the founding of the Mormon religion.

If science, you know, the professionals, can get this to work
Scientists seek to create 'three-parent' babies - 19 October 2004 - New Scientist

Why not. We all know how our "professionals" follow ethics and all.
BBC News | EUROPE | Test-tube 'incest' sparks French outrage

Not to mention in Canada we have the 3 parent child already.
Equal Marriage For Same-Sex Couples | D's 3 parents: ABC's of family law udpated

Might as well apply the law equally to heterosexual couples.

"F" it.

3 legal parents. This child has two legal mothers and a father. No step-parents here. That is the difference.

Here's another recent U.S. case.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/may/07050203.html

If a child can have 3 legal parents, what rule is there that limits marriages to 2 people?

Once marriage is redefined to accommodate homosexuals there is no rational basis to deny polygamy, incestuous marriage, or any other variation.

Heaven help the poor children who get dragged through this mire.

The real question remains how can a society enforce it's commonly-held moral values and still claim to be free.

Once we remove the moral fabric of a society, whether its based on religious values or something else, there really is no limit. Anything goes.

The US has its fair share of morality-based laws just like any other civilised society.

Examples include bigamy, polygamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, public masturbation, adultery, public fornication, bestiality, public nudity, internet gambling and obscenity.

Once the basis for moral values is conceded there is no reason to make any of these illegal.

The change is that all three people are lega parents with the same rights as biological parents. Before, one parent had to release his/her rights before the step-parent could assume the role. The step-parent couldn't just adopt the child. That is no longer the case. It is as if the child has 3 biologic parents. As yet an unnatural occurence.

isn't it interesting that the moral-based laws that garysher endorses all have to do with regulating others' sex lives?

perhaps because he has none of his own, it gives him time to obsess about others'?