Not in the least. There are reasons that the government sponsors and advocates for marriage. This has nothing to do with discrimination nor "rights". It has to do with the things that marriage brings to society and why government would want to promote those things.
Please show how polygamy accomplishes these things.
I'd be interested in trying to answer this. Could you actually list some of the reasons the government feels the need to sponsor and advocate marriage please?
In regards to marriage in general, my position has long been stated on this board. The term "marriage" should be stripped from government completely, individual churchs should be free to "marry" whoever and however they want. Civil Unions should be allowed through the government to any two individuals due to the legal benefits such poses for people who are living together, wish an individual to be their default care taker or receiptient of property upon death, and other such things. This could be a loving couple, two siblings where one is taking care of the other, or two long time roommates who are happy living the single life and plan on staying in a house together for numerous years.
I understand and see the slippery slope here. Indeed, one could say that changing the definition of marriage from "One man and One woman of the same race" to "One man and One woman" brought us to the "slippery slope" that is the changing from "One man and One woman" to "Two people".
That said, does the fact that the repeal of segragationist marriage laws led us to the slippery slope of gay marriage being allowed nullify the correctness of removing the past law?
No.
One MUST be weary of the slippery slope. It is foolish to not at least acknowledged it HONESTLY and OBJECTIVELY.
YES, by stating that courts can CHANGE...and it is a change....the definition of Marriage then it DOES set the precident and create a "slippery slope" for further change in the future.
Those that refuse to acknowledge this because of the asinine point that those peddling this idea push it are themselves being asinine. It DOES set further precedent for in the future the legalization of polygamy or animal marriages or underage marriages or whatever else.
BUT
That does not mean those things WILL happen. While it perhaps makes them more likely then previously, it is like adding a pinch of sand to a Sand Dune. Perhaps that pinch WILL cause the avalanche, but more than likely that alone isn't going to do anything.
People who act like once we legalize gay marriage suddenly we're going to blink and men are going to marry horses and women are going to be in five person relationships with each other are being idiotic, emotional, hyperbolic to an extreme, and frankly irrational.
However, those that say that the slippery slope should not even be taken into consideration and state that it doesn't even apply AT ALL are ALSO being hyperbolic and irrational in the fear that if they at least admit the reality of things, even though the reality is not to the absurd point that others are pushing it to, that somehow it justifies the other persons position. It doesn't, but trying to ignore reality makes YOUR position look weaker.
Slippery slope alone does NOT justify removing the barriers for Gay Marriage anymore than the slippery slope arguments would justify NOT removing the barriars of segregated marriage law.
Slippery slope arguments must be taken into consideration, but the slippery slope alone should NEVER be the defining reasons why something is not turned into law...especially when dealing with something as tenuous as a potential fundamental right of the people.
Until the people on the right can have a cohesive, intelligent, mature discussion about why they oppose gay marriage outside of "OMG its going to cause polygamy to become legal" or "Next they'll be marrying dogs" and the people on the left can make a respectful, honest, objective argument without going "Naturally the conservatives just hate gay people" or "You would've wanted to keeps black segregated too" or "there's absolutely no way in the world this could lead to polygamy" then NOTHING is going to really be accomplished with this idea. Everyone wants to be a damn ideolog and no one wants to actually be respectul intelligent people that want to talk about their positions, respect that people may have differing opinions of them, and figure out an answer based on actual facts rather than hyerpbole or insults.
