i understand. it resembles the 'slippery slope' argument.<quoted text>While child brides and other such issues aren't inherent to poly relationships, they have been part of the baggage brought to the court by those who have been challenging Utah's law against such relationships.
Opponents of equality in marriage like to bring up red herrings like poly relationships and even people way too friendly with the animal kingdom as a way of saying it ain't really us they're against, but if they allow us to marry, look at what else they're going to have to allow. When the subject comes up, I usually just explain to them why bans against legal poly relationships are constitutional in their own right and try to get them back on the actual subject. Some people, like the one I was responding to, require a little more explanation..
i myself am not against approaching looking at the 'slippery slope' argument on any subject. but like any other argument there would have to be proof of a connection.
in other words those that claim if we allowed gay marriage nationwide it would open the door to beastiality i would have to see real proof of this and not just a reactionary fear.