From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed May  7 11:18:35 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 472AF37B401
	for <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org>; Wed,  7 May 2003 11:18:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (Haldjas.folklore.ee [193.40.6.121])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B81F43FBF
	for <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org>; Wed,  7 May 2003 11:18:34 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee)
Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by haldjas.folklore.ee (8.12.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h47IIW6U080054;
	Wed, 7 May 2003 21:18:32 +0300 (EEST)
	(envelope-from narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee)
Received: from localhost (narvi@localhost)h47IIVxq080051;
	Wed, 7 May 2003 21:18:32 +0300 (EEST)
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 21:18:31 +0300 (EEST)
From: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee>
To: Pete Ehlke <pde@rfc822.net>
In-Reply-To: <20030506175400.GA28671@rfc822.net>
Message-ID: <20030507211528.M40030-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Senator Santorum
X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Non technical items related to the community
	<freebsd-chat.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat>,
	<mailto:freebsd-chat-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-chat>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-chat@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-chat-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat>,
	<mailto:freebsd-chat-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 18:18:35 -0000


On Tue, 6 May 2003, Pete Ehlke wrote:

> On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 10:23:42AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> >
> > "And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex
> > within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to
> > polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery.
> > You have the right to anything."
> >
> > You can find more context here:
> > http://www.ncsfreedom.org/news/bigotedsen.htm
> >
> > The annoying thing about what he said from the standpoint of the gay
> > rights folks is that he's right. It really is a slippery legal slope.
>
> I know I'm going to regret this, but...
>
> Please explain the slippery slope that lies between consensual sex among
> adults who are not married to one another and bigamy and polygamy,
> which are marriage to multiple partners. I really, really don't follow
> that one at all.
>

This would mean you first have to explain why bi- or polygamy are
or should be illegal. Its even trickier in the US, where 'unmarried
cohabitation' is still a crime in many states...