If we were to write down all the sexual arrangements — excuse me, "lifestyles" — that could be named, and then organize them by similarity, marriage and homosexual behavior would be about as far apart on the paper as we could place them. On the left side of the page would be sodomy, lesbianism, bestiality, pedophilia, orgies and casual "hookups." Way over on the right side all by themselves would be celibacy and marriage.

On this continuum, polygamy would be closer to monogamous marriage than homosexual behavior would be. And I suppose I need to say here that I am not endorsing polygamy in the slightest. God created Adam, then formed Eve — not Eve, Rita, Mabel and Betty. Yes, polygamy was condoned in the Old Testament, but if we take time to read the narratives we'll learn that it invariably brought alarming consequences. The point is that, even when our Creator allowed polygamy, He condemned same-sex sex.

One objection to "gay marriage" is that, if homosexual commitments are to be called marriage, then there's no reason to deny marriage to any collection of people, animals, or other beings. Once the paradigm is about "rights" being "denied," rather than qualifications being recognized, there is no logical limit to the differences that can be declared "equal."

This has been dismissed as a "slippery slope" argument, but it isn't. On a slippery slope, polygamy would be much higher on the hill than the matrimony of two persons of the same sex. A slippery slope argument would be, If we allow one man to marry several women, it won't be long before one woman wants to marry several men. And if both of those are OK, what is to prevent two men from marrying two women? In that case, the two men are married to each other (as well as to the women), and we will have arrived at homosexual marriage. Going from "gay marriage" to polygamy would be moving up the moral slope. That is not this argument. This argument is that if the term "marriage" has no fixed meaning, then it has no fixed meaning. If you may revise the English language to suit your lusts, then on what basis can you say that others may not do the same? If a tail is henceforth to be called a leg, then a tongue surely is a kind of tail, and an ear will be discovered to be a tongue, and a dog is of course a rhinoceros.

But making nonsense of the language won't magically legitimize immorality.