Again?

You see, Attila, I do not personally have a problem against classical slavery. Or, slavery as practiced by the Hebrews. Suitably updated, maybe.

I do have an issue with race-based or class-based slavery. If Asians, Caucasians and Negroids can all sell themselves into slavery, then I don't see a problem.

Two caveats;

1. Such slavery must be debt or POW slavery. IOW, if the putative slave is a citizen/legal resident, his slavery must be voluntary. And registered, regardless.

2. Time limit/buy-out. There must be achievable, realistic conditions to release someone from slavery.

It needs to be seen what the definition of slavery is, to be sure. Declaring bankruptcy is a limited, legal form of slavery - amongst other things, you cannot possess or use a passport. So is income taxation.

Gays can already marry, that is, they can already promise to be sexually exclusive with one other person. They can do that any time. It's not what they're asking for.

What they want is for the state to provide material benefits on account of the relationship, and to force employers to provide material benefits on account of the relationship. The libertarian in me says no to that. As far as I am concerned, if an employer recognized only straight marriages, only gay ones, or only Mormon ones, and set employee benefits accordingly, that would be his inalienable right and should be recognized as such.

The other legal benefits of marriage can be handed out to any domestic arrangement without anybody caring.

Then, John, I assume as a good libertarian that you oppose state-sponsored marriage for straight couples as well.

It's my understanding that some Federal benefits remain out of reach for gay couples who do not marry, no matter how many attorneys they hire to write contracts between them.

Gregory, I believe what you're discussing in "indentured servitude." Please note that indentured servants have traditionally been treated, on the whole, even worse than slaves.

We can sign away some of our rights under some conditions but we cannot consent, as Children of God, to be "owned" by another human being.

Gregory, that form of "slavery" is called indentured servitude. Historically, it was a method by which one promised a certain length of service, typically 7 years, in exchange for passage to the New World.

Yes, yes, yes, and serfdom is not slavery either.

A difference without a distinction, if you ask me. Indentured servitude, working until May/June for the Feds (luckily for me, my taxes are so low it's more like Jan 15th), serfdom, slavery - all pretty much hinges on your definition of the term.

Debt slavery, captive slavery, marriage slavery (yeah, you can look it up, there are some though not many points of similarity) - again, my point is that a man should be allowed to 'sell' himself with the clear understanding that he should also be allowed to 'buy' himself back. Or did you not know that God, in the person of Jesus Christ, paid a dear price to redeem us from the slavery of sin? Is it not true that he who is a slave is free because of Jesus Christ, and he who is free is a slave unto the Lord? And that we are no longer our own people, but that we are the Lord's?

Since this is true in both a physical (in that whatever we do, we do for the Lord) and a spiritual sense (in that He is our suzerain), then slavery per se is not the problem - it's the discrimination that comes along with it that's the problem. That, and the inheritance of the status.