Sorry, Squid, "being gay" has never been "extreme". There have ALWAYS been huge numbers of gays and bisexuals in society. In some societies, at some times in history, same-sex relationships were considered normal, and certainly NOT "perversion". By contrast, the couplings that you proposed are either extraordinarily rare or non-existent.
My point is, why draw a line of any kind if you are all about freedom. What makes you define something as extreme? Why is that wrong and the other right? Sounds like you are rolling with the times and simply bending rights and wrongs for other reasons.
From my reading of your comments, it appears that what troubles you most is the absence of absolute, no-exceptions rules, laws, or values.
"Why draw a line of any kind?..."
Because that is what human beings do! We attempt to make intelligent distinctions to arrive at reasoned and fair judgments.
I previously used the the following example: in law, morality, and consequences exacted, we make a distinction between: (a) murder, (b) manslaughter and (c) killing in self-defense --- even though all 3 involve taking human life.
If tomorrow morning I read a newspaper article about you having shot and killed a burglar in your home, should I thereafter describe you as a "murderer"? Is that a fair and accurate description?
Should you be subject to punishment as a "murderer"? Should you be perceived as a criminal because you "murdered" someone? NO! Because we make distinctions between the MOST EXTREME option (murder) and the other LESSER options. WE DRAW A LINE between the 3 situations that ALL involve taking human life.
Can we arrive at ABSOLUTE and INFALLIBLE judgments. Of course not. But Americans believe in inclusion and expanding liberty and they believe in the value of individuals---and not maligning entire categories of people whom are total strangers.
I asked you if you would allow your daughter to be one of 30 wives. Why not?
In your judgment, when we confront public policy decisions should we expend our intellectual energy on debating the LEAST-LIKELY possibilities? Or on the most probable scenarios? IF you could provide ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that there were large numbers of American men who wanted to have "30 wives" --- THEN and ONLY THEN -- would I be willing to expend energy debating whether or not a proposed law should take that situation into account.
I return to a previous analogy I used. I live very close to my city's airport. It is POSSIBLE that a jumbo jet will crash into my home (especially this week---terrible weather). But I DO NOT organize my thoughts, behavior, and decisions around that "possibility". Similarly, I would not expend any intellectual capital on the EXTREME hypotheticals you propose. Instead, let's concentrate on the primary issue before us. THAT IS DIFFICULT ENOUGH!