Same sex marriage & Polygamy

Perfectly? No, but we all know that, and no argument is being advanced that suggests otherwise. But standards can still be more or less consistent, or generally consistent, or horrendously inconsistent. It isn't binary.

A "miracle" would not be necessary, because we're not talking about some mythical degree of consistency that is outside the realm of human comprehension. We're talking about a simple syllogism.

A "straw man" is an argument that's refuted in lieu of refuting the actual opposing argument being made, so I don't see how this would qualify.

The logic holds regardless of whether or not a given group of people acknowledge it. And nothing in it makes the case that same-sex marriage and polygamy are identical; just that a certain principle often cited in favor of one necessarily includes the other.

Also, are you suggesting that thinking clearly and rationally about things has no value unless the rest of society follows suits on the topic? Because that seems to be the implication of all these dismissals, and it seems a rather narrow way of viewing things, to put it nicely.

"Ever" is a very long time. Nevertheless, what I'm saying is not made any more or less valid by people's general attitude towards polygamy.

On the 'natural trends' end of things, monogamy is certainly massively rare amongst animals etc. (And there is a whole host of fascinating research done in these areas).

But seeing as I haven't been following the 'natural' argument here that closely, I'll just add this for now

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

Naw, not even a special chapter. Except for being the first ever to get a divorce, I'm the conservative one in my family. I've got a brother who's a real skirt chaser and has been married six times, twice as many as me.

Still, my brother and I are not all that different from most folks in this forum, except perhaps we have more curiosity about what may be waiting around the next corner, are more willing to take risks in our relationships, and have had more success in getting away with some things. We also may have higher expectations and less patience than some, although I was married to one woman nearly 25 years (lived with her about 23), had another relationship that lasted more than 10 years, and have been married to my current wife going on 11 years and with her 21 years. On top of that, I have never in my life had a 1-night stand. All of my relationships have lasted months or years.

My younger brother is somewhat more fickle, but he's the good-looking one and I was a late bloomer, kinda shy, but more romantic.

And except for the human animal, marriage is totally nonexistant among other species. Polygamy is not simply the opposite of monogamy; it involves actual marriage, which monogamy does not. Marriage is a social institution, endorsed by civil and religious authority and usually licensed by government. It is not in any shape or fashion a natural "urge" like the sexual drive among animals, including man.

Uh-oh. Sounds like you're on the verge of going beyond "nicely," Yoda. Well, no matter. It's obvious further discussion will not reconcile our disagreement. You're comfortable with your point of view and not at all receptive to my point that comparing homosexual marriages to polygamous relationships is like comparing grapefruit to grapes, in that there is medical evidence that homosexuality is not a learned or chosen state of being but a situation beyond one's choice. Therefore, marriage between people who have no choice in the determination of their sexual orientation is in no way comparable to polygamous marriages in which one person chooses to have multiple spouses at the same time. Presenting one issue as comparable to another issue that is more accepted or less accepted by the general public is a common trick in public relations, advertising, and propaganda. But among those of us who have studied such things, it doesn't make it "logical."

As for logic, do you envision polygamy being open to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals? Would it allow one man, for example, to marry six men, or even three men and three women (for those who swing both ways) instead of say six women? Wouldn't it therefore be logical, not to mention fair, to first permit homosexuals to have just one legal spouse, thus bringing them up to par with heterosexuals, before expanding heterosexuals' choices to multiple spouses? Or is discrimination against homosexuals to continue unabated? You see, my mind is completely open to a fuller extension of possibilities.

But I also recognize the logic of history. At times in man's more distant past, polygamy was embraced by general society to a greater extent than was homosexuality (although as I recall the Greeks and Romans tolerated homosexuality but did not practice polygamy, so general acceptance of both has varied from time to time and place to place). Still, I think I'm safe in saying that through most of our history there probably have been more societies, tribes, countries that have accepted polygamy than open homosexuality. However, the need for and acceptance of polygamy (as in long-warring nations where, because of losses, there were much fewer men and many more women of child-bearing age in a diminished population) has declined while acceptance of homosexuality has increased as it has become less feared and stigmatized, particularly in the more advanced countries. With the general trend over 100s of years being toward more acceptance and understanding of homosexuality and less acceptance and tolerance of polygamy, I submit that it is illogical to relate the current push for homosexual marriages to a potential revival of polygamous marriages (which has virtually no current public support), particularly in this country where same-sex marriages simply are not performed or recognized in most states but are not a criminal offense, whereas bigamy (marriage to two or more spouses) is a crime in virtually all states. I'm talking about today's society and the foreseeable future, not some hypothetical infinite extension of time embracing events and developments over several millennia we cannot even imagine--the "never say never" argument.

But that's just my opinion. You're welcome to yours.

I'm not sure I get your point. Monogamous marriage isn't natural, promiscuity apparently is (you've admit that yourself no?). So, why shouldn't people who do form relationships with multiple partners have a right to have those relationships legally recognized (other that having a second wife would be a pain in the ass, apparently, which isn't exactly a logical or legal ground against polygamous marriages)? *dense*

__________________
http://www.last.fm/user/diezelpower/

Nah, I do mean it nicely. It's just that there's no way to convey what I'm trying to say (and what I honestly think) without it sounding blunter than I mean for it to.

I'm actually perfectly receptive to your point that homosexual marriages and polygamous relationships are different, but that's a far cry from the general dismissiveness you first exhibited, where you suggested not that any line of thinking was wrong, but that the whole idea of considering it was pointless. I didn't -- and still don't -- understand why you were so keen to declare it some useless exercise simply because public opinion doesn't follow the same line of thought. I asked, somewhat rhetorically, whether we should really be making an effort to constrain our conversation to whatever is politically feasible in the foreseeable future, and I still wonder why you seem to think we should.

I'm sorry you feel I'm engaging in a "trick." adi presented a simple syllogism, and I concur with it, and I'm not sure how the issue of choice invalidates it, because the principle it was based around is independent of choice, anyway.

I don't "envision" anything, because I'm not going nearly as far as you seem to think I am. I don't think this will follow same-sex marriage, I think the standard arguments used to support same-sex marriage mean it should, if we follow them through to their logical conclusion. If the government should not be in the business of declaring one type of consensual relationship better or worse than another, I fail to see why choice -- which, in this context, is awfully nebulous and far from established, anyway -- would carve out an exception to that principle. It may be an excuse people use to permit one but not the other, but I think it'd be a pretty flimsy one.

I don't see that the arguments are completely the same for both things at all. Arguing for same sex marriage is not the same thing as arguing that all consensual relationships have equal validity and should be legally recognised. It depends, I suppose, on the view you take of marriage, but I see it as an equal partnership between two people, a celebration of their love and commitment to each other. The gender of the people involved doesn't alter the state and character of marriage. Having multiple spouses does, however, since however consensual the arrangement may be, it cannot possibly be an equal partnership or represent two people's commitment to one another.

ok, you get + rep for that one, even though i agree with ruf to a large extent, but for reasons we all know are far more narrow-minded. however your point is quite obvious i think, and i appreciate the acknowledgment, albeit as a hyphenated aside, that the issue is somewhat more murky than either/or. THATS why i both understand the logic of your point, and am still on the other side of the fence on this one.

nor do i think you both truly disagree.

1. from an abstract/academic/theoretical standpoint, even i [a person who believes that both homosexual and polygamous lifestyles are a choice] can agree that logic dictates that if "choice" be allowed, then all choice should be allowed.

2. from a practical standpoint i simply dont think polygamous marriage [as opposed to a polygamous lifestyle] can be supported by our current societal structure.

as has been stated, practically speaking, gay marriage can actually work within the confines of the current "marriage" system without straining/breaking it. polygamous marriages, on the other hand, would immediately break the bank, and call for an overhaul of the whole system.

logically? i honestly think we're on the same page.
practically? not at all.

having said that - carry on gentlemen!

Very few of us survive just one mother!

Seriously though, I'm for love wherever you can find it.

OK, where to start? Maybe by explaining my point of view:

It has been my experience that most people who try to link legalization of same-sex marriage to legalization of polygamous marriage are doing so primarily as an argument against legalizing same-sex marriage by implying that if you open the door to one, it won't be long before the other will be legal, too. To me, this is a fallacious argument, similar to such propaganda devices as wrapping the argument in the flag ("All real Americans agree with me on this") or citing authority ("Jesus cursed homosexuals"). We were taught to recognize and question propaganda ploys like that in Journalism 101. So to me, there is no "logic" to arguing an extension of same-sex marriage to polygamous marriages. To me, polygamy is the strawman through which by equating it, one attacks the real target of same sex marriage. The idea being that if you're for one then by extension you must be for the other, if one is acceptable, so is the other. But to me, that is illogical.

I start with the acceptance that the sex drive is a primary instinct among animals, including humans. I believe that most of us prefer sex with the opposite sex. But I also believe a large minority prefer homosexual sex. I do not believe any of us make a conscious decision at some point to be heterosexual or homosexual. I don't know what causes the different selection, but I strongly suspect it is something in our genes or DNA or the way our brains work--something beyond our control that pushes us in one direction or the other and is not a matter of simple choice.

Marriage on the other hand is not part of our natural physical, mental, or emotional make-up, not a natural urge or need but rather an invention of society, condoned by church and state. Through the issuance of licenses, the state decides which marriages are acceptable and which are not.

I accept that government has the right to say which consensual relationships are accepted and which are not, the same as it has the right to decide who qualifies for a driver's license, a pilot's license, to practice law, to carry a firearm, etc. But like many others, I believe most state governments are out of step with modern society on the subject of same-sex marriage, and I and others are partitioning for a change in the law. To my knowledge, no one is partitioning for repeal of the laws against bigamy. I would argue that the fact a sizeable portion of our population are in favor of changing the law on same-sex marriage while there is virtually no support for polygamy is a determining factor in any serious discussion of the two.

Now as I understand it, homosexuals want the same benefits of marriage as heterosexuals since it determines whether you're taxed as an individual or at the lower rate of a married couple, whether your spouse can be covered by insurance under your policy at work, whether your spouse is eligible to inherit your property or collect your benefits if you should die. Basically, they are saying, "Heterosexual couples get those benefits. Why are they denied to us?" And I think it's only fair that they have the same benefits that marriage bestows on a heterosexual couple. I know from experience people are more likely to stick around and try to make a marriage work rather than walk out on an affair. So I can see benefits to both the individuals and to society in same-sex marriage. And there are many, many homosexuals and heterosexuals advocating equal treatment for both groups. In the last 60 years, there has been increased understanding and acceptance of homosexuals in our society, including openly gay politicians, couples, and even the wink-wink of don't ask, don't tell among gay soldiers.

At the same time, there has been less acceptance of polygamy in this and other countries. None of our 50 states allow polygamous marriages, not even Utah, which was settled by polygamous Mormons. There is no political support for polygamy, no public push for its reinstatement. And I submit, no one has an innate urge to marry even one person much less multiple people at the same time. Marriage is a social invention and the limits are decided and proscribed by society. People are free to have sex with as many people as they can as long as they do not commit rape, incest, or have sex with an underage partner or at certain times in certain places, pay someone or take pay from someone to have sex with one. Marriage is more regulated, however, and most states limit marriage to one partner of one sex and one partner of the other. Many of those states at one time had laws against interracial marriages, but those laws were taken off the books because they weren't fair to interracial couples, just as now some are changing the law on same-sex marriage.

Moreover, polygamists are not being singled out for different treatment. Polygamy is illegal for everyone in this country regardless of a person's sex, race, or religion. Homosexuals are asking for an equal right to marry one person of their choice. Heterosexual polygamists want to go beyond their existing rights to another plane that cannot be justified today by a physical, emotional, or social need (Homosexual would-be polygamists would still be banned because of their sexual orientation). I think it's only fair to give homosexuals the right to marry one person of their choice before allowing polygamists to bag all the partners they want.

On top of that, women's rights have advanced much further than in the early 19th century when Polygamy was practiced by many Mormons. There has been a major movement in this and other countries away from male dominance of families and society. Trying to go "back" to polygamy, which was never the norm in this country, would have to fight upstream against what we see today as the roles and place of women in our society.

Polygamy is not acceptable among most US citizens, nor is it comparable to same-sex or any other form of marriage. I think one would have as much of a chance reestablishing slavery as polygamy. Therefore, introducing the subject of polygamy into a serious debate about same-sex marriage and trying in any way to equate the two is, I think, specious. Public acceptance and attitudes in a debate like this do matter.

Very good points, Mack, and a fair-minded summary. I think the biggest difference between me and Yoda--for whom I have a great deal of admiration and respect--is summed up in this quote of his:

"If the government should not be in the business of declaring one type of consensual relationship better or worse than another, I fail to see why choice -- which, in this context, is awfully nebulous and far from established, anyway -- would carve out an exception to that principle."

Thing is, the government should be in the business of determining who does or does not get a marriage license, who does or does not get a driver's license, etc. It's up to the government to protect individuals and society from child marriages and blind motorists, among others. It is not the government's business to be fair to everybody, only just. But I and many others think homosexuals generally have demonstrated that they are responsible enough to marry adult partners of their own choice the same as most heterosexuals. I think they are entitled to the same marriage benefits as heterosexuals and should be subject to the same risks. Homosexuals can have custody of their own children and even adopt. Why then can they not qualify to marry the partners of their choice instead of being discriminated against for their sexual orientation?

Right now, state governments are primarily just (and fair) in their treatment of heterosexuals who want to marry. I'd like to see them extend that to homosexuals who want to marry. That doesn't mean state governments also have to legalize polygamy or beastiality or man-boy marriages that would be harmful to some and offensive to most citizens. Same-sex marriage will be offensive to some citizens, as are interracial marriages. But it won't bother most of us or--as you pointed out--society in general, and in both cases the couples already know what problems they face in just being together. I think homosexuals deserve equal rights as heterosexual interracial couples, but the polygamists and other groups would require special rights, not equal rights.

Right on, Earl! I know what you mean!

There is no "natural drive" to marriage as there is for sex. Marriage (monogamous and in some places and times polygamous) is an invention of society, not basic to Mother Nature who only urges you to have sex whether you go through the ritual of marriage or not.

But I don't buy the old excuse that we guys in particular are hot-wired by Mother Nature to want to hump every female we see. We're driven to sex, but we have a choice of whether we want everyone who comes along or are happy with one special partner. That's what real love is all about, a special emotion unique to humans where we make a conscious decision to be faithful to one person or play the field. In some marriages, some make that choice everyday, but some are so happy with that one partner that they don't see anyone else. The emotion of love can be every bit as strong as the sex drive. So is the knowledge of right and wrong.

As one who has carried on sustained relationships with two or more women at once (but never under a common roof), I know people end up getting hurt, me and them but to different degrees. I never started out to hurt anyone--I was just looking for a good time and tried to make sure they had a good time too. Never said I loved them just to get them in bed, always told them I wasn't looking for marriage and that anytime it stopped being fun for either of us it was time to move on. But no one ever decides to cut and run at the same time; someone always is hurt when the affair is over, and I at least had the decency to feel bad about having hurt them. Although it didn't stop me from doing it again.

I actually believe in monogomous marriage as the best possible arrangement. Especially when children are involved. I always did my best to stay close to my children and be a father to them. I think polygamy cheats the multiple partners--usually the women--and their kids, because it says none of them are special to the man who's enjoying his various wives.

Bigamy is against the law in probably every state. Same-sex marriages aren't allowed in every state, but same-sex live-ins are not against the law. That's one of the biggest differences between the two.

you said it better in fewer words than I ever could.

.... just to whom? this was my initial over-arching point.

if we can all agree that we understand the more clear-cut logic v. practicality issue, we are then brought full-circle back around to the murkier grey issue of the "who decides what is just?" question.

the "logical" argument that the government should not discriminate between gay marriage and polygamous marriage (e.g. that allowing the choice of one necessitates allowing the choice of another) is not a theoretical problem for me, because i have never been inconsistent in my philosophy: i am not for gay marriage, nor am i for polygamy. that's my version of "just."

your version of just is different: it allows gay marriage and not polygamy. another person's version of just allows both.

i believe your position - while I wholeheartedly agree with it in large part, and while it is very empathic and has a general appeal - is on a far greater slippery slope.

...but then, i believe that was the point of this thread - i'd go so far as to say it was probably the sole reason why both issues were unnecessarily bundled into the same thread.

__________________
something witty goes here......

It's not a murky grey issue at all, Mack. State legislators decide what laws are made and unmade and are influenced by their constituents in the process. If people like me cause a big enough political stir that legislators fear the loss of their seats, they'll pass a law allowing same-sex marriage. If enough people like you convince them that they'll be voted out of office if they pass such a law, they'll maintain the status quo.

But there is nothing that obligates them to pass laws permitting poligamy, whether or not they approve same-sex marriage. That's a fallacious argument that opponents trot out to try to scare off anyone on the fence in this issue. "If we allow same-sex marriage, society will go to hell in a handbasket." There are a couple of states that today allow same-sex marriage, but no one has proposed that they also allow bigamy, which is the legal term for polygamy.

It's "logical" because you oppose both and because you don't want to acknowledge that government makes illogical decisions daily. In fact, the only people equating same-sex marriage with polygamy are the opponents of same-sex marriage. To allow the marriage of two people of the same sex, the state has only to remove the stipulation that marriage is limited to two people of the opposite sex. To legalize polygamy, the state would have to remove criminal statutes against bigamy. At no point is polygamy in any way similar to same-sex marriage, yet opponents keep trying to link the two.

It's easier to maintain your argument against same-sex marriage on some philosopical plain instead of applying it to the real world of practicality. According to your theory, if a youth can enlist in the Army and go to war at age 18, then by "logical" extension he should be able to buy and drink booze at 18 instead of 21. It would seem even more "logical" in that both cases apply to the same 18-year-old, where as same-sex marriage and polygamy as envisioned by most, addresses very different groups in very different circumstances and are not at all compatable in real life. I'm for same-sex marriage but every bit as much against bigamy as you are. And I see absolutely no risk of bigamy getting a free ride on the coatails of same-sex marriage. That's just not at all "logical" in the real world.

I don't see myself as inconsistent on this issue according to my philosophy of right and wrong.

You're consistant on this issue in that you oppose both, but I suspect that, like most of us, if you examine your philosophy on other subjects, they may not all be consistant with what you advocate in this case.

Anyway, I don't see this as a philosophical exercise in contemplating one's own navel. I live in the real world where the practicality of solutions does matter. Some of us support same-sex marriages. Only a nut-fringe would advocate doing away with laws against bigamy, and that is unlikely to obtain widespread support. Some states already allow same-sex marriage, so for all practical purposes, it's already a done deal. My cousin and her signifcant other went from Dallas to some New England state last summer to be married. So far, I haven't seen any cracks in society's foundation from that.

Surrendering one's freedoms to Homeland Security is a slippery slope. Allowing same-sex partners to obtain and exercise state marriage licenses merely extends existing law to remove discrimination against a large part of our population. To me it seems "logical" that since the states have corrected previous discrimination against interracial marriage, they should end discrimination against homosexual marriages. There is no slippery slope at the ballot box,

Que? Wow Ruf. In what language does what you just said appear to highlight a straightforward or easily applied process to you? You must define "Gray" differently than oh...just about everyone else. I believe you have just made my point, and to illustrate same, I have highlighted for you in pertinent part those words you've shared that I think signal "GRAY" or "MURKY" to me. I actually agree with every sentence in this quote but your first one, and the difference is that to me, your entire paragraph underscores the murkiness/greyness of the issue at hand. From a legislative standpoint the issue of marriage is currently fraught with political turmoil, and the matter of influence itself is a dicey thing. If words like "influence" and "politics" and "fear" dont signal "gray area" or "murky issues" to you, Im not sure we'll ever be on the same wavelength. Suffice to say that Merriem-Webster defines Gray in pertinent part thusly:

but just in case the meaning is unclear, here's the def for Murky:

IF what you suggest about the legislative process is true (and it is), it means that legislators do not make decisions based on what they truly feel/believe - instead, they make decisions based on public sentiment, which is always subject to change. So as advocacy groups go about to influence public sentiment, individual legislators are in the unenviable position of walking a fine line of public adoration or outcry, depending on the decision they make at that moment, and the palate of the public at the time. Once loved, now hated. Once hated, now loved.

You dont consider that a murky decision-making situation? I do.

I think you are missing the point. No one has ever suggested that the government is obligated to do anything. The point is simply an academic discussion of ethical soundness in application. Simply put, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Nor does your point that "only opponents of gay marraige would argue that one necessitates the other" track, because I would not place Adidasss in the "opponents" of gay marriage category, and unlike yourself, I think his point is also the academic point that allowing polygamy is logically inseperable from allowing gay marriage. Assuming one can surmount the practical and emotional hurdles accompanying polygamy, I agree. And that places us on opposite sides of both debates, because I'm not prepared to allow either.

Wow ruf, really? Consider it acknowledged. And, if you can, I'd like you to point out an instance where I have refused to "acknowledge that the government makes illogical decisions." You wont, because you cant. And I honestly think that generally, I am very accepting of, and candid about governmental mistakes and human error. Anyone who actually reads my posts knows that.

Hmmm. No. If you actually read my prior posts, you'll discover the only ones discussing the very real IMpracticalities of polygamy were you and me. In fact, I mentioned it BEFORE you, and your touching on the subject is the only reason I've been + repping you. Additionally, I've already clearly acknowledged in a previous post that gay marriage can practically fit within the current framework of marriage, as opposed to polygamy, which cannot. I have, therefore, applied my argument "to the real world of practicality," and I am hard-pressed to find a disagreement here.

Why not? Because bigamy is impractical? What that means, "logically" is that the moment it becomes practical, you'll agree with it as well. I honestly think that for some, the only real deterrent to bigamy is its impracticality. If not, and you base your anti-polygamous leanings on some personally held values or morals, then I submit to you that your arguments are nothing more than the flip side of the coin to mine opposing gay marriage - two peas in a pod, if you will. THIS is the logical argument - that [practicalities aside] any REAL proponent of gay marriage, must necessarily be a proponent of polygamy as well. Practical reasons aside, anything less is hypocritical.

That is your opinion of yourself. But academically (or philosophically), you are inconsistent in your acceptance of gay marriage and not polygamy.

You suspect? That's kind of a random generalization to make without tangible proof otherwise, dont you think? AS my old man always says "Talk what you know, and let the rest of it go!" No need to speculate on some inconsistency elsewhere - the one thing you DO know is that I'm consistent on this subject.

You dont see this as a philosophical excercise - fair enough. Granted, you do seem a very concrete person. But allow me: my mom once bought me a little wall hanger as a child, and it said "Great people talk about ideas. Average people talk about things. Small people talk about other people." I am as concerned with the concrete reality and practicalities as the next man - perhaps even more so. I do, however, also think there is real merit in also considering the larger abstract. This is what I am trying to say - not that I am unaware of your concrete reality - but that I am also willing to discuss future possibilities.

Agreed. But following that line of thinking, its also "logical" that it would then move to end discrimination against polygamous unions as well. If you dont see that, then your argument is short-sighted, and actually prejudicial. I'm completely comfortable with that, but are you? If not, how would you deal with the argument that the government is discriminating against adult consenting polyamorous (couples? groups?) who want joint/several medical, taxes, parental rights, etc.?

New issue, same tired old tune.

The concept and practice of elections, elected officials, and the legislative process is clearly defined and explained in the laws of the land. Nothing grey or murky about it.


Now you're making assumptions about other's motives in the same entry that you chided me about assuming anything about your philosophy. I think the evangelical sort of legislators sincerely believe same-sex marriage is a sin and will consistantly vote against it. I think homosexual legislators or those who have a large homosexual constiuentcy would likely vote for it because they think it is the right thing to do. The rest will do what they think is right in this matter but they'll also consider the wishes expressed by the people who elected them to represent that constiuentcy. Responding to the wishes of the people who put them in office is the basis of our whole electorial process. And if you think your elected representative is not adequately representing you, you vote for a better candidate in the next election. That's the black and white of politics.


And that is the natural way of things! At one time in the South public sentiment was that all blacks were inferior to all whites and it was God's will that blacks should be enslaved by whites. But laws were passed during the Civil War and enforced during Reconstruction that did away with slavery which had been the law of the land for hundreds of years. More legislation in the 1960s ended instutionalized segregation and discrimination against blacks. Now all of those changes are generally accepted throughout this nation. So yes, things change, and our society should reflect those changes rather than be set in stone.

But that's the primary difference between our positions, Mack. I don't see polygamy as the "gander" to the "goose" of same sex marriage. To me, they are birds of much different feathers, with no resemblence or connecting point at all. Claiming that legalizing polygamy is the natural extension same-sex marriage is to me like arguing that since people can access porn on the internet, it's a logical extension that they also should be free to access child-porn. But of course that's ridiculous because child-porn is a crime, just like bigamy. Same-sex marriage is not a crime, no one is going to jail for it. It simply is not recognized by the state as are heterosexual marriages. All I'm advocating is that the state recognize marriages between two consenting adults. Period. Without any specifications as to sex. Meanwhile, bigamy would remain a crime for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Now what is illogical about that?

Yet if you still think there's a logical argument about the relationship of same-sex marriage and polygamy, seems you are starting too far back in the chain. Seems to me the logic of that argument should start with heterosexual marriage. If the state is going to give its permission and endorsement to heterosexual marriage then it's only logical that it should extend it to same-sex marriage and from there to polygamy. Now that would be the full chain of your logical justification of marriages, it seems to me.

This sounds to me like the very argument you earlier denied you were making. I can see harm to individuals and the state, not to mention a hell of an impractical mixup on issues resulting from bigamy and polygamy. I do not see the same problems of extending the state's recognition and licensing of marriage to interracial couples or to same-sex marriage. I can be strongly for same-sex marriage and against bigamy because the two have no similarity. And polygamy is a crime. I'm not advocating opening the gates to any off-the-wall concept of marriages. I'm just advocating that homosexuals also should have the benefit of marriage, like any other legal couple.

My old granny used to say, "Wish in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up the fastest." Only she really didn't say "spit."

My pappy once bought me a bumper sticker that said, "The great truths of life are too big to be discussed on a bumper stick.."

Mack, I don't for a moment think you really believe this is simply about ending "discrimination against polygamous unions." You're much too bright to equate a criminal act to simply discrimination. And no matter how you slice it, bigamy is a crime. Has been for hundreds of years, is now, and I'm confident it will remain a crime for at least hundreds of years more. And after all my years on the police beat, I probably am prejudiced against criminals and something of a hardliner on crime.

Polygamous groups (if they were just a couple, they wouldn't be polygamous) are no more the subject of government discrimination than are bank robbers and drug dealers or any other criminal. It's a crime, same-sex marriage is not. No matter how you try, you can't get past that major basic difference.

But there's no sense beating this dead horse. Give me your rebuttal and I'll try to bite my tongue and let you have the last word. Still if it would make you feel better, I'll endorse your concept that polygamy might be a possible development from the legalization of same sex marriage. Doesn't cost me anything to agree with you, even if you doubt my truthfulness in this matter. After all, I know polygamy will never be legalized in this country under our current form of government.

I don't have any animosity toward you or Yoda or anyone else in this discussion. You see things one way, and I see them quite differently. But it's not just some abstract philosophical exercise to me, because I have a dear cousin and friends who are gay. These are good people and it hurts to see them discriminated against and compared with criminals simply because they are different from you and me.

Oy. Utah girl is too burned out on these subjects to comment.

__________________
Throwing my opinions where it's not asked for: http://popculturemaiden.com/
http://ultracashcourse.com/femideal