For gay marriage/against polygamy — Page 2

why even engage the polygamy debate though, jrb, when it's posed in this way? your defense of gay marriage could have stood on its own, but you had to take the next step. that's what the people who make the argument are looking for. argue that they are distinct issues all ya want, but when you mention them in the same breath as you did in your quest to remove them from moralcentric value questions (good luck selling that one to anyone who you're trying to convince), you do exactly what those who make these kinds of arguments are predicting. pj's right (i fully expect the world to end...now! still here? hmmpht...) about not engaging in this debate. all you do is offer the opponents of gay marriage the opportunity to cherrypick your comments as evidence of their argument.

---

The simple argument is what is legal for one should be legal for all. If marriage is legal for heterosexuals, it should be legal for lesbian and gay people as well.

If polygamy is made legal, it should be made legal for all people, not only heterosexuals, not only for lesbian and gay people.

It really is that simple.

Now, to address some misconceptions.

Franklin asserted that, "Marriage means a connection, polygamy does not. It's pretty obvious. If you're married you have one partner." aspiringactress had this to say, "Polygamists are not in 1 more than two person relationship. They are in seperate two people relationships all at once."

There are many more people in polyamorous relationships than most people realize. They can take on a variety of forms, not the least of which is a joining in which more than two people share a loving, committed, connected relationship with the other parties, not just one other person. While a common example may show a polygamous man with multiple wives who do not share relationships among themselves, this is but one way in which polygamous relationships develop.

---

oh I see. I should just ignore the question even though the antigay politicians keep asking it and maybe it will just go away poof.

or I can take anything they have head on. i'm not afraid to argue this issue or any facet bogus or not that gets thrown with it. the issue is that simple to me. the antigay arguments are that weak.

and I won't lie and say I think polygamy and polyamory are immoral just to win my point. but i'm not fighting for polygamist's rights and while I posed the realm of questions I feel that debate should play on, I don't have any of those answers.

---

well, i'm not changing it.

and jerby, your overwhelming gallantry in the face of overwhelming bigotry is more than a mere mortal like myself can begin to comprehend.

---

"well, i'm not changing it."

The BWW equivalent of, "I'm taking my toys and going home"?!?

---

Well then take the Steelers logo out of your avatar. You are not worthy of the black and gold.

I keed, of course. I could care less about the Steelers.

My apologies for the brief threadjack.

---

well I didn't.

but i'll be sure not to engage in this debate with congress via a theatre message board just to be sure.

---

there's the ol' jrb. so modest, humble and willing to listen to other's viewpoints.

gay marriage won't be won in congress, it'll be won in small neighborhoods and little towns and places nobody's ever heard of where people realize that the way to win the debate is not through onerous legislation from washington, but by educating their neighbors and overcoming local prejudices. everytime the courts or the congress take up gay marriage opposition to it spikes in polls. education. even on theatre message boards.

---

Okay, I think I've got something to work with. Gay marriage is just expanding the current definition of marriage (just as it did for race, etc.). Polygamy would involve not only chanign the current definition, but other laws as well.
My customer is not against gay marriage per se, but wants an irrefutable argument that granting marrigae rights won't expand into polygamy, incestual relationships, etc.

---

well i didn't.

translation, "i'm right, i'm right, i'm right and i'll scream it loud enough so that with my fingers in my ears i can't hear you!"

but i'll be sure not to engage in this debate with congress via a theatre message board just to be sure.

who brought up congress?

---

"Magdalene, while I agree with Jerby's argument, I would be careful using the word "expand." That is exactly what conservatives don't want to do. They want to keep marriage for themselves.

Try explaining that it is simply a civil rights issue. When asked, most people would say that people deserve the same civil rights. Lesbian and gay people are simply asking for the same rights that other law-abiding, taxpaying citizens receive."

But what is to prevent polygamists from arguing that it violates their right to practice their religion? BTW, the person I am making the argument to is African-American, to be PC.

---

no, geek, i responded to his mention of congress. the posting of senator cornyn and reference to senator man on dog were not references to congressional debate, but rather to controversial statements made by both. that and the creepiness of the cornyn pic.

---

I don't have that answer for you, magdalene. you can argue against bestiality and pedophilia from a non moral pov by simply noting that in both those instances, you do not have a case of consenting adults.

that's why the questions need to be addressed on this matter. and they may have already in that it has been outlawed even for mormons. why was it outlawed? why besides 'morality'. that would be the answer.

---