Polygamy will follow gay marriage

[LostOne4Ever]

20. We aren't many places

We are the US. We value freedom, liberty, and equality.

Im not playing fast and loose with words. You are the one trying to define the purpose of marriage. Possibility of children is NOT a given. Many couples are too old to have children, other dont want children, and when gay marriage passes the only ways for gay couples to have children is either adopt, find surrogates, or get sperm/egg donors. But they can and do have families, as do polygamists. Besides my "point" was to show you how your argument is identical to the one from the conservatives arguing against gay marriage.

What confusion? All of the possible legal situations that gay couples present have already been thoroughly expanded upon by heterosexual couples in their various situations. You are creating a false equivalency between gays and polygamists-- just as right wing homophobes do.

I used the word "confusion" because I was using your own words:

"As for your comment about the 'hassle', I personally don't find your glib dismissal of the mountain of legal and financial confusion resulting from legalized polygamy to be particularly conscientious or apt."

I am not creating a false equivalence between gays and polygamists, rather I see it as a "Freedom for you and me and not for thee" type of issue. Nor am I the one rehashing illogical conservative arguments against gay marriage and applying them to polygamists here.

"Its great that NZ only took four months to come up with the right use of pronouns on its forms. A shift to polygamy would take decades. Also, I live in Massachusetts-- the first state to accept gay marriage and I am gay myself. Adjusting legally required next-to zero effort; That is a measure of how compatible homosexuality is with the existing tradition."

Its not great that its taking them 4months to get this done. This gives the conservatives 4 months to try and force a member initiated referendum on the matter. A pointless exercise but it could slow things down even further. And not every state is like Mass. States like Mass actually have functional government in comparison to states like TX.

Yes, it will take time, decades even, but that is still not a reason to deny someone a right.

"Sane people do not use cultures like Saudi Arabia or from the Old Testament as examples to follow in marital affairs. Perhaps the pro-rape caucus in the Republican party would like to borrow such arguments? "

Yeah, but it is a good way of showing that someones argument is wrong when they try to make up the history of marriage or define what it means like you did and the conservatives do. Lets look at what you said again:

""Finally, the law in many places didn't define marriage as being only heterosexual. But it has indeed defined marriage as monogamous. Gays aren't trying to alter the established structure of marriage in our society, while polygamists are.""

These are your words. I proved them wrong. So the countries that have polygamy don't have a good record. Thats part of the reason I said:

My problem with polygamy is that to my understanding communities who embrace it often fall into patterns of polygyny and abuse. If this is shown to be wrong then I have no issues.

So long as its between consenting adults and does not hurt anyone, you should be able to marry whoever and how ever many spouses as you want.

In my first post.

You should try to prove that bestiality "always leads to abuse or actually hurts people" though I don't think you could. That doesn't make it acceptable as the basis for marriage.

Bestiality does not involve consenting adults. There is no chance of dangerous diseases working their way into the human species from either polygamy or gay marriage. Your example fails both of the conditions i laid out. Polygamy doesn't. Gay Marriage doesn't. Who was the one who talked about false equivalences again?

That's a rationale for freely associating (i.e. adults having sex, etc) not for marriage. The latter is a social contract... it is not "all about you and yours".

Social contracts can be changed. And no, its about the people involved. Its not about me, its about doing whats right by them and doing whats fair and whats right in general.