If a man has the right to marry a man...

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

But my point is that if they aren't important, how can you not accpet the other versions of these unions?

Why do you have to accept them? You only need a legitimate societal reason to prohibit one form or another (like we have done with close family marriages, etc). There may be several reasons that polygamy is bad that aren't shared with gay marriage.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The same arguments legitimizing ANY marriage can be applied to polygamy and possibly other forms of sexual deviancy. So?

Not if it's defined as one man and one woman.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Not if it's defined as one man and one woman.

That is the point. What argument leads us to define it as one man and one woman?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

That is the point. What argument leads us to define it as one man and one woman?

I dunno. Maybe 6000 years of precedent.

What argument leads us to define the sky as blue?

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by creekster

Not true. If you assume marriage is a moral act of union before God, then it can only be used (from the typical conservative christian point of view) to justify monogamous heterosexual marriages. This is really the issue here. Once you leave behind the traditional religious aspect of the notion of marriage, then it becomes nothing more than some sort of tax break and if it is a right for hetero or homo couples, then it should be for polyandrous group couples and so forth. This is exactly the reason churches object and exactly the reason they do not want to allow gay marriages.

I think we should divorce, so to sepak, the notion of mariage from the notion of legal unions. Churches should do marriages, county clerks/judges should do unions.

So you would deny the ability to marry to nonreligious people?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

So you would deny the ability to marry to nonreligious people?

No, achurch could marry whoever it wants (subject to other laws against pedophelia, etc.) But it would have only religious purpose and effect.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I dunno. Maybe 6000 years of precedent.

What argument leads us to define the sky as blue?

So your argument is... tradition? What is the tradition based on? Not a real compelling argument there, Tex. Particularly since polygamy probably has a longer tradition than monogamy throughout history.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Tex

I dunno. Maybe 6000 years of precedent.

What argument leads us to define the sky as blue?

Tradition is good.

Bring back primae noctis!

[creekster]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Tradition is good.

Bring back primae noctis!

would that be a gender neutral version?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by creekster

would that be a gender neutral version?

primae notits.