I'm going to say something, and I'm going to hope that the two of you both understand the level of honesty that I operate at enough to understand that I'm serious.
I think that if SSM is legalized, failing to also legalize polygamy or group marriage would be discriminatory and hypocritical. I think at some point it will be recognized as discriminatory, whether that takes 2 years or 20.
Is there evidence to demonstrate that adult-only polygamous marriage is a societal negative? Not that I know of. Would it be somewhat more complex legally? Yes, but that could be handled... there are legal complications in SSM that aren't as typically encountered in traditional marriage, namely custody issues for children that are genetically the product of one partner and an outsider by consent of the couple. If we can handle that some smart group of lawyers can come up with a legal structure to handle polygamy/group marriage.
So many of the same arguments apply!
How do you know polygamy isn't an orientation? Based on the number of people who have sex with more than one person at a time, one might argue that polyamory is an inborn trait in some substantial number of people.
If it is wrong to deny two gay people who love each other the right to marry, why is it not wrong to deny four people who love each other the right to marry? You're depriving them of the right to file joint tax returns and be each other's legal next-of-kin.
Just as some people associate homosexuality with pedophilia based on isolated incidents, you're associating polygamy with "marrying" underage girls based on a small sample of religious-extremists polygamists.
To be frank, I consider a pro-SSM / Anti-Polygamy position to be hypocritical.
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."
Nd did CC claim this. He simply pointed out an important difference.Second: No one has argued that Polygamy is identical to the sexual deviancy of homosexuality...
When people make an assumption that because one thing is allowed, another must be, it is perfectly logical to point out why it would not be, and why they are different.Third: Who has suggested that Polygamy is a sexual orientation?
Then let them present some evidence to back it up. In the course of these debates, a wealth of evidence has been presented to back up the benefits to society for GM.Fourth: Polygamists would vehemently dispute your assertion that their 'lifestyle choice' is not beneficial... And they believe it every BIT as much as the pathetic sexual deviants who chose to seek sexual gratification through intercourse with individuals of their own gender; just as the pathetic sexual deviants who chose to seek sexual gratification through intercourse with individuals which have yet to grow to the age of consent, OKA: Pedophiles, VEHEMENTLY BELIEVE THAT THEIR PARTICULAR KINK is beneficial.
Name calling as argument. I suppose I could point out that your post contained two "fourth" points too.Fourth: how does a deviant, abnormal sexual orientation become acceptable as a means to violate the established, reasonable, well founded marriage standard that marriage consist of two individuals, each representing the distinct genders; and Polygamy does not?
Homosexuals violate the standard regarding distinct genders and polygamist violate the stated acceptable volume of individuals.
In truth, your would-be argument is little more than raw dissemblance... which never serves any purpose except to distract from the truth; thus you're the one advancing a distraction.