No abstaining, I disagree it is a, and I'll clarify, totally separate issue.Edmond VA wrote:
If you truly wanted to debate polygamy, you'd answer my questions and we'd have a debate. But by ignoring my attempts at discussion, I think it's fair for me to assume that you're waiving that discussion. The debate happened, you had your chance and you abstained. The conclusion was, this is a separate issue, better debated separately. And you shouldn't castigate people for not wanting a discussion with you about a subject that you don't want to discuss.
The discussion still boils down to how, we as a society, define marriage. You view it as a union of two people regardless of gender composition, whereas polygamists view it as a union of persons of the opposite sex. Both polygamists and gay people can marry ONE person of the opposite sex. However, obviously, gay people want to marry someone of the same sex, whereas polygamists want to marry more than one person of the opposite sex. Number vs nature.Yes, polygamists DO have rights, but they can at least marry SOMEONE. Someone that they can feel love and attraction toward, and seek to build a future with (unlike telling gays that we DO have marriage rights, as long as we marry someone of the opposite sex). This discussion is about letting people marry ONE other, rather than unfairly being restricted to ZERO. We should address those who get no serving at all, before we tackle those who stack their plates.
Okay, I agree in the "gays are icky" part, although it seems that gay men are viewed as "ickier" than lesbians. Polygamists are also viewed as "icky", and their relationships, taboo, similar to the view some have on same sex relationships.Then let's HAVE that discussion, if that's what you truly want. But recognize that there's a HUGE extension to those arguments that must ALSO be used to advocate for plural marriage, while the argument against same-sex marriage usually boils down to "gays are icky".
I am discussing it.The messenger is being attacked because he does not truly WANT to discuss the message, he is only using it to forestall debate of the topic on the table, which is what everyone PREFERS to discuss.
If you want to discuss it, then LET'S DISCUSS IT. I have many points I'm ready to make. I'd be eager to hear your replies to each of them.
Thank you for your graciousness.But consider yourself lucky to get a discussion from even this ONE person. The other posters are right to reject discussion on the subject, as it is entirely unrelated. It's unlikely that any of them ARE polygamists, and they probably have few words of experience to say on the subject. It's MORE likely that they are not allowed even ONE spouse, and cannot securely provide for the ONLY person they love.