I've stated multiple times I don't oppose civil polygamy but neither do I feel compelled to actively advocate for it either since I have no personal interest in it. I'm sorry you're apparently too senile to keep track of the positions of various posters. It likely explains why you're unable to ever learn anything as well.That raises the logical question, if a same sex relationship can be designated "marriage", why not a plural marriage one, which historically is a valid form of marriage throughout time and place, and is practiced in this country, albeit with out state recognition?
So then you agree it can be, but is simply waiting for a lawsuit to start the process. Very good.
The existence of such people in no way changes the validity of the legal arguments in favor of same sex marriage nor does it have any impact on court rulings. No one has ever said gays act in monolithic lock step; they're just as diverse politically, religiously, ethnically, etc. as straight people. If people don't realize that it's because they're blinded by their own prejudice against gays and have a need to think otherwise.I advocate for the legal definition of marriage to remain a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. If state choose to, or are forced to jettison said definition, it should recognize other marriages as well.[QUOTE]
You'e pathetically naive if your think legislators or the courts are going to remove all marriage restrictions (including number, consanguinity, age and ability to consent) simply because one restriction has been successfully challenged in court. Legislators are naturally risk averse until forced to act and the courts only rule on actual legal issues presented to them. Hence the need for polygamists to file a lawsuit challenging anti-bigamy laws if you expect civil polygamy to be legalized any time soon.
[QUOTE who="Pietro Armando"]
Actually there is a difference. Far too often the movement to redefine marriage gives the impression both by advocates themselves, and the media, that there isn't opposition to it within the gay community.
Is that what your pathetic English comprehension took away from my comments? Not actively opposing is not the same thing as actively supporting. My position is the former, not the latter.Very good, you are officially on record as supporting plural marriage.
Your "common understanding" is outdated.I use it as it is commonly understood, culturally, socially, historically, and/or religiously.
The meaning of the word has evolved and isn't strictly limited to opposite sex/husband and wife/both sexes any more. The reason being that conjugality results from marriage so now that same sex couples can marry it applies to them as well. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending time stood still right before Massachusetts gave legal recognition to same sex marriage and the marriage landscape hasn't changed is both stupid and juvenile. As is your fruit analogy.Conjugality references opposite sex, husband and wife, both sexes.
If a state declares an apple an orange, does that result in the apple becoming a citrus fruit?
There's no contradiction; I simply used a different meaning of the word than you did:You contradicted yourself. Monogamy, as in one wife or husband at a time, as opposed to polygamy, not a reference to sexual fidelity.
1. The practice or condition of having a single sexual partner during a period of time.
Monogamy in the sense I used the word as indicated above.Monogamy, not polygamy, nor sexual fidelity.