Some people say SSM is not marriage, some say it is. Some people voted for SSM, some voted against it. Some judges said SSM is a right, other Judges said no it isn't.<quoted text>
For the 358th time - some people support polygamy, some people don't. Some people will advocate for polygamy, some people won't. Some people will say allowing SSM opens the door for polygamous marriages, some people won't. Some people say that allowing HETEROSEXUAL marriage means polygamous marriages should be allowed while SSM shouldn't be allowed.
Soooooo....all that means....what?
Oh madone! Its all part of the same fight, of how, we as a society define marriage, not how individuals define it. If monogamous marriage of one man and one woman orientated toward the procreative aspect of the male female union is no longer the standard, then there's no reason to consider other forms of marriage. Not that hard to see the link. Legal SSM has raised the question, "if SSm is legal, why not polygamy?". It that "just change it for us, but not them", mantra that SSMers use when polygamy is mentioned in the same discussion of redifining marriage. Why is SSM such a sacred secular cow, that nothing else can be compared to it?Polygamous marriage is a completely different fight than gay marriage. It will move forward (or not) on its own merits, nothing else.
As you have no real arguments for it, nor real arguments against redefining marriage to include plural marriage structures. "Oh we're (SSMers) not like those people (polygamists), we're just like everybody else, we want to keep the number two because everybody knows marriage is about two people regardless of gender"....oh shoooooor...that just ignores thousands of years of human societal evolution.I would ask you to ponder all of this and get back to us tomorrow with your thoughts, but let's be honest - tomorrow you'll just be reposting the same lame, debunked polygamy arguments you've been posting for weeks because you have no real arguments against gay marriage.
Carry on Johnny One Note...