Originally posted by Cais
The reason there is no logic behind Huckabee's madness is that no one is arguing that the institution of marriage is altered from "one man, one woman" to "As many men as applicable, as many women as applicable."
Actually, a whole lot of people do indeed argue this. There are tens if not hundreds of thousands people in the US actively working to have polygamy legalized.

Originally posted by Cais

The argument is, simply, altering the institution of marriage from "One man, one woman." to something along the lines of, "Two people, regardless of sexual orientation."
That's SOME people's argument. That's not everyone's argument. You are arbitrarily saying the only part of the marriage equation that can be argued is the sex of the participants. There are other parts of the institution that could also be debated by the same logic, including the number of the participants, the age, the relation status, etc.

If the argument is let people who love each other be married, that can be used to justify a lot of different types of marital arrangements.

Originally posted by Cais

Polygamy is really a whole other chestnut, and is probably more taboo and more widely accepted as immoral than homosexuality nowadays.
How do you figure? There are entire cultures where polygamy is not only socially acceptable, but considered a social good. 1st wife, 2nd wife, 3rd wife, etc. and they all work to provide a common household that efficiently utilizes resources. I am not saying that is my preference, but there are cultures where that system is used and it works for them.

The idea exists for the future as well. A year or so ago I read Friday, by Robert Heinlein. On one planet, marriages are like miniature corporations that include any number of individuals (mostly couples but not just couples). The idea is kinda out there, but I can see how it might make sense and might work pretty effectively.


Originally posted by Cais
The supreme difference is that homosexuality is not a choice, whereas polygamy is, indeed, a lifestyle choice.
Being homosexual may not be a lifestyle choice, but being married to someone of the same sex is definitely a lifestyle choice.

The fact that I am married to a woman is a lifestyle choice. The fact that we have kids is a lifestyle choice.



Originally posted by Cais

You're mistaken in saying that any argument to support gay marriage can be used to support polygamy: the subjects are not the same in any way.
Only because you are arbitrarily choosing to declare them not the same. We have a current legal definition of marriage. A group of people want to change that definition so people of the same sex can marry. Fine. I happen to support this movement. I should also note, Threshold has supported same sex marriage since 1996.

The main rules for legal marriage in our country involve:

1) Age of the participants.
2) Relation status of the participants (must be no closer than 2nd cousins in most states).
3) Number of participants (2).
4) Sex of the participants - one man, one woman.

The argument for same sex marriage seeks to change #4. But why can only rule #4 be changed? Why not #3, or #2, or #1? You cannot say efforts to change one of those rules is "not the same in any way" as an effort to change another rule. Such efforts would be VERY similar, and likely involve very similar arguments.