Originally posted by Cais
The scope is specifically gay marriage.
No, the scope is marriage and changing the laws regarding who can marry. You are arbitrarily trying to frame the argument as only about same sex marriage.



Originally posted by Cais
People DO argue for polygamy, I would never deny that, and there are cultures where polygamy is the norm (duh).
Don't get flippant with me (using "duh") when you are the one who said:

"Polygamy is really a whole other chestnut, and is probably more taboo and more widely accepted as immoral than homosexuality nowadays. "

You said it, not me, and it happens to be incorrect. Historically, polygamy has been far more accepted than same sex marriage (or homosexuality) ever have been.

And I am not certain it is widely believed today that polygamy is "immoral." Most people seem to object to it for reasons other than morality. Fairness and women's rights tend to be larger issues when the topic of polygamy is discussed.


Originally posted by Cais
You are 100 percent correct. But, we're talking about American politics (again, not dealing in absolutes, there are pockets in America that WANT polygamy.) where polygamy, is by and large, not socially acceptable.
When the issue is liberty, what people "by and large" believe is not the important factor. For me, what people believe "by and large" is irrelevant when I feel personal liberties are being abridged. That is why I support same sex marriage, the right to burn the flag, and a large number of other unpopular things.

"By and large" the American people are against same sex marriage. That is why Proposition 8 passed in California. There are more ballot initiatives and constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage right now than there are for polygamy. So the appropriate test for whether something is good and right is not whether the public "by and large" supports it.






Originally posted by Cais
Homosexuality is not a choice, and if everyone should be able to obtain the privilege of marriage by right: it's not arbitrary in any way at all to include the fact that homosexuality has biological roots whereas polygamy does not as the crux of my argument.
First, you cannot just declare that homosexuality is not a choice. We really do not know one way or another. Most responsible science I have read on the matter concludes that some people are homosexual by choice, some because of social factors, and some because of biology. But we do not know this for scientific fact, so you cannot just declare this in absolute terms. And since you "never, and will never argue in absolutes", you shouldn't state it this way.

Second, you keep comparing apples and oranges. Homosexuality and polygamy are not congruent. Same sex marriage and polygamy are the concepts associated with each other.

Third, homosexuality may not be a lifestyle choice, but same sex marriage - for that matter ANY type of marriage - is definitely a lifestyle choice.



Originally posted by Cais
To be married is, indeed, a lifestyle. But, according to the constitution, we have the right to pursue our particular lifestyles: now there's an argument for polygamy.
What part of the Constitution are you referring to that gives us the right to "pursue our particular lifestyles"? I am not aware of that section. Is it in the penumbras?.


Originally posted by Cais
However, I was drawing a very stark distinction in that homosexuality isn't a lifestyle, but a biological occurence, and should then have protection under law on that very basis.
That's nice, but homosexuality is not the issue here: the issue is marriage. Now that most sodomy laws have been stricken from the books, I do not believe the legality of homosexuality itself is a major issue in the USA.