Headmaster. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Whilst I acknowledge that you haven't previously considered the polygamy issue and haven't fully yet, it appears that you're quite open to viewing it as on a 'needs' basis? The logical conclusion to your position seems to me that that if some people want their polygamous relationships recognised and called marriage then what harm is done? Either way, I still see it as an extension of the same rights principle.
framer, equal rights (as in the legal kind) don't currently exist in Australia for polygamous relationships to be recognised as marriage. If 'equal rights' in the context of SSM are important for people to 'marry the person whom they love' then why should it be prohibited for polygamous relationships? The only change to that sentence is the word 'person' to 'people'.
Le Pingouin, yeah. It says that SSM proponents are scared about what happens if the 'rights' genie of the polygamous people gets out of the bottle. Hence the denial of the principle.
In using polygamy as an example I've used the same principle that many people have used to argue for SSM- that of 'equal rights'. I've used the same language and in some cases the exact same words. Use of phrases such as 'who are you to deny someone the right to marry whom they like' have been prevalent in this topic and levelled at those of us who disagree with SSM. Like I said a number of pages ago. I'd have a lot more respect for those arguing 'rights' if they were at least firm in their defence of the principle. That they're not, well, maybe that too says something.
So far no one has told me why the 'rights' argument doesn't also apply to polygamous marriage also. I've been told I'm wrong with no supporting argument. I've been told that I'm in the minority (not unusual with that one). I've been told SSM isn't about polygamy- I get why the SSM lobby don't want to include the issue of polygamy. So far though no one has taken on the rights issue. Headmaster has indicated that he'd consider it and I don't want to put words into his or her mouth to confirm that's the case.
It really does look like you are trying to distract the argument with the 'slippery slope' argument. I don't think SSM proponents are ignoring the issue because they don't like the answer, I just think it is not an issue they are concerned about. I really think that the polygamy argument is a distraction, not because I am scared of tghe outcome, I just don't see the relevance to the discussion.
To be clear, on polygamy, my concern is about the dental of rights for those in the relationship, and open to discoverying any other rights that may be denied by allowing it. If no rights are denied, if women (or men) are not subjugated by the arrangement, then I don't have any prejudice against it. It would not change the nature or commitment I have to my own marriage. It is not something that I would contemplate for myself. Would I argue for it? If there was a portion of the population that had been marginalised, attacked, mistreated and abused because they have not had their needs accepted and needed support? Yes. If not, probably no.