Fair enough jonkster. Don't engage then. I put it out there that you can't demand 'equal rights' and not demand polygamy under the same principle. I reckon that's being intellectually dishonest. In short, it's crap. Twice now I've pointed that out. Twice you've not explained how you and others can reconcile promoting SSM on the basis of rights can but stop short of extending that principle to polygamous relationships or even somone who is bi who wants to marry somone of the same sex as well as somone of the opposite sex.
If you can't see my facetious use of the word 'bigoted' and see the principle behind my use of it in the context I have then by all means disengage.
OK if you say your use of bigot and full of crap was hyperbole and not meant to be offensive then I am sorry I reacted as I did. Fair enough.
How I read your argument above: you say that if I am arguing for the extension of legal recognition (ie marriage) to cover same sex relationships to give homosexuals equality, then I must also argue that there should be extensions of those laws to cover any form of relationship (your example is polygamy but I have heard other even less socially accepted forms of relationships used in similar arguments) to prevent discrimination. Otherwise I am being intellectually dishonest in claiming I want to stop discrimination.
or more simply put: if making the legal definition of marriage looser would make it less discriminatory, I should want it to be it as loose as possible so as to avoid as much discrimination as possible and give more rights to people.
If however I don't want to make it as loose as possible and want to only extend it 'a bit', I am guilty of shallow and contradictory thinking (or as you put it, my argument "is full of crap" and can be discarded).
Am I understanding your position correctly? (if not tell me)
Let's assume I have got the gist of what you are saying.
I know some here do not want to use analogies however I think they can be used to find general principles, providing you don't get too bogged down in the analogy as to miss the point.
Suppose (as an analogy) we went back to a time in Britain when marriages could only be performed by the Church of England, the Quakers, or under Jewish law. Any other form of marriage was not recognised. Any children born from relationships which were not married by those 3 religious groups could legally be considered as illegitimate.
That is a definition of marriage that existed into the 1800s in Britain.
Was it discriminatory? I would say so. Bad luck if you were Roman Catholic. But it is a clear definition and was how it was defined in law at one time.
My ancestor Jonkystre was outraged by this and would write long missives with his quill on parchment and nail it to trees saying "we shouldst loosen that definition because it discriminates against ye Catholics and ye Bretheren and people of no faith etc and infringes on their ryghts"
Ol' Kegge however, my ancestor's nemesis would write beneath Jonkystre's rants:
"If ye want to stop discrimination ye bygit, why should you stop at letting Catholics marry in their own churches? Why not also allow polygamy etc - to stop Mormons from being discriminated against? If you want to let Catholics marry to stop unfairness, then you should want also polygamy or you arguments are fyll of crappe ye bygit!"
The argument Ol' Kegge uses is identical to the one you use against me is it not? (if it is please correct me). There was a definition of marriage, it was restrictive, some wanted it loosened, why, if those people were thinking consistently and rationally, didn't they also want it loosened to cover polygamy?
So... Yes I do want to broaden the legal definition to give rights to more people.
I *do not* however say it should be made as loose as possible.
I believe our laws should broadly reflect society's views of what is just and fair.
I believe there is a broad belief in society that people who want to enter into same sex monogamous relationships are not a threat to society, that they have been unfairly discriminated against and should be able to have their relationships treated equally under the law, just like heterosexual relationships are. I do not see society arguing broadly for polygamy (or other stuff) in the same way.
If society's values change, so should the laws. Just in the same way Britain changed their laws in the later part of the 1800s to reflect a broader definition of who could marry.
That is why I say I want SSM as it gives rights to people - so is my argument intellectually dishonest or full of crap?