I've admitted that I was inaccurate with respect to polygamy when I meant poly-amorous. Where is my logic flawed?
No, drinking and driving is illegal whether you get caught or not. Polygamy is illegal whether you get caught or not (I again admit I was inaccurate in my wording).
Extrapllate whatevrr you want. I did not come on this thread to discuss polyamory, and incest. They are not socially equivalent, so when you asked me a bunch of incest questions, and polyamory questions, I chose not to waste the effort to redirect, because I have grown weary of talking about this subject, with you. I often think I must be misinterpreting where you are coming from, which can happen.
You've repeatedly brought up bestiality and morals and religion, so you're clearly having a conversation with someone other than me on this subject.
no, conceptually you are inaacurate. Thats the point. Just like blunt objects does not equal hammers, polyamourous is not married. your concept is not valid
Actually there are lots of perqs to being married. The wife and i got about a 7K reduction in federal taxes alone, and that says nothing for the other perqs that dont come straight from the governement, like making it easier to qualify for a mortgage.
Implied moral equivalency is the same as demanding people explain why polygamists and adult incest practitioners would be denied the right to marry, if I think gays should marry, then why not these other groups.I did. I made no claim similar to what you suggest I did.I never once equated bestiality with the rest. I was quite explicit in saying it is different.
You're suggesting two different things are equal. Provide me with a reason why two different things are not different. Recall, if they are different then they are inherently, um, not the same.What moral equivalency argument did I make? You are routinely arguing against points I never made!If you can't differentiate between same-sex relationships and adult consensual incest, that's fine. No one else can, either, so you're in good company (everyone).
But, when it comes to changing laws and definitions of what gets certain protections and disadvantages, the reasons are important. Explain to me why same-sex is different from poly-amorous relationships, and therefore why they shouldn't both get "different but equal" protection you are suggesting for only same-sex relationships. You couldn't do it with incest, can you do it with poly-amorous relationships?
If we call ALL institutions charitable, would that be appropriate? Then they can all get the same tax benefits, whether it is a Good Will store or WalMart. Those things are essentially the same, like same-sex relationships with opposite-sex relationships, so shouldn't they be treated the same? Should a pastor, a rabbi, a cleric, a psychologist, and a motivational speaker all be treated equally under tax and other federal protections? They do essentially the same thing!
I Was mocking the solid regularity with which the opponents of gay marriage equivalate these things. Sorry you did not catch that.
Poly-amorous is not married. We agree on that. That's actually the point.
I dont have to, I know there is....
That's not requesting a "moral" equivalency. It is requesting a LEGAL equivalency. Morals aside, there is essentially no difference between a poly-amorous relationship and an adult/consensual incestuous relationship with a same-sex relationship when speaking in terms of changing laws to broaden the definition of what is legally recognized as a relationship.
I believe and understand why you do not want to get drawn in. You lose if you get drawn in, because there is not a secular, logical, legal argument that separates these issues. You are correct in that there is a social acceptability, but is that really a reason to change law? If we are going to use that stance, than shouldn't we leave it to the people (the society at large)? And, when we've done that, we can see that overwhelmingly the people have chosen to NOT change the law. So, that argument, too, falls flat under even the slightest of actual scrutiny.
Yes, I believe that to change laws, answers must be provided. You believe that if it feels right to you, the law should be changed. That seems to be one of our fundamental differences in perception.
On this we agree - it's not about any ability to do what they want to do - that's already legal and fine. It's about the word. I'm glad you can admit that.
No one mistakes two men or three people for two people of opposite sex, either. You clearly have no point.
When you can provide a legal, secular, non-morals-based difference between poly-amorous relationships, adult consensual incest, and same-sex relationships, then you'll have an argument. Being confounded by non-religious, non-morals arguments seems to be really difficult for you, but I'm really trying to give you a chance here.
Of course there are. Duh.
Your logic is flawed because the discussion was about how government control of marriage started. I stated it was over polygamy for religious reasons. You denied that polygamy is illegal. Now that you admit that polygamy is illegal, are you willing to admit that it was outlawed for religious reasons?
I have no idea. My point was simply that living in poly-amorous relationships is not illegal.
If the word is not important than why do you care so freaking much? Its because its not just the word. Obviously you have enever been married or you would understand.
Go here, put in 200,000 and 200,000 for two people. Read the results. Learn.