Wait, is your problem with polygamy the number of contract signatories? If anything, that is a big positive for polygamy. If one goes crazy, there is another dozen to raise the kid. There has to be more to it than that.

And to say two mommies is more similar to a regular marriage because the number of players is the same... that's just spin. You could just as easily spin it the other way and say polygamy is closer to normal because the marriage involves men and women. Or that poligamy is more similar since the child will be raised by a biological mother and father, and all the other wives are just like the kid's older sisters (of course, that one falls apart in a disgusting way if you think about it too hard).

I don't really care if gay people form a partnership, though I'd call it something else because... because it's something else. I'd probaby be ok with polygamy too if that's what people want to do. If they call it something else, of course (i.e. "this is my polywife!").

First, you've modified my critique of a logical association to "my problem with polygamy."

Second, it's not spin, it's based on the assumption that marriage is an institution which allows, endorses and encourages human beings forming stable bonds of a romantic nature, which is a fundamental part of the human character. Marriage is not just a vehicle for birthing children, IMO, though it certainly helps in raising them. That entire argument is contingent on a nature vs. nurture assumption, btw.

It was a mistake to assume your post meant you were against polygamy.

But I have to disagree with you again, unless you believe that it is a fundamental part of the human character to form romantic bonds with a single indivudual. This is certainly not human nature. Polygamy is much more similar to a marriage where a man has a mistress, than is a single-sex marriage, where a man has a mister. The reason I say it's spin is because you are focusing in on a single attribute of marriage - the romantic couple. There is much more to it than that. What the 'much more' is exactly is debatable, and I don't wanna. But you must agree there's a lot more to it than that, right?

That's how one spins. Take one point, and fully support it or attack it to belittle it. It's similar to "The war in Iraq is wrong because people are dying", or "We have to keep fighting in Iraq or people will have died in vain." There's a lot more involved than that.

Anyway, I'm arguing a point that I don't care to support, and in fact don't care about at all. The only reason I stay with it (besides the fact that you sometimes change my opinion) is because I do see polygamy and same-sex marriage as very similar in that they are not traditional marriage, but are still desired by some small percentage of Americans. I feel like we should let people do whatever they want if it hurts noone and grant them legal status just to be fair, but I really think it should have another name. That's the part that I care about. Just the name.

It was a mistake to assume your post meant you were against polygamy.

You misinterpreted again. I am against polygamy. But my initial argument wasn't a specific condemnation of it, as much as a critique of the logic used to equate it with gay marriage.

But I have to disagree with you again, unless you believe that it is a fundamental part of the human character to form romantic bonds with a single indivudual. This is certainly not human nature.

half-wrong/right. Humans are bipolar on this. We have wiring to screw around (especially males), but we also instinctively pair bond.

That's how one spins. Take one point, and fully support it or attack it to belittle it. It's similar to "The war in Iraq is wrong because people are dying", or "We have to keep fighting in Iraq or people will have died in vain." There's a lot more involved than that.

If I was building a comprehensive case for gay marriage, I'd write a comprehensive case for gay marriage. I'm not.

As it is - the desire to find a mate and have society recognize that relationship is a very compelling component of the argument.

Let's not argue over semantics? I read your first post to mean that you were against polygamy. You chose to claim that this was not your intended message. We both know it was. To clarify the issue, I went ahead and apologized for something that was in reality an accurate assesment. My hope was that we could move the discussion to what we may in fact disagree.

"half-wrong/right. Humans are bipolar on this. We have wiring to screw around (especially males), but we also instinctively pair bond."

Are you just interested in arguing for argument's sake? I'm not into that. It's not at all uncommon for married people to cheat. Male, female, it doesn't matter. I'm sure you know this. It's not a small percentage, like people into polygamy or same-sex marriage.

"the desire to find a mate and have society recognize that relationship is a very compelling component of the argument"

As is the desire to find a spare mate and have society recognize it (from a polygamist POV), or to find a mate that is of your identical sex.

As I said earlier, whatever. Can we agree to just name it something else? Then each individual can form his own conclusions. To equalize these different forms of joining would suggest that they are identical. They're not.

If you choose not to address the previous paragraph for a second time, I'll go ahead and let you 'win' the argument and admit you are much smarter than me. Or whatever it is you are going for.

Kevin -

A. I am not arguing over semantics. My intent and words are very carefully chosen and limited in their scope, and you do not grasp or want to grasp their specific meaning. If I was building an argument against polygamy, I would say as much. As it is, I was focusing a limited effort in a paragraph post on pointing out a specific logical and legal difference between equating polygamy and gay marriage. The fact that I am against polygamy is a much broader, partially exclusive, argument.

B. Are you just interested in arguing for argument's sake? I'm not into that.

And i'm not into dealing with people who turn into obnoxious jerks when I'm politely hosting them in my comments section, but here I am, doing it.

It's not at all uncommon for married people to cheat.

And this refutes my notation that humans instinctively pair-bond how? This is not arguing for arguments sake, it's specifically germaine to the argument that humans also instinctively pair bond, instinctively establish long-term companionship. This instinct is not superceded or invalidated by the fact that human beings also cheat. One conflicts with the concept of marriage, one created and supports it.

They co-exist in the species.

Is this argument for argument's sake?

NO. It is specifically relevant to the argument.

As is the desire to find a spare mate and have society recognize it (from a polygamist POV), or to find a mate that is of your identical sex.

And in my opinion, the idea of a male having eight wives is less of a reasonable threshold than a single person desiring the committment to another person, which most people recognize as a near universal drive more fundamental to who we are as humans than just mating with as many people as possible. This is a cultural recognition as well as an instinct, and the argument is to expand the cultural recognition to those wired to love the same sex (again assuming the biological determinism).

If you do not recognize this as a subjective yet reasonable difference in degree, then you don't recognize it. That's your option. Shrug. But both logically and legally, it is quite different from one man, eight wives, in my opinion.

As I said earlier, whatever. Can we agree to just name it something else? Then each individual can form his own conclusions. To equalize these different forms of joining would suggest that they are identical. They're not.

To be honest, I don't care if the state has anything to do with marriage at all. But no, I do not agree with you, if we establish the presumption that sexuality is determined by factors other than simple cultural or behaviorial preference.

If you choose not to address the previous paragraph for a second time, I'll go ahead and let you 'win' the argument and admit you are much smarter than me. Or whatever it is you are going for.

Kevin, I've taken the time out of my day, been polite with you and tried to explain the specific intent and meaning of my very specific words. I'm not trying to "win" anything, I just disagree with both your overarching argument, as well as your interpretation of my words. And I'm merely and quite honestly trying to express my opinion as best I know how.

You take this to mean that I'm playing games or arguing for argument's sake, and proceed to get hostile. You attack me personally. Which I don't have time for, and pretty much makes you a jerk. Go away. Please.

I wasn't being hostile, and I'm sorry you perceived it so. That you did is my fault since I have a horrible habit of jumping to an interlocutor's conclusions based on their statements, even when they don't come out and say it. I've been wrong before, but I'm not now, as exemplified by your understandable distaste for polygamy (which I share) as predicted in my original comment. I'm not sure where I attacked you personally, but I will abide by your wishes and leave your site after this comment.

My point about spinning is exactly that your "...intent and words are very carefully chosen and limited in their scope...". I understand that you were just making a single point about how polygamy and single sex marriage are different, but you can't do that by choosing a single aspect of marriage and make a conclusion based on that single aspect. Which is why I called your giving it a 'whirl', 'spin'. I stand by that statement, even though I'm not a fan of polygamy.

And in my opinion, the idea of a male having eight wives is less of a reasonable threshold than a single person desiring the committment to another person, which most people recognize as a near universal drive more fundamental to who we are as humans than just mating with as many people as possible. This is a cultural recognition as well as an instinct, and the argument is to expand the cultural recognition to those wired to love the same sex (again assuming the biological determinism).

You should use two wives as the example, not eight. Nevertheless I agree. But to be fair, it is also a cultural recognition that both a male and a female are involved in a marriage. This is where limiting the scope of your statement falls apart. Why expand the cultural recognition to those who desire same sex coupling, and not expand the cultural recognition to those who desire multiple partners? We're back to the original '# of signatories' issue.

To be honest, I don't care if the state has anything to do with marriage at all. But no, I do not agree with you[about separate names for same sex/polygamist marriage], if we establish the presumption that sexuality is determined by factors other than simple cultural or behaviorial preference.

I don't follow why it's important to establish that the "presumption that sexuality is determined by factors other than simple cultural or behaviorial preference" to determine whether a different name should be applied to different forms of coupling/multiplexing (heh, multiplexing). It is certainly a good idea to determine whether your premise is accurate. But how important is it when we are just discussing the nomenclature? Can't we agree that a guy and a guy loving each other is somewhat different than a guy and a girl loving each other? I'm a bit sexist, but I assumed the differences were clear to everyone.

"Kevin, I've taken the time out of my day, been polite with you..." Well, that went out the window when you called me an obnoxious jerk :). Regardless, I respect you and will abide by your wishes and not visit your website anymore. Please shoot me an email if you decide my penance has been completed. It's been a pleasure to know you through your words, and I'm a bit sad that I won't see them anymore.

This ...

I wasn't being hostile, and I'm sorry you perceived it so.

After this ...

I'll go ahead and let you 'win' the argument and admit you are much smarter than me. Or whatever it is you are going for.

Strikes me as a rather startling dissonance.

Santorum? How did you read that as being against polygamy?

I was more generally referring to the slippery slope argument which relies on "all different" being "the same."

Eight wives... hmmmm, that gives me 24 orifices to violate. I would just put them on a rotating schedule. Okay, I might get a little worn out, and be late for work fairly often, but on the whole I don't see a major problem here. I mean, I have to do some cardio work everyday anyway.

ionolsen22 Very good site. Thanks for author!

ionolsen23 I am really impressed!

ionolsen24 Hello Jane, great site!

ionolsen24 Your site is very cognitive. I think you will have good future.:)

ionolsen26 Your home page its great

ionolsen28 I like your site

ionolsen34 I like your site

ionolsen41 I am really impressed!

ionolsen45 Best site I see. Thanks.

d53f8800e708 Hello Jane, great site!

c25c24391223 Only god know how you write so good posts

03ee77034eaf Noce site

3704d3f79ef3 Very good

de9aafc5b4ee Nice site

cd2650266383 Hello!

c43bc94e9d0f Great work

1fa4cfe69ad8 Hi

e65f28f75820 Hello!

6ee234c3b726 Hi

a432b625e7c5 Very good

eca5b354d109 Nice site

1edb79f8cc5c Hi

81e31de21f46 Hi

81e31de21f46 My homepage

Hi! Nice site!

dhnjmts ymwnga rfubztp oqwag saxzef wjcmse rqjb