🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4j973d$h74@peabody.colorado.edu> gessner@ucsub.Colorado.EDU (Gessner David) writes:

>It seems to me that bringing up polygamy is a way to dilute the argument 
>for allowing homosexuals' marriage rights.  Our culture is monogamous, 
>not polygamous.  The laws are in place accordingly.  Homosexuals are 
>requesting that the same respect, priveleges and protections be put in 
>place regarding their monogamous commitments.

No, your culture (ok, mine too) is monogamous. But don't forget that it wasn't 
always like this. I am of course refering to the Mormon Church, which no 
longer advocates this practice (You'd have to ask a Mormon why, but I suspect 
it was because of public pressure). They obviously didn't have any moral 
problems with polygamy, and there are still some pockets of resistance in Utah 
where it is practiced (illegally).

By the way, your comment "The laws are in place accordingly" applies to the 
situation regarding same sex marriages until recently, so which laws are in 
effect is really not the issue, otherwise we wouldn't be having this 
discussion.

And arguing "culture" is not a very wise move either. Many (most?) would argue 
that our culture is heterosexual partners. No, what it comes down to is 
allowing people to settle with whomever they wish in a legally binding sense, 
and the question of the number of partners isn't a dilution of the issue, but 
an extension. At least the lawmakers thought so since they included "bigamy" 
in the original bill.

Gotta run.

------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gauvin, Design Engineer, Symbios Logic Inc.
jeff.gauvin@symbios.com
          *** Opinions are my own ***