This discussion is getting ridiculous now. Gay rights have very little to do with heterosexual polygamy other than at a philosophical level. Not that I'm against polygamy, or the female equivalent. I consider relationships of any kind to be the business of the involved parties, and nobody else.
However, at the risk of pissing off the frau, I'm going to break this down like Bobby Brown.:yeah:

There are societies where women are dominant, but there are no societies in which women are polyamorous. The reason for that is simple biology. Every biological organsim on earth today exists because the genes that built it were successfuly passed on. This means that only organisms who raise young that achieve sexual maturity survive.

So, how does one create an organism that survives to sexual maturity? It's not by having a female choose from and breed with a large group of males. A female can only ever produce one offspring, maybe multiples in rare circumstances. It's from having one male breed with a large group of females. That makes more sense in evolutionary terms. Males that breed with many females will produce more offspring, which is exactly what males are designed to do. It's why we have hundreds of millions of gametes for every egg and why we're such competitive jerks. Females that are more choosy about which males they breed with will produce more successful offsrping. This is why females are such impossible bitches and why they have such a long list of requirements for a lifelong mate. It's the result of natural evolution.

So... this is why societies of polyamorous females don't exist. They die out because they are not efficient in a reproductive sense. Well, that's not entirely true. Unlike any other species, women actually have a built-in mechanism for concealing ovulation so they can mess with the village pool-boy while being married to the village elder. It's a by-product of these marvelous brains we were endowed with. It's also why young couples face the "is she pregnant!?" anxiety. In that way, women can be polyamorous, though they are still limited in their production of offspring.

What were we talking about, again? Oh, yeah, gay marriage and it's relation to polyamory. Female polyamory is fine with me, and I'd allow it, assuming anyone could ever make it work outside of the porn industy. It'll never beat male polymory, though, because of sheer human biological nature.

How does it harm anyone to call it marriage?

How do you define a "Right", then? I define it as something that is inherent, buy nature. By that logic I could claim that marriage itself isn't a "Right".

But it defines it with the express purpose of denying a segment of the population freedom of choice. That is by definition discrimination. There is nothing benign about this - this is an attempt to restrict the rights of certain people based solely on percieved morality.

Okay, let's say I have the right to eat all the Spam I want. You also have the right to eat all the Spam you want. But neither of us have the right to eat anything else.

The thing is, you don't like Spam. And eating Spam makes you miserable and ill. In fact, you were born with a body that gets no nourishment whatsoever from Spam.

I, on the other hand, love Spam. I was born with a body that runs perfectly fine on nothing but!

Hungry? Here, have some Spam. You can have all you want, just like me! Wait, you don't like it? You can't be happy and healthy on a diet of nothing but Spam, and would like the opportunity to eat something else? Not gonna happen. Those of us who are satisfied with Spam have defined the act of "eating" as "eating Spam," so, uh, that's all there is. When we said that bit about "the pursuit of happiness" we were only talking about people who were happy eating nothing but Spam. Sorry! But since you have the same right to eat something that nourishes me and gives you nothing but empty calories, you really don't have anything to complain about.

/falling on deaf ears

And there's that 'parts' comment again; clearly an insinuation that homosexuality is apart from nature. So, really, if that wasn't your point, why say it? Please don't make me explain how basic logical argument proceeds.

True. So, to be in line with nature, I suppose we must ban all marriage.

Wrong. You're responding to a point you clearly didn't get.Hostile? WHAT?

I'm sorry, I'm being pointed - not hostile. I'll try to include the proper amount of emoticons and smilies if it will soothe your conscious. :up:

Again, I really don't give a damn, and I have presented what I believe would be a proper compromise (a term the minority never seems to understand).Did you read the explanation?It wasn't meant as an insult to everybody who disagrees with me, as you say. It was meant as an observation of EVERYONE IN GENERAL.

People tend to find a way to spin things into meaning what they want them to mean, rather than taking them at face value. Your response was an excellent case-in-point. I suspect you wanted to find every line I wrote to be wrong, and therefore you argued as though I said something I didn't.

Thanks for proving my point.Nor, in this case, is it wrong.Nope.That sounds like something you should work on.

While I don't particularly want to see two men making out, I don't find it any more offensive than seeing a straight couple doing the same.

What I find offensive is when the minority insists upon infringing upon the established traditions of the majority when THEY CAN REAP THE SAME BENEFITS WITHOUT DOING SO!

It has gone from a question of doing what is right to a question of one side being able to stick it to the other.

But considering that you've so convieniently lumped me into the anti-gay crowd, you've gone far to make my point that compromise, and as such, the middle ground is beyond the grasp of your side's capability.

You may run into some opposition on that one from my girlfriend. I, however, fully support the measure. :yeah:

From a report on a pre-trial hearing last fall:

Apparently they were never able to come up with anything better than that.

Oh wait, I 'member now. Gay marriage will destroy and de-sanctify all straight marriages! For those already-married heteros out there, this ruling has nullified your unions in the eyes of God and the state. Also, the Keepers of the Gay Agenda will be sending you the contact info for the same-sex partner you will now be required to marry instead. (Some of you unlucky ones will have to be paired up with animals and the occasional inanimate object, but you know how it goes... slippery slope and all that.)

Only, you know, NOT. :O:

I assume my rebuttal will fall on deaf ears because you either are clearly ignoring my position or you're just not reading it.

My point is ... go ahead, don't eat Spam. But, don't call what you do decide to eat Spam.

Simple compromise, huh?

So for people in New Zealand, Wales and who use the Internet nothing much will have changed right? :hmmm:

Then please explain further.

Then I apologise. It looked hostile to me, but perhaps I was getting excited myself.

Then you include yourself in that statement? Again I apologise. It seemed dismissive to me.

Perhaps. I don't know myself well enough to judge that.

If you mean the one about misinterpreting or over-reacting, then you're welcome. If you meant something within the "Gay Marriage" argument itself, you'll need to explain.

That's your opinion, nothing more. It might very well be wrong.

And yet you are so adamant about it. You claim to have no dog in this hunt, yet you argue as if it's your very life's passion. Me, I don't care about it either, but I do care very much about people's rights.

I've already worked on it. That's why I admit that my reactions may be wrong, and support the rights of those I disagree with.

So why deny them the right to just do so?

But you don't advocate a middle ground. You advocate the restriction of a percieved benefit from a portion of the population, and your basis for doing so seems to be solely morality. What you advocate is not compromise at all.

And "your side"? What exactly is "my side". I've said I find homosexuality distasteful, so it can't be that. The side of advocating equal rights for all?

*Sigh*

What benefit am I restricting? I am in favor of 100% equal rights.

If the term marriage itself is a benefit, than I'm no more restricting a "perceived benefit" than you would be. Heterosexuals perhaps "perceive" that term to mean a man and woman's union as a benefit...

So, either you're saying that the heterosexual's "percieved" benefit isn't actually a benefit and therefore it shouldn't matter to them, or you're saying that it IS a benefit but one that only matters to gays as you are in favor of removing that "benefit" from straights...

The Frau was telling me how they handle marriage in Germany, and I think their system would work well here in the US.

Everyone gets married in a non-religious civil ceremony before a government official. This establishes the legal state of marriage. Then, the couple can go to their church for the religious ceremony of marriage. This establishes the religious/spiritual state of marriage.

Churches are free to establish their own rules and exclude anyone they wish. Also, no one is forced to have a religious ceremony.

The problem we have in the US is that for too long there has been an intermixing the process of legal state of marriage and the religious/spiritual state of marriage.

Let's separate them. Hey separation of church and state. I like how that sounds. :yeah:

The government gets to make the rules concerning the legal state of marriage and the churches get to make the rules concerning the religious/spiritual state of marriage. A win-win situation.

If a church disagrees with the legal state of marriage, they don't have recognize it in their religious state of marriage.

:har::haha::rotfl2:

Comment of the year material there!