Brainchild (Your real name is?)

I can see you're not going to argue with the constraints I gave you. Instead, you'll give me lots of reading.

Brainchild (What is your real name for the record? I'm on the record with mine.)

You write long posts but didn't answer with acceptable arguments as I set it up. You may feel you have given me rational and factual argument as to why same-sex marriage should be legalized though I see it mostly as emotional. And, I'll put aside for now your having to explain potential negative as well as the positive effects on society of same-sex marriage.

Let me remind you I won’t take arguments that don’t apply equally to polygamous marriage. Do you think one is innate and the other is not? Based on what? Shouldn't people entering into polygamous marriages be rewarded by government and society for marrying whom they love?

If you cannot give such arguments, take the next course. Explain why government should recognize same-sex marriage without recognizing polygamous marriage. Simply saying the latter is a red herring is a cop out. Both would change the definition of marriage affirmed in the Defense of Marriage Act.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've got to hand it Daniel Rolland for his entrepreneurial spirit and sense. Good going, Daniel.

Brainchild,

Your whole argument is based on your belief that homosexuality is an innate characteristic, not a lifestyle choice. Anyone opposing same-sex marriage is simply supposed to accept this? Tell me why, then, can people discover this fact after they've had several children in a heterosexual marriage? People don't discover their skin color after trying out other colors.

I don't remember a negative thing coming from Elizabeth Edwards. We need more of those in the world. Sad to see her go.

So Ripcord, instead of finding fault, argue the point for William Blent. If the definition of marriage were to be redefined to include same-sex couples, why not polygamy? And, sure, argue for polyandry as well if you wish. But, give rational and factual argument, please. And, just because someone defines marriage as between one man and one woman, that doesn't mean it is "dogmatic mush." Plenty of people for centuries defined marriage that way, and many were not a bit religious. This definition is beyond religious. It's cultural.

Jadam12, my train of thought is in defining marriage. I believe marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman. If that is to change, where are the boundaries? If same-sex couples are included in the definition, why not multiples of one sex or the other? I'm not addressing spousal abuse, and I don't want this discussion sidetracked with this separate issue.

krusatyr,

Please clarify your point.

William Blent, today's challenge for you is to give rationale and factual argument as to why polygamy should not be accepted in the law of the land if same-sex marriages are.

Hi Jadam12,

Let me first say I am willing to jump through almost whatever it takes to make the flying public safe. However, I see government is terrific at catching some things but more at inconveniencing the public while terrorists get away with their next idea or even old ones that aren't caught because of "human error." Someone can walk through the exit, for example, while we’re all taking off our shoes and boarding without carrying a lipstick. As I boarded a plane recently, one of my thoughts was that passengers are the government's most reliable line of defense. Passengers needed to be prepared to stop an attack themselves because the screening efforts have too many holes.

When I cross a bridge on our highways, I want to be safe and don't want to have to think of myself as the last inspector of the bridge. The same goes for air travel. (Now, bridge safety actually is bad, too, but that is a topic for another time.)

I understand government is doing something. It’s just not sufficient. Government needs to be ahead of the attacks rather than being reactive.