Quantcast
Romney or Obama and why

Forums - Politics Discussion - Romney or Obama and why

Tony_Stark said:
MegaDrive08 said:
Ron Paul should be your president he's the only one that makes any sense, the others all say the same things, Obama just carried on the bush administration for another four years

Holy crap! Somebody who gets it. Ron Paul is down right dangerouse on foreighn policy though, and for that reason, I did not vote for him in the caucus. 

Explain.



Around the Network

@ Everyone who was arguing about gay marriage.

I actually want to applaud you all on having an interesting, and respectful argument. At least as respectful as you can get with a touchy subject like this.

I personally would love to see government get out of the marriage game. With Civil Unions, marriage has no place in the government. I believe any two people who want to enter into an economic contract with each other should be allowed. Marriage should be a personal opinion on who you recognize as married. The issue of love would not longer matter. It would solely be an economic argument.



 

My Real Redneck friends


killerzX said:
bluesinG said:
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
 

It's a derivative of the slippery slope fallacy. You take one element of the opposition argument and stretch it out to ridiculous extremes in an attempt to invalidate it. For the purposes of the gay marriage debate, the differences between a monogamous gay relationship and other non-conventional forms of love are significant enough to merit their exclusion from the terms of debate, and introducing them is an example of the slippery slope fallacy.

what makes polygamy any more ridiculous than gay marriage. its not slippery slope, when the same principle applies. its no slope it is extension.

you cannot logically  be for gay marriage, while simultaniously being against the other forms of marriage that i mentioned.

you have yet to pose any argument on why gay marriage should be legal while others not. nor have you explained why you are for gay marriage, claim that those who arent are bigots and or behind the times, while also being against other forms of marriage, and not considering yourself a bigot.

if its wrong, discrimintation, and bigotry to be against gay marriage, then it must also be so for people against other forms of marriage.

The claim is that they are not the same. Being related to someone provides the legal framework that marriage in turn provides making the legal framework unnecessary, and thus is not needed. The issues surrounding polygamy are distinct from the issues surrounding gay marriage, polygamy being an artifact of an older era and historically exploitative towards one gender.

With marriage we have an institution which is a legal framework that provides individuals with certain benefits. What we must debate on the matter of gay marriage then is that certain couples are being denied the ability to enter into this contract, who otherwise need to do so.

@killerzX

As I stated above, "Polygamy is not okay because it creates inherently unequal partnerships. For example, situations where multiple women have to share one man." That argument DOES NOT apply to same-sex marriage. Therefore, same-sex marriage and polygamy are logically and ethically different. I can support same-sex marriage without also supporting polygamy.

Here's an affirmative statement of my position: In my view, two people should be allowed to marry as long as (1) they are both consenting adults, (2) their marriage would create an equal partnership, and (3) their marriage would not put their children at substantial risk for a negative outcome that is not shared by the parents.

Same-sex marriage would pass this test. Polygamy would fail, due to criterion (2), and same-family marriage would fail due to criterion (3).

you are assuming its unequal. without any proof. you cant just assume, some one will love one more than another. if that were the case, all marriage should be banned, including gay.

and as kaz said, it could easily be 5 girls, 5 guys.

and for your last point a guess people with with heart disease shouldnt marry, fat people shouldnt marry, people with aids, smokers, shouldnt marry, etc. all those should be banned, right?

1. I'm not assuming it's unequal. Three women and one man is unequal by definition. 3 doesn't equal 1.

2. As I replied to Kaz, the chances of those 10 people all being equally in love with and committed to each other is 0%, which is why it wouldn't be an equal partnership. This also seems like a moot point, since groups of 10 bisexuals are not lining up to get married.

3. As I said in my previous post, then children should not be at risk for a negative outcome *that is not shared by the parents*. So people with heart disease etc. would meet the criterion.



bluesinG said:
killerzX said:
bluesinG said:
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
 

It's a derivative of the slippery slope fallacy. You take one element of the opposition argument and stretch it out to ridiculous extremes in an attempt to invalidate it. For the purposes of the gay marriage debate, the differences between a monogamous gay relationship and other non-conventional forms of love are significant enough to merit their exclusion from the terms of debate, and introducing them is an example of the slippery slope fallacy.

what makes polygamy any more ridiculous than gay marriage. its not slippery slope, when the same principle applies. its no slope it is extension.

you cannot logically  be for gay marriage, while simultaniously being against the other forms of marriage that i mentioned.

you have yet to pose any argument on why gay marriage should be legal while others not. nor have you explained why you are for gay marriage, claim that those who arent are bigots and or behind the times, while also being against other forms of marriage, and not considering yourself a bigot.

if its wrong, discrimintation, and bigotry to be against gay marriage, then it must also be so for people against other forms of marriage.

The claim is that they are not the same. Being related to someone provides the legal framework that marriage in turn provides making the legal framework unnecessary, and thus is not needed. The issues surrounding polygamy are distinct from the issues surrounding gay marriage, polygamy being an artifact of an older era and historically exploitative towards one gender.

With marriage we have an institution which is a legal framework that provides individuals with certain benefits. What we must debate on the matter of gay marriage then is that certain couples are being denied the ability to enter into this contract, who otherwise need to do so.

@killerzX

As I stated above, "Polygamy is not okay because it creates inherently unequal partnerships. For example, situations where multiple women have to share one man." That argument DOES NOT apply to same-sex marriage. Therefore, same-sex marriage and polygamy are logically and ethically different. I can support same-sex marriage without also supporting polygamy.

Here's an affirmative statement of my position: In my view, two people should be allowed to marry as long as (1) they are both consenting adults, (2) their marriage would create an equal partnership, and (3) their marriage would not put their children at substantial risk for a negative outcome that is not shared by the parents.

Same-sex marriage would pass this test. Polygamy would fail, due to criterion (2), and same-family marriage would fail due to criterion (3).

you are assuming its unequal. without any proof. you cant just assume, some one will love one more than another. if that were the case, all marriage should be banned, including gay.

and as kaz said, it could easily be 5 girls, 5 guys.

and for your last point a guess people with with heart disease shouldnt marry, fat people shouldnt marry, people with aids, smokers, shouldnt marry, etc. all those should be banned, right?

1. I'm not assuming it's unequal. Three women and one man is unequal by definition. 3 doesn't equal 1.

2. As I replied to Kaz, the chances of those 10 people all being equally in love with and committed to each other is 0%, which is why it wouldn't be an equal partnership. This also seems like a moot point, since groups of 10 bisexuals are not lining up to get married.

3. As I said in my previous post, then children should not be at risk for a negative outcome *that is not shared by the parents*. So people with heart disease etc. would meet the criterion.

you keep defaulting to multiple women, one guy. that is not the only polygamist relationship. but going along you logic, you would be fine if the law was 5 women and 5 men can get married.

the chances of a homosexual couple completely loving each other and no one esle is very unlikely. so therefore, by your logic they should not be married.

but most of all, you have a completely ridiculous premise that marriage should only be legal if everyone loves each other 100% equally. you cant legislate that, you cant enforce that, there is no way to determine that. its impossible.

you have a very arbitrary definition of marriage, one that is often not met by both gay and heterosexual couples.



HappySqurriel said:
bluesinG said:
HappySqurriel said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
NolSinkler said:
Romney, because at least he isn't for same-sex 'marriage'.


Feel free to check out my signature whenever you've got some time to spare.


Not that I care much anymore (gay marriage has been legal in Canada for several years now) but your signature, and most pro-gay marriage stances, fails to address the underlying question of "What is marriage?"

We live in a society where the institution of marriage has been under assault for over 60 years, and today it has been so watered down that the average person's definition would be something along the lines of "What happens after a wedding". There is far more to it than that, and one of the reasons the divorce rate is already so high is most people have forgotten what a marriage is supposed to be; and simply want a wedding with their partner because they lust for them. I don't fear a "slippery slope" argument with gay marriage, but I have never seen anyone explain how two people of the same sex can be married ... Being in love is not enough, having a ceremony is not enough, having a stable monogamous partnership which lasts a lifetime for the purpose of raising children is required.

This isn't about "good vs. evil" or about "tolerance" this is purely about definitions ... Just because you want to call your cat a dog doesn't make it a dog

Well, I guess we disagree about the definition of marriage. Or at least part of it. Committing to a stable, monogomous partnership is enough for me. Children are certainly not required (and I say that as the happily married father of one child, and hopefully more in the future).

Also, two follow-up questions: First, should opposite-sex couples be allowed to marry if they do not intend to have children? Second, internationally, there are far more children in need of adoptive parents than there are opposite-sex couples looking to adopt; do you think that these "extra" children would be better off raised by married same-sex couples or in group homes?


Marriage is an institution that is designed to create the ideal environment for raising children, you do not require children to be married.

Personally, I'm against international adoption (in general) at the moment because it is not particularly ethical; essentially, a large portion of children that are available for international adoption are being sold to wealthy westerners, and I have heard it suggested that this is against their parents will. I believe the correct approach to deal with "unwanted" children in developing nations is to increase the standard of living, and to encourage the use of birth control; whether it is artificial birth control (the pill/condoms) or more natural methods (the rhythm method). I don't necessarily have a problem with homosexual adoption, but with there being a massive shortage of children available for adoption I think we should be able to place them in the "best" environment possible; which could potentially discriminate against people for countless reasons. As an example, you might want to place a baby with a family that most closely matches their ethnic background and, since there are far more black babies than white babies available for adoption, the waiting list for black adoptive parents might be shorter than white parents. Of course, this would not preclude white parents from being given a black baby; after all, any loving parents (including parents of different ethnic backgrounds, or homosexual parents) are better than being a ward of the state.

Marriage is simply "the state of being united in a consensual or contractual relationship recognized by law." For many people, it is a precursor to having and raising children, but for many others it is not. I do not believe that capacity or intent to procreate should influence whether or not a couple is allowed to marry. People who do not want to have children should be allowed to marry, and people who cannot have biological children together should be allowed to marry (including cases of infertility, as well as same-sex couples).

Do you agree that people who don't want to have children should be allowed to marry, and that infertile couples should be allowed to marry? If so, then from a procreative standpoint, what's the difference between an infertile couple and a same-sex couple?



Around the Network
bluesinG said:
killerzX said:
bluesinG said:
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
 

It's a derivative of the slippery slope fallacy. You take one element of the opposition argument and stretch it out to ridiculous extremes in an attempt to invalidate it. For the purposes of the gay marriage debate, the differences between a monogamous gay relationship and other non-conventional forms of love are significant enough to merit their exclusion from the terms of debate, and introducing them is an example of the slippery slope fallacy.

what makes polygamy any more ridiculous than gay marriage. its not slippery slope, when the same principle applies. its no slope it is extension.

you cannot logically  be for gay marriage, while simultaniously being against the other forms of marriage that i mentioned.

you have yet to pose any argument on why gay marriage should be legal while others not. nor have you explained why you are for gay marriage, claim that those who arent are bigots and or behind the times, while also being against other forms of marriage, and not considering yourself a bigot.

if its wrong, discrimintation, and bigotry to be against gay marriage, then it must also be so for people against other forms of marriage.

The claim is that they are not the same. Being related to someone provides the legal framework that marriage in turn provides making the legal framework unnecessary, and thus is not needed. The issues surrounding polygamy are distinct from the issues surrounding gay marriage, polygamy being an artifact of an older era and historically exploitative towards one gender.

With marriage we have an institution which is a legal framework that provides individuals with certain benefits. What we must debate on the matter of gay marriage then is that certain couples are being denied the ability to enter into this contract, who otherwise need to do so.

@killerzX

As I stated above, "Polygamy is not okay because it creates inherently unequal partnerships. For example, situations where multiple women have to share one man." That argument DOES NOT apply to same-sex marriage. Therefore, same-sex marriage and polygamy are logically and ethically different. I can support same-sex marriage without also supporting polygamy.

Here's an affirmative statement of my position: In my view, two people should be allowed to marry as long as (1) they are both consenting adults, (2) their marriage would create an equal partnership, and (3) their marriage would not put their children at substantial risk for a negative outcome that is not shared by the parents.

Same-sex marriage would pass this test. Polygamy would fail, due to criterion (2), and same-family marriage would fail due to criterion (3).

you are assuming its unequal. without any proof. you cant just assume, some one will love one more than another. if that were the case, all marriage should be banned, including gay.

and as kaz said, it could easily be 5 girls, 5 guys.

and for your last point a guess people with with heart disease shouldnt marry, fat people shouldnt marry, people with aids, smokers, shouldnt marry, etc. all those should be banned, right?

1. I'm not assuming it's unequal. Three women and one man is unequal by definition. 3 doesn't equal 1.

2. As I replied to Kaz, the chances of those 10 people all being equally in love with and committed to each other is 0%, which is why it wouldn't be an equal partnership. This also seems like a moot point, since groups of 10 bisexuals are not lining up to get married.

3. As I said in my previous post, then children should not be at risk for a negative outcome *that is not shared by the parents*. So people with heart disease etc. would meet the criterion.

1. 3 doesn't equal 1, however there is a huge flaw in the arguement that 1=1 in regards to "love and time spent."  Unequal level of affection is highly likely, and honestly probably more likely then not.  In most relationships one person tends to give up far more then the other to make the relationship work.  Or, not work for that matter. 

I'm reminded of a short story.  I want to say Ernest Hemmingway... maybe Stephen King I dunno, I read it in a class.  Describing himself as a man who didn't see himself as a cheater because he had an overwhelming love for all women.

To just assume people married share equal levels of love is a bit naive.

2. I'd disagree with your statistics here.  It's unlikey, but is totally possible.  Also, I'm actually pretty sure there are some groups that would like to be communally married.  It's just less popular then gay marriage is.  I mean gay people werent lining up to get married in the 1940's.

Outside of worries of legal fraud, who cares if people are polygamists.  There are some abusive polygamists, but it seems like you should be targeting the abusive people.  The parrelels with the anti-gay marriage stuff is fairly stirking.

3.



bluesinG said:
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
 

It's a derivative of the slippery slope fallacy. You take one element of the opposition argument and stretch it out to ridiculous extremes in an attempt to invalidate it. For the purposes of the gay marriage debate, the differences between a monogamous gay relationship and other non-conventional forms of love are significant enough to merit their exclusion from the terms of debate, and introducing them is an example of the slippery slope fallacy.

what makes polygamy any more ridiculous than gay marriage. its not slippery slope, when the same principle applies. its no slope it is extension.

you cannot logically  be for gay marriage, while simultaniously being against the other forms of marriage that i mentioned.

you have yet to pose any argument on why gay marriage should be legal while others not. nor have you explained why you are for gay marriage, claim that those who arent are bigots and or behind the times, while also being against other forms of marriage, and not considering yourself a bigot.

if its wrong, discrimintation, and bigotry to be against gay marriage, then it must also be so for people against other forms of marriage.

The claim is that they are not the same. Being related to someone provides the legal framework that marriage in turn provides making the legal framework unnecessary, and thus is not needed. The issues surrounding polygamy are distinct from the issues surrounding gay marriage, polygamy being an artifact of an older era and historically exploitative towards one gender.

With marriage we have an institution which is a legal framework that provides individuals with certain benefits. What we must debate on the matter of gay marriage then is that certain couples are being denied the ability to enter into this contract, who otherwise need to do so.

@killerzX

As I stated above, "Polygamy is not okay because it creates inherently unequal partnerships. For example, situations where multiple women have to share one man." That argument DOES NOT apply to same-sex marriage. Therefore, same-sex marriage and polygamy are logically and ethically different. I can support same-sex marriage without also supporting polygamy.

Here's an affirmative statement of my position: In my view, two people should be allowed to marry as long as (1) they are both consenting adults, (2) their marriage would create an equal partnership, and (3) their marriage would not put their children at substantial risk for a negative outcome that is not shared by the parents.

Same-sex marriage would pass this test. Polygamy would fail, due to criterion (2), and same-family marriage would fail due to criterion (3).


But what if a second woman WANTS to marry the man?  Should we stop them?  There is no liberal principle to which you can appeal.  What if the two women are okay with the "exploitation" that you cite?



killerzX said:
bluesinG said:
killerzX said:
bluesinG said:
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:

what makes polygamy any more ridiculous than gay marriage. its not slippery slope, when the same principle applies. its no slope it is extension.

you cannot logically  be for gay marriage, while simultaniously being against the other forms of marriage that i mentioned.

you have yet to pose any argument on why gay marriage should be legal while others not. nor have you explained why you are for gay marriage, claim that those who arent are bigots and or behind the times, while also being against other forms of marriage, and not considering yourself a bigot.

if its wrong, discrimintation, and bigotry to be against gay marriage, then it must also be so for people against other forms of marriage.

The claim is that they are not the same. Being related to someone provides the legal framework that marriage in turn provides making the legal framework unnecessary, and thus is not needed. The issues surrounding polygamy are distinct from the issues surrounding gay marriage, polygamy being an artifact of an older era and historically exploitative towards one gender.

With marriage we have an institution which is a legal framework that provides individuals with certain benefits. What we must debate on the matter of gay marriage then is that certain couples are being denied the ability to enter into this contract, who otherwise need to do so.

@killerzX

As I stated above, "Polygamy is not okay because it creates inherently unequal partnerships. For example, situations where multiple women have to share one man." That argument DOES NOT apply to same-sex marriage. Therefore, same-sex marriage and polygamy are logically and ethically different. I can support same-sex marriage without also supporting polygamy.

Here's an affirmative statement of my position: In my view, two people should be allowed to marry as long as (1) they are both consenting adults, (2) their marriage would create an equal partnership, and (3) their marriage would not put their children at substantial risk for a negative outcome that is not shared by the parents.

Same-sex marriage would pass this test. Polygamy would fail, due to criterion (2), and same-family marriage would fail due to criterion (3).

you are assuming its unequal. without any proof. you cant just assume, some one will love one more than another. if that were the case, all marriage should be banned, including gay.

and as kaz said, it could easily be 5 girls, 5 guys.

and for your last point a guess people with with heart disease shouldnt marry, fat people shouldnt marry, people with aids, smokers, shouldnt marry, etc. all those should be banned, right?

1. I'm not assuming it's unequal. Three women and one man is unequal by definition. 3 doesn't equal 1.

2. As I replied to Kaz, the chances of those 10 people all being equally in love with and committed to each other is 0%, which is why it wouldn't be an equal partnership. This also seems like a moot point, since groups of 10 bisexuals are not lining up to get married.

3. As I said in my previous post, then children should not be at risk for a negative outcome *that is not shared by the parents*. So people with heart disease etc. would meet the criterion.

you keep defaulting to multiple women, one guy. that is not the only polygamist relationship. but going along you logic, you would be fine if the law was 5 women and 5 men can get married.

the chances of a homosexual couple completely loving each other and no one esle is very unlikely. so therefore, by your logic they should not be married.

but most of all, you have a completely ridiculous premise that marriage should only be legal if everyone loves each other 100% equally. you cant legislate that, you cant enforce that, there is no way to determine that. its impossible.

you have a very arbitrary definition of marriage, one that is often not met by both gay and heterosexual couples.

Let me clarify my position. My position is not that everyone needs to love each other 100% equally. My position is that the marriage partnership should not be *unequal by definition*.

Multiple women and one man would be *unequal by definition*, because all of the women would be sharing the one man. Multiple men and one woman would also be *unequal by definition*, because all of the men would be sharing the one man.

One man and one man is *not* unequal by definition. One woman and one woman is *not* unequal by definition.

Before moving on, do you accept that multiple men and one woman, or multiple women and one man, is an unequal partnership by definition?



NolSinkler said:
bluesinG said:
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:

what makes polygamy any more ridiculous than gay marriage. its not slippery slope, when the same principle applies. its no slope it is extension.

you cannot logically  be for gay marriage, while simultaniously being against the other forms of marriage that i mentioned.

you have yet to pose any argument on why gay marriage should be legal while others not. nor have you explained why you are for gay marriage, claim that those who arent are bigots and or behind the times, while also being against other forms of marriage, and not considering yourself a bigot.

if its wrong, discrimintation, and bigotry to be against gay marriage, then it must also be so for people against other forms of marriage.

The claim is that they are not the same. Being related to someone provides the legal framework that marriage in turn provides making the legal framework unnecessary, and thus is not needed. The issues surrounding polygamy are distinct from the issues surrounding gay marriage, polygamy being an artifact of an older era and historically exploitative towards one gender.

With marriage we have an institution which is a legal framework that provides individuals with certain benefits. What we must debate on the matter of gay marriage then is that certain couples are being denied the ability to enter into this contract, who otherwise need to do so.

@killerzX

As I stated above, "Polygamy is not okay because it creates inherently unequal partnerships. For example, situations where multiple women have to share one man." That argument DOES NOT apply to same-sex marriage. Therefore, same-sex marriage and polygamy are logically and ethically different. I can support same-sex marriage without also supporting polygamy.

Here's an affirmative statement of my position: In my view, two people should be allowed to marry as long as (1) they are both consenting adults, (2) their marriage would create an equal partnership, and (3) their marriage would not put their children at substantial risk for a negative outcome that is not shared by the parents.

Same-sex marriage would pass this test. Polygamy would fail, due to criterion (2), and same-family marriage would fail due to criterion (3).


But what if a second woman WANTS to marry the man?  Should we stop them?  There is no liberal principle to which you can appeal.  What if the two women are okay with the "exploitation" that you cite?

The principle is that a polygamous marriage creates a partnership that is unequal *by definition*, whereas a same-sex marriage does not.



Kasz216 said:
bluesinG said:
killerzX said:
bluesinG said:
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:

what makes polygamy any more ridiculous than gay marriage. its not slippery slope, when the same principle applies. its no slope it is extension.

you cannot logically  be for gay marriage, while simultaniously being against the other forms of marriage that i mentioned.

you have yet to pose any argument on why gay marriage should be legal while others not. nor have you explained why you are for gay marriage, claim that those who arent are bigots and or behind the times, while also being against other forms of marriage, and not considering yourself a bigot.

if its wrong, discrimintation, and bigotry to be against gay marriage, then it must also be so for people against other forms of marriage.

The claim is that they are not the same. Being related to someone provides the legal framework that marriage in turn provides making the legal framework unnecessary, and thus is not needed. The issues surrounding polygamy are distinct from the issues surrounding gay marriage, polygamy being an artifact of an older era and historically exploitative towards one gender.

With marriage we have an institution which is a legal framework that provides individuals with certain benefits. What we must debate on the matter of gay marriage then is that certain couples are being denied the ability to enter into this contract, who otherwise need to do so.

@killerzX

As I stated above, "Polygamy is not okay because it creates inherently unequal partnerships. For example, situations where multiple women have to share one man." That argument DOES NOT apply to same-sex marriage. Therefore, same-sex marriage and polygamy are logically and ethically different. I can support same-sex marriage without also supporting polygamy.

Here's an affirmative statement of my position: In my view, two people should be allowed to marry as long as (1) they are both consenting adults, (2) their marriage would create an equal partnership, and (3) their marriage would not put their children at substantial risk for a negative outcome that is not shared by the parents.

Same-sex marriage would pass this test. Polygamy would fail, due to criterion (2), and same-family marriage would fail due to criterion (3).

you are assuming its unequal. without any proof. you cant just assume, some one will love one more than another. if that were the case, all marriage should be banned, including gay.

and as kaz said, it could easily be 5 girls, 5 guys.

and for your last point a guess people with with heart disease shouldnt marry, fat people shouldnt marry, people with aids, smokers, shouldnt marry, etc. all those should be banned, right?

1. I'm not assuming it's unequal. Three women and one man is unequal by definition. 3 doesn't equal 1.

2. As I replied to Kaz, the chances of those 10 people all being equally in love with and committed to each other is 0%, which is why it wouldn't be an equal partnership. This also seems like a moot point, since groups of 10 bisexuals are not lining up to get married.

3. As I said in my previous post, then children should not be at risk for a negative outcome *that is not shared by the parents*. So people with heart disease etc. would meet the criterion.

1. 3 doesn't equal 1, however there is a huge flaw in the arguement that 1=1 in regards to "love and time spent."  Unequal level of affection is highly likely, and honestly probably more likely then not.  In most relationships one person tends to give up far more then the other to make the relationship work.  Or, not work for that matter. 

I'm reminded of a short story.  I want to say Ernest Hemmingway... maybe Stephen King I dunno, I read it in a class.  Describing himself as a man who didn't see himself as a cheater because he had an overwhelming love for all women.

To just assume people married share equal levels of love is a bit naive.

2. I'd disagree with your statistics here.  It's unlikey, but is totally possible.  Also, I'm actually pretty sure there are some groups that would like to be communally married.  It's just less popular then gay marriage is.  I mean gay people werent lining up to get married in the 1940's.

Outside of worries of legal fraud, who cares if people are polygamists.  There are some abusive polygamists, but it seems like you should be targeting the abusive people.  The parrelels with the anti-gay marriage stuff is fairly stirking.

3.

1. It was a mistake on my part to say that the partners should be equally in love with each other. Of course that's almost never going to be 100% true. But almost all polygamous relationships are *unequal by definition* (e.g., 1 woman and 3 men, or vice versa). Same-sex marriages are not unequal by definition.

2. That may be possible, but can we agree that it's beyond the scope of this thread? As far as I know, neither Obama nor Romney supports 10-way bisexual marriage. :)