Quote:
Originally posted by Chewbacca:
quote:
Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
My point is that if we do re-define marriage to accomodate gay couples, then the next logical step will be to re-define it again to accomodate bisexuals who don't want to choose between two mutually consenting partners.
|
Is this really such a logical next step? I think not. Marriage between two people is quite different on many levels than marriage between three or more. [/QUOTE]
The concept of a gay marriage was equally "unthinkable" just a few short decades ago. In the late 1970's, the TV sitcom Soap was considered extremely controversial because it had one gay character on it.
There are several sitcoms today that have gay characters (some of whom are the title characters) and they aren't considered controversial at all.
And marriage to multiple partners is NOT that different. We've had polygamy before and this would be the perfect precedence to argue for it's return. Some religions allow polygamy, and their followers could claim that the restriction of one partner violates their religious freedom. As Yorick stated long ago, once you change the definition of marriage to accomodate any group that is currently excluded, you set a legal precedence for all other excluded groups to petition for marriage to be changed to include them.