On Tue, 15 May 2012 15:56:19 -0600, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Tue, 15 May 2012 14:36:28 -0500, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com>
>wrote:

>>On 05/15/2012 02:29 PM, wy wrote:
>>> On May 15, 3:22 pm, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com>  wrote:
>>>> On 05/15/2012 01:46 PM, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>>>>> On Tue, 15 May 2012 09:16:46 -0500, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com>
>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>> I have not said that the government should interfere with polygamy, in
>>>>>> fact I have said exactly the opposite.

>>>>> But---it should

>>>>> Polygamy IS breaking down values of a society.

>>>> Exactly how is polygamy any more destructive of society than same sex
>>>> marriage?

>>> How is same sex marriage destructive?

>>Read what I wrote. I very deliberately did not say that same sex
>>marriage is destructive. Many who advocate against same sex marriage say
>>that it is. Roselles seems to say that polygamy is destructive, and I
>>believe that in the past he has expressed support for same sex marriage.
>>I was asking him to explain why one os more destructive than the other.

>Multiple contractual considerations are legally "messy".

>Social order of the western traditon is predicated on equal rights of
>citizens and the nature of those licenses are specify 2.  Color,
>creed, or sexual preference isn't a consideration.

>>>>> What is not hurting---is allowing TWO (2) Qualified American citizens
>>>>> to enjoy what any other TWO (2) citizens can enjoy.

>>>> Why limit a marriage of more than two people destructive?

>>> Does that question make sense?  Of course not.  Hartung asked it?

>>You are correct, that was very poorly worded.

>>The question should have read like this:

>>Why is a marriage of more than two people any worse than a marriage of
>>only two people?

>Contractual considerations, socially unacceptable, and because I say
>so.  (which is actually the reasons given by wingers for a host of
>things they don't like)