//they want me to type reams of virtual paper//

Post Script:

Nope, the only person who has the made that demand of you is yourself. Which makes it a little bit too convenient when you then turn and protest that you can't possibly do that as it's far too much work.

Surely a man of your towering intellectual capacity is capable of summarising the main thrust of their argument in a brief post?

Foxy writes:
“And what exactly are your arguments against same-sex marriage?”

One basic argument is one of eligibility; same sex folk aren’t eligible.
I reckon traditional marriage, for all it’s faults, is a fundamental cornerstone of our society and it’s worth preserving.

Foxy writes:
“Have you succeeded in proving your case?”

Foxy, I have no case to prove.
Also, proof is a rather odd concept when we’re talking about social issues, so it’s unclear to me what you think I might have to prove.

More specifically, on what basis do you think gay folk should be entitled to marriage?

Toni Lavis writes:
“I think it's drawing a pretty long bow to suggest that mother Britain is unrelated or irrelevant.“

And that’s a perfectly reasonable response. It’s also a straw man.
The point I was making was not to compare who has a flag in the corner of someone else’s flag, but hopefully to stimulate some intellectual engagement regarding the similarity of gay marriage and polygamy.
We both agree that polygamy is going nowhere fast in western countries as you well point out. No argument from me.
It raises the question as to why, if equality is a foundational plank of SSM, that polygamy wouldn’t also be deemed supportable within the same framework.
Thoughts?

Toni Lavis writes:
“But instead you've just kept flogging a dead three-headed monkey.”

I’m perfectly happy to see you clear that naughty monkey away.
Don’t whine about it; Give it a whirl.

Toni Lavis writes:
“Presumably you'll be shocked and appalled at my mercenary and cavalier attitude […]”

Nah . . I’ve spent practically my whole life in corporate sales so I have no issue with capitalism.

Sorry, I found it difficult to figure out what you were conveying in your last paragraph on Page 32.

Toni Lavis writes:
[…] capable of summarising the main thrust of their argument in a brief post?”

Very briefly then, I see marriage as a cornerstone of our society having stood the test of time and which, though not without faults, has served us well. It’s a social construct that encapsulates and formulates how we handle raising the generations that follow. It seems to be fit for service despite the fact that I might not be very good at it personally.

But I have the same question for you as for Foxy.
On what basis do you think gay folk should be entitled to marriage?
What specifically do you see gay folk getting out of this?

Hey Dustin,
'Gay couples can have children too'.
I'm kind of curious to know how that works;
Either I'm not keeping up with medical advances or I've been misinformed..
I always thought u needed a plug and a socket to accomplish the miracle of reproduction but who knows, things these days are changing so fast..
One last question I can't help but ask...
If two blokes rub their plugs together.. oh forget it how stupid I am.. I know, the one that carries the child through pregnancy is inseminated anally, right?
Surely...

Hey Toni,
Just wanted to point out that if I saw a three headed monkey I'd probably flog it to death, and keep flooging it a little bit after it had passed, just in case you know, just to be sure it wasn't ever coming back.
It would be a bit like that whack-a-mole game at timezone I suppose...
A three headed monkey is just too damn creepy not too, imho.

//It raises the question as to why, if equality is a foundational plank of SSM, that polygamy wouldn’t also be deemed supportable within the same framework.
Thoughts?//

Maybe because bigamy is still a crime? So to support polygamy you'd have to be condoning a criminal offence. I'm not sure how legal that is, and even if it's legal, it's not a good look for a politician to be seen to be condoning crime. So they probably won't, as they tend to be fairly conscious of their public image.

//Sorry, I found it difficult to figure out what you were conveying in your last paragraph on Page 32.//

Yeah, fair enough. I'd have trouble understanding that sort of gibberish as well. Mea culpa. Should have read:

But the thing is that none of the naysayers have ever been able to convince me of the downsides gay marriage, usually because they don't make an effort to - you give them a free shot, and they usually either duck for cover or proffer three-headed monkeys. And honestly, it wouldn't take a huge downside, given that the potential benefit has already been established as minute. Just one little downside...

Basically my point was that having the established the potential benefits to myself of SSM as being fairly insignificant, if a somebody could convince me of a significant negative impact on myself from SSM, that might constitute a persuasive argument. But you'll never know unless you give it a go.

//Very briefly then, I see marriage as a cornerstone of our society having stood the test of time and which, though not without faults, has served us well. It’s a social construct that encapsulates and formulates how we handle raising the generations that follow. It seems to be fit for service//

And do you see any of that changing if we let the gays have a go as well? Which bits, and in which ways will they change?

//What specifically do you see gay folk getting out of this?//

Expensive wedding receptions :)

Armchair Critic,
In the NEW WORLD ORDER surrogacy is now the problem of lawyers, deciding on who's is the child? Is it the child of the homosexual male or the mother who bore it? Do we allow a new industry of rent a womb? Where does the Ovum come from? Do we allow money to be exchanged for children? So we set up a new trade in children. Children are now a commodity to be purchased. Do we allow children to know their biological roots? This is what is happening in those supposed advanced nations with SSM and LGBTQQ marriage as legal.