ToledoBadger

In this

Badgers

meh

quote:

---

weagle99

---

I think I see what you are saying. For you, the act of legally changing the concept marriage is the threshold or important action. Supporting one such definition change would permit other moralities or ideologies, like polygamy, to also attempt to change marriage.

I think that is a reasonable argument, but I do not think it is persuasive.

First, our system is intended to permit such changes. Even the Constitution can be amended or its sometimes ambiguous language reinterpreted.

Second, just because a group could make that argument does not mean it would succeed. For example, Polygamists would have to convince enough people for a similar change to occur. In this way, they are permitted to argue for such a change but would be required to convince others.

Third, I think gay marriage supporters could still conceptually sever their support from things like polygamy. Acceptance gay marriage would be the new recognition of sexual predilection, while polygamy is arguably just the extension of an already recognized and accepted predilection, heterosexuality.

Either way, I appreciate the discussion.

Wisconsin? Alvarez has connections to Notre Dame.

There is nothing like this game.