[ukyfootball]

Still no answer to my original polygamy question. Instead you answer with more questions, driving home my point that you dodged the question and are employing all of the typical liberal tactics to avoid honest debate. You may call yourself an independent if you want, but your political positions and debating tactics scream liberal.

I would prefer that the federal government simply walk away from the institution of marriage altogether rather than providing its endorsement of the sham known as gay marriage. There are a compelling arguments to be made for the government actively encouraging heterosexual marriage because of its tendency to result in the birth of children, who immediately become somebody's dependents upon their birth. There is no such argument to be made for the government endorsing or encouraging gay marriage. Our court systems are over burdened as it is without adding thousands of gay divorces to their dockets for no good reason. All of the issues raised by gay couples such as property rights and hospital visitation rights can be handled legally between two adults and they can be addressed outside of the institution of marriage.

There is your apples and oranges comparison. There are good reasons that gay marriage has never been commonly sanctioned by governments over thousands of years of human history. Marriage, as a legal institution, exists primarily to provide support and rights for children, and to ensure the orderly and equitable transfer of property upon the death of the parents. You can make an argument against government involvement in the marriage between two heterosexuals incapable of producing heirs, so please spare me the liberal argument that many heterosexual unions do not result in offspring. The tax breaks for married couples were put in place to encourage propagation of our species.

As far as telling another person what he or she can and cannot do, our government does that everyday that we draw a breath and then takes control over the distribution of our assets upon our death. That is what laws do. Most conservatives believe that what consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of the government's business. It is none of my business either. But when the federal government starts requiring tax dollars to be used to promote a homosexual lifestyle and requiring gay partners to be provided tax funded benefits by virtue of their spouse's employment, then it becomes my business.

Now, do you want to take a shot at my question regarding polygamous marriage among consenting adults? What logical basis is there for denying polygamists the right to marry if you extend that right to gay couples?

I never said nor do I condone polygamy, which would be absolutely ludacris to think about.

Your fear of tax dollars being spent on homosexual couples shows yourself as a bigot. Even though tax dollars go to support a ton of other things (even black people, mind you), youre scared that homosexuals are going to get some money. All because your insecure, homophobic, or both.

Denying polygamists the right to marry would deal with the numers involved. Marriage between two people can be defined as girl guy, guy guy, or girl girl.\

On the other hand, Im sure you wouldnt mind having two girls marry though because "thats hot" as most guys say.