Re: same sex unions, perspective
sorry about the double post,
my point was that according to your argument for gay "marrige" how can you you say that three ppl can't be "married"? what i think is gay marrige wouldn't infact be marrige, as polygamy wouldn't be either, if you want to sign a contract i shouldn't be able to stop you as long as it doesn't hurt any one.
My argument is that "marrige" is a historical concept, to change any part of it makes it no longer marrige. it just isn't marrige. It can afford the same protections and what not but it just isn't marrige.
If I were to take lets say base ball. and instead of a bat you must use your hand, would it still be base ball? no. same thing with marrige, if its no longer man and woman its no longer marrige. BUT as with the base ball thing, what you made is still a game, as "gay marrige" as you say is still a union between people. but polymay would aslo still be union between ppl.
My point is that if the concept isn't unchangeable, if you can change it and not hurt anybody it has to be made so, (as long as some one wants it that way). to say other wise is hypocritical.
To your sterile couple comment I say this.
IF you know that your sterlile and are married then you can't fufill the point of "old marrige" which was to have children so then you really are making a mockery of "old marrige" just as civilunions, polygamy, and all the like do. BUT if you want to sign a contract with a sterile person go ahead, i can't stop you.
As far as parameters you can argue what ever you want. but my pint was this
-If we have thrown "traditional marrige" out the window, you can't go back to it and use it as reasoning. To go back to my base ball thing, if I were to say ok, and the out fielders must also use their hands, you can't say no that's not how baseball works, because you aren't playing baseball anymore. so to be married and gay and say that three people can't do the same becase thats not how "traditional marrige" works isn't a valid point to me, because you aren't "married traditionaly" any more. SO you can't use it as reasoning of what is ok and what isn't.
-Also I was trying to avoid the comments that are like "o polygamy is just gross" because the exact same thig can be said for Gay unions. Being "gross" i think isn't a very good point to debate on.
SO would you vote to make gay unions a possibility but polygamyh not a possibility? (asumming you could vote on it)
(ps there are polygamists in fundamental islam, mormanism, and ther religions)