Statesboro, GA, USA
There's nothing inconsistent, Stephen, is saying I can drink alcohol, yet denying you the right to force it down my throat. The former is a pragmatic acknowledgement, based on several years of Prohibition, that a law can never protect me from me, while the latter is an equally pragmatic and I think justifiable application of the law to protect me from you.
Is this the same as the courts allowing someone the right to end life (questioning the very humanity of those very lives) and yet punishing someone else with homicide for taking that same kind of life? Not to turn this into an abortion debate, but homocide means murder. It's not a synonym for damage of property. If the underlying assumptions of Roe V. Wade are correct, then Peterson was unjustly charged in one of his counts of homicide. If the underlying assumptions of the Peterson case are correct then Roe V. Wade was greatly in error.
You can't get more inconsistent than that.
You can protect me from pouring alcohol down your throat all you want too, and rightly so. But if when YOU drink it it's called alcohol, and when I force it down your throat it's called Anti-freeze, we've got a problem. One of us is wrong.
If you are suggesting that both are attempts to legislate morality, with no real regard to consequences beyond "it ain't right," then I would certainly agree.
I'm in no way suggesting that. But since both history and prediction have been a priori ruled out by you, there's really no way to discuss consequences with you, that you'll accept.
Sorry, Stephen, but I don't see anything obfuscatory about deciding which of those very different definitions you want to promote. Especially since I suspect we won't agree on which one is "right." Monogamy, like morality, is defined by the individual, not a dictionary.
It's very obfuscatory Ron, because it forces other considerations to the center when they are not being considered ... and not for the purpose of elucidation, but for the purpose of distraction as a kind of smoke-screen effect.
Since the whole question was about marriage, your first definition of monogamy is irrelevant. Since those who push for forbidding marriage more than once a lifetime, even after the death of a spouse, represent a fringe smattering, and since divorce is accepted by most (even by those who believe in very narrowly allowed reasons for it), your third definition just dropped out. That leaves one. The one most people think of when you say the word "monogamy". Sometimes distinctions are needed, and sometimes they only get in the way of concourse
Was anyone's mind changed
by all of this?
Perhaps not ... especially among the most adamantly opinionated among us. (Like me and the Ronster, and a few others ). But for others who are undecided, or are still considering the issues, I think these discussions may provide more to think about, and perhaps some angles they haven't really considered before.
It's not that philsophical / political discussions never move people in a direction ... it's just that they rarely do so, and never all at once. But even when they do, no one really ever comes out and says "Hey you changed my mind". There's a pride in not wanting to say those kinds of things publicly. And there's a dignity in being allowed not to have to.
I'll respond later.