Dear visionaries,
Okay, Chad. This should be fun.
Thus far, we have agreed that as far as the state is concerned, marriage is a secular legal contract and nothing more. You persuaded me. Now, let’s follow this out. What interest does the state have, and what basis does it have, for limiting said contracts to just two parties? We have thought for a long time it should be just two, but of course, we thought that back in the day when we thought it should a man and a woman, one each. What benighted troglodytes we were back then! The forehead reddens to think of it. But now, if three or sixteen parties want to enter into a voluntary arrangement, a secular legal contract, mind you, what business is it of the state (which has agreed to stay out of the bedroom now) to say that they cannot? Why should the state restrict the formations of daisy chains?
I invite everyone else to watch this closely. I am going to be very illogical, which is apparently defined these days as asking Chad to be consistent.
Cordially,
Douglas
Apologetics in the Void” are repostings from an on-going electronic discussion and debate I had some time ago with members of our local community, whose names I have changed. The list serve is called Vision 20/20, and hence the name “visionaries.” Reading just these posts probably feels like listening to one half of a phone conversation, but I don’t feel at liberty to publish what others have written. But I have been editing these posts (lightly) with intelligibility in mind.