Quote Originally Posted by ajaxfetish View Post
I'm afraid I don't think the world is that simple. I think there's more to it than, on the one hand, issues of great injustice that can only be changed by catastrophic action, and on the other things that aren't worth changing at all. In many cases, gradual advances in keeping with the progress of culture can accomplish a lot of good, in situations where a sudden revolution would either fail or come with significant and undesired side-effects. Just because the revolutionary change could be bad doesn't make any change bad.

Ajax
In this case I think that the proposed change entrenches greater prejudice, if you believe the current situation is prejudicial. On the other hand, if you believe that change would not be prejedicial then neither is the status quo.

If we can have Gay Marriage I see no reason we can't have Polyamorous ones - I can't imagine mass pogroms.

From my point of view, the current argument is nonsensical. You are either talking about a seperate institution for homsexual unions with the lable "marrige" on the tin, or you are talking about fundamentally altering the heterosexual union of marriage so that is is compatable with homosexual unions, because Western marriage law is not be default.

Particularly in the case of say, annulment, which I believe would need to be wholly abolished.

I wonder if as many heterosxeuals would be in favour of "Gay marriage" if they considered this?

I personally feel that the current drive for homosexual marriage is currently held up by a general feeling that it is unfair to deny someone something they ask for -even if we think it doesn't make sense.