I tried.

The government is supposed to be of the people and by the people, so if we want to amend the marriage laws, I suppose we will.

The animal argument is sort of silly, but I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out why polygamists can't use the same argument as homosexuals.

Why do you think they shouldn't?

At this point, I don't see why they shouldn't. But it helps the anti-gay marriage position by allowing them to claim it is not about being homophobic.

Relating this discussion to the OP, showing that some of the current issues raised in the OP are actually still not entirely worked out even by people who want to support them is probably part of the answer. As long as there are some rational arguments to make against changing the status quo, many will resist regardless of how the tide of public opinion shifts.

Well, there are 2 general responses then that I see.

1) Right now, there is a big movement for gay marriages, but not one for polygamy. So realistically, they are separate issues, and granting gay marriage will not cause a slippery slope to polygamy in the near future. It's the gay people asking for marriage that you are saying no to, not the polygamists.

2) So then what is it about? Just generally against anything 'icky' even if it seems logically justifiable?

Why did everyone jump to the conclusion that DS was arguing the government was going to step in and force Augusta to admit women? It's not at all hard to imagine a scenario where completely private forces compel Augusta to change course. In fact, someone already mentioned it -- and I say this without a strong feeling about the probability of this occurring. Just that it's conceivable it could occur.

All it would take is for CBS to retain the rights but to stop showing the tournament. Once the fallout happened -- sponsors see far less value in plastering billboards on players who aren't on TV, players question Augusta or their presence in the tournament...I'd think the pressure would be quite significant on Augusta if the viability of the Masters was in jeopardy. And not being on TV would be a huge problem for the viability of the tournament.

Now, maybe Augusta National can maintain the status quo and survive without the Masters, I don't know. Or maybe they don't need TV. But it wouldn't take *that much* to really upset the status quo in such a way that produces huge pressure on Augusta. And none of it necessarily involves government jackboots.

In other words, DS's point seemed perfectly understandable to me absent any consideration about the laws and government. Basically, there's lots of places where we can predict with a whole lot of confidence that social mores are changing, and surely, the people who are on the wrong side of the change have access to that same information...so why do they maintain their positions? It's an interesting question. We don't need to envision legal constructs or jurisprudence to answer it. It's really more of a social question, not a political one imo.

You say 'everyone,' but I struggle to find anyone.

Lastly, I think Augusta National is a good example of DS's point. I won't bet on it formally for a bunch of reasons, but I really think the status quo at Augusta is untenable for more than say 5-10 years. One of the repercussions of the death of independent media is that giant media conglomerates don't want to be involved with a place like Augusta. Augusta is in a catch-22, where they have this incredibly profitable tournament predicated on TV coverage, which can only be provided at the requisite scale by a giant corporation subject to shareholder whims and rank consumers. Les Moonves and Summer Redstone or whoever don't give a **** about the Masters keeping their good ole boys club to risk marrying their brand to a place like Augusta, and Disney and GE and even News Corp are in the same position. The club is way too high profile to maintain a stance like that. Weeee capitalism.

FWIW I think Vantek had the correct answer to the question.

Posts 7, 8, and 10 are like "well, this isn't like gay marriage, because Augusta has the right to legally discriminate," which I think is true but misses the point.

I would say that 7 is actually saying that the Augusta people would just say that they don't care what others think or what the future holds, they are going to do this as they want. No mention of gay marriage.

10 is a direct reply to a post on gay marriage and really is saying nothing about the OP or Augusta.

8 is the only one that would fit what you were saying. I missed it the first time. That still comes nowhere close to 'everyone.'

Just in case there is any confusion, I'm not saying no to gay marriage - only trying to work out the argument.

I'm pretty sure the polygamists are pretty adamant they should be allowed to marry as many people as they please, so are we now saying gay marriage should be allowed because homosexuals are apparently a larger minority than polygamists?

I believe they think they are right and everyone else is wrong, and that fighting the good fight is better than backing down to the pressure of the majority. For example, what if in fifty years our grandchildren try to pass a law outlawing eating meat because the animal rights people have convinced everyone it's wrong? I'd probably fight it.

Yeah, I knew what you were saying. These were arguments you could use.

I'm saying that logistically, you could easily legalize gay marriage while ignoring polygamists, so the slippery slope argument fails. I don't think it's the right thing to do, but...

Even if you thought that it would be the law of the land from that point forward? Wouldn't that knowledge make you think twice about your position?

To show what I mean let's talk about the idea of woman's promiscuity being considered exactly equal to men's promiscuity. Social mores are moving closer and closer to this idea. I think that they are not totally equal due to the fact that a woman knows for sure if she is the mother but a guy doesn't. But I also think that 100 years from now there will be a bit of a backtracking towards my opinion. If I did not believe that there would be backtracking I would have to seriously revaluate my own thoughts.