Further, my orientation explanation explains the lack of equivalency issue.
From what I said in post #9:There is nothing about polygamy in any combination that would run counter to this. The fact that there are more adults to go to, in fact, would indicate that the child would have more options to talk to someone with whom they were comfortable with when problems arise, leading to more stability in their lives.
Again there is nothing about polygamy that runs counter to this point.
These are all things that would run counter to the point in polygamy.Further, the inconsistency in caretaking responsibilities and in child rearing responsibilities, compounded by the hierarchies and rivalries will harm the children, affecting their functioning. We already see some of this in divorced families, where inconsistent rules, non-existent co-parenting, and rivalries, negatively affect children.
False equivalency as I explained above.These things exist in monogamous as well as polygamous marriages, even without looking at outside relationship/affairs occurring.
That is a very different type of need from a sexual orientation. The orientation is whether they are attracted to males or females, NOT how many.I will agree with you that the reasoning behind SSM should not be the same for the reasoning for polgamy, however, I will disagree with it not being an "orientation" for lack of a better term. Having been part of the poly community for quite a number of years, I have met people who would not be able to hold anything other than a monogamous relationship, those who will need poly relationships and those in between as well as those who want no romantic relationships. This parallels straight, gay and bi as well as asexual quite nicely as a analogy. Likewise, while individuals are attracted to these types of relationships, none require them for survival, any more than a given individual requires sex for survival.