Yes. All humans should be protected under the law.
No. Marriage is between one man and one woman, period.
No. Only homosexuals and heterosexuals should be allowed to marry.
I donít care what they do as long as they stay out of my business.
My catís name is Mittens.
"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt
Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.
You imply that situations that occur in both monogamous and polygamous families as being only present only in polygamous families. Inconsistent rules, non-existent co-parenting and rivalries occur in families where the parents are still together as well as divorced. In addition, these things are absent in divorced families as well. It's not the status of the parents, but the combination of the parents.From what I said in post #9:
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.
The point of polygamy is the same as the point of monogamy. To form a family. Whether that family consists of only two adults, or three adults or four, or of any of the above plus some number of children. There are good mono families and there are bad mono families. There are good poly families, and there are bad poly families. And there is no research that shows any higher incidence of harm in poly families, save those where they include other harmful practices, such as the FLDS whackos. They give as much a bad name to polys as NAMBLA gives to gay men
The equivalency is legit as the issues occur regardless of the marriage status; monogamy, polygamy, or divorced. Any problems you can find within a poly family can be found in mono families and divorced familes and all three types also have examples that do not have those problems.False equivalency as I explained above.
One's relationship "orientation" is as different from one's sexual orientation as the sexual orientation is from one's sexual identity. None of the three are the same, but still have certain parallels. Simply because one has a male identity while in a female body, does not mean that they will automatically be attracted to females, anymore that one who is attracted to both will seek to live a polygamous lifestyle. Many bi- and pan-sexuals are monogamous. But all three are part of one's self. In other words, one is born, with a given sexual identity (that may conflict with the physical body), a sexual orientation and a relationship "orientation".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.
Discrimination is discrimination regardless of the basis of the discrimination. Whether it's based upon gender, sexual orientation, skin color, or grouping preference, it's still discrimination. The above are all different things, but they have all been a basis for denying a marriage right.Secondly, from an equality standpoint, it is argued that it is discriminatory towards homosexuals to not allow gay marriage. This is based on sexual ORIENTATION. Polygamy is not a sexual orientation.
As is race when discussing interracial marriage (once illegal) and one's mono/poly status when discussing polygamy. They are not the same but are all related when it comes to their aspect in marriage.As I explained above, sexual orientation is completely relevant when discussing SSM and polygamy has no connection because it is not an orientation.
And for that matter, sexual orientation can be completely irrelevant when it comes to SSM. There are marriages out there that have no sex between the couples. Boston Legal gave a prime example of why two people of the same gender but both straight might want to get married. In the end, and I'm sure you'll agree with me here at least, it's not about anything other than people; no genders, no orientations, no identities, no race, no religions,....just people.
Because in those marriages, the people aren't different races.
Sorry that simply isn't an argument, not when you want to claim that you support consenting adults in their decision. Either you do or you don't. Now you can support their right to make consenting decision as adult and still feel that they are wrong or icky or whatever. But when you claim that you support them....except for this, then it's no different from anyone else's exceptions: Racial, sexual orientations, whatever.