It can "seem" to you like that all you want. It seems to be significantly different.it seems to me the disruption to the state is less than same sex marriage.
With same sex marriage it's largely a change of language. From specific spousal terms to simply "spouse" by and large. Every law and issue on the books resolves itself pretty much in a standard fashion. The one exception would be the few times where preference is given to a mother in a situation, but that is rather rare.
Bigamy would require significant rework of multiple laws. Look at just a few. Can a man married to one woman who is herself married to another man claim the other man's income as his own via his wife? If the other man has children, and the wife supports those children, can the first man claim them as dependent as his money is going to supporting them via his wife whose married to those childrens father. Another is the notion of power of attorney. If a man is married to two women, completely seperately, with no official power of attorney designation put forth, it would normally under the law default to his wife...but we have two wives, in no way attached to each other, who would then both have legal say under the current law. It'd need ot be changed to address this. Those are just some of the multitude of issues completely unique to bigamy rather than shared with same sex marriage.
That's perfectly fine for you opinion. However that's hardly a strong legal argument against my statement.."Marriage" is a word that has lost its original meaning and everything about it is now up for grabs.
So basically all your post is doing is "I don't like your answer, so I'll just reask the question again and expect you to say something different"?If anything goes in marriage now why should their be a one marriage rule?
If my reasoning as to why same sex marriage should be legal was worthless platitudes like "People should be able to marry who they love" or "It's no ones business what consenting adults do" or "Marriage is a hollow pointless entity" then your post would make sense and have a point. But those aren't my reasons. My reasoning was laid out clearly in the above post and has been laid out repeatedly on this forum. Your restating of the question or bringing up arguments against it that I've never made doesn't actually counter anything I've said.