Yeah, children with a stranger's genes in them.
Would you want a stranger's genes in your baby? :2razz:
Yes, especially if the stranger's genes are generally superior to either mine or Leslie's.
Every advantage for my children, no matter how strange or how far I have to go to obtain it. I'd incorporate synthetic or even non-human genes into my children if I thought it would give them a competitive advantage.
Leslie and I have already discussed reproductive options, and we are still considering and discussing those options.
It matters to me because I see homosexuality as a block to reproduction.
There are more than sufficient means around such obstacles, even for couples who are not wealthy enough to avail themselves of modern reproductive technology. Worst case scenario, almost every member of either biological sex is capable of suppressing their instinctual distaste long enough to get the job done.
Anybody willing to vote for for legal marriage for gay couples should also be willing to vote for legal polygamy marriages.
Separate animals with separate legal concerns, and, really, with different reasoning in support. Despite my own support for it, the case against polygamy is considerably stronger than the case against gay marriage.
Any form of polygamy will require reforms to the laws concerning legal parentage, whether it can be shared by multiple persons or how it is to be determine. It will require massive changes in divorce law (though this is already desirable) and changes in how matters such as financial and custody disputes are handled.
Polyandry is almost as much an impediment to reproduction as homosexuality is, and unless the husbands are very close, it is likely to to lead to considerable domestic conflict. There's a strong reason why the majority, if not the entirety, of polyandrous societies required that the multiple husbands be brothers.
Polygyny is practically ideal for reproduction, but it leads to "surplus males" in society which aggravates nearly every form of social unrest, from juvenile delinquency to political demonstrations to violent insurrection. I'm a strong supporter of polygyny, but I recognize the necessity of having strong measures in place to deal with the stresses caused by surplus males.
Other forms of polygamous marriage, such as group and line marriage, all carry their own legal and societal consequences.
In order to have an effective argument on polygamy, it's necessary to determine exactly what forms of polygamy you are discussing-- which forms you are considering legalizing-- and then tailor the argument to those forms. Simply legalizing it
en masse is a recipe for disaster.
Same sex marriage is legal in Canada. If it were not and I could vote, I would vote against this. Same sex couples can get equal rights with civil unions. Why must they call it marriage?
Because the law does not work that way. If it isn't called "marriage", then it isn't really marriage and all of the laws which apply to marriage do not apply to it. It is a separate institution, with separate legal rights, and as a new institution it is only partially formed. There are no equal rights in separate institutions.