So that's it? Too bad for them but polygamy "has been found to be unlawful."?<quoted text>
Unless I'm mistaken, the argument most often thrown around here is that heterosexual couples should have access to the benefits and protections of marriage PRIMARILY because they may have children.
The last part of my post was an attempt to show that there are a significant number of same-gender couples who have children. Shouldn't these be afforded the same protections and benefits under the law as opposite-gender couples who are married?
If you don't want to include children in the equation, then the fact that two, consenting, unrelated, adults who wish to partner their lives under the eyes of the government by way of marriage, should be a sufficient argument for same-gender marriage.
Don't try to throw in the ringer of plural marriage and incestuous marriages. They have already been found to be unlawful.
Same-gender marriage HAS NOTHING TO DO with incest or bigamy.
We are ONLY talking about same-gender, unrelated, consenting, adult couples.
Not so fast slick! That was the same thing that was said about same sex marriage just a few short years ago. It wasn't a valid reason to deny SSM, it's not a valid reason to deny poly marriage.
Polygamy deserves the same respect and consideration as same sex marriage.