That's how YOU might consider them, but that's not how THEY might consider themselves. Is that how the law would see them? You don't know because there IS no law regarding recognition of polygamous marriages. THAT'S THE POINT.<quoted text>
What the heck are you talking about? What is a plural marriage, but multiple marriages of two people. For example, Kody Brown and his wife are one couple, Kody Brown and his second wife are also a couple, Kody and his third wife are also a couple....do you see a pattern here?
You can't simply say, "Polygamy is now legal" without dealing with all the possible combinations and permutations of people entering and exiting the marriage, either through death or divorce, and the rights and protections of both the person leaving and those still in the marriage.
If a man has three wives and wishes to divorce one wife, but that wife wishes to remain married to the other two wives, then what?
How about if a man with three wives has children with all of them, and one of them wishes to divorce. Are the remaining two wives on the hook for alimony and child support, too? Or just the husband? Why are or aren't the remaining wives also responsible for it?
A woman with two husbands wishes to divorce one of them and keep custody of their children. Who pays alimony and child support to who? Should the ex-husband pay alimony to the ex-wife? The remaining husband? Should the two remaining married pay the ex-husband? Who pays child support and why?
A man with two wives passes away and leaves his entire estate to wife #2. Does wife #1 have any rights to the estate? Half? More? Less? Is he even allowed to cut out one of his wives in his will?
A man with three wives passes away. Are his three widows still married to each other?? Or are they all single again? Why??
Of course, you CAN create laws to deal with all these situations, but until you do, you CANNOT simply legalize polygamy. It's far too complex legally to simply dump such complex issues on the courts without any legal framework to work within.
You don't need to consider ANY of those things with gay couples because each party has only ONE legally recognized spouse. ALL the same laws that apply to opposite gender couples will apply in exactly the same way with same gender couples.
Why is that so hard for you to understand? Is it because the only way you can remain in the discussion is to hammer on and on about polygamy?? Because it's REALLY TOTALLY irrelevant to the discussion of marriage equality for gay COUPLES.
Exactly. And there are similarities between a married couple and a blueberry pie, too. Some are sweet and wonderful and some are tough and unpleasant. So what? It doesn't make a married couple the same as a blueberry pie, does it?<quoted text>
First, there are similarities in the arguments presented whether you wish to acknowledge them or not. Retread that piece I posted listing the similar arguments.
And that effects gay couples how, exactly?? I'm sure the Brown family enjoys blueberry pies every now and then, too, as do my husband and I. Does that mean that we're all blueberry pies??<quoted text>Second, you have the Brown family giving television interviews supporting gay marriage, and their attorney cited legal SSM in their law suit against the state of Utah.
And, as we've been saying over and over, THEY CAN DO THAT!!! It's their right as citizens to pursue recognition of their civil rights using any and all arguments they believe will benefit them. SO F**KING WHAT???? That has NOTHING to do with gay couples legally marriying. NOTHING!<quoted text>Lastly, if SSM marriage advocates are going to argue for their cause under the concept of "marriage equality", they have to realize others, plural marriage practioners will use that concept as well.