IF gay unions are state-recognized...

[opebo]

I think both are prefectly fine, and also none of my business.

[opebo]

I think both are prefecly fine, and also none of my business.

I don't think they are perfectly fine, but I agree that its none of my business.

Interesting!  But I guess the last part of your statement is what's really important from a libertarian point of view.

[opebo]

No...as posted in the other thread, real world polygamous relationships involve the subjugation of women, which society should not encourage or allow.

Why not?  They voluntarily enter into the bargain.  Being 'subjugated' is often a trade-off for economic benefit, just as in, for example, working for an employer.

[opebo]

I don't even think it'd be completely opening the floodgates. Gay marriage is in no way, shape, matter, or form better.

The 'real world societies' crap isn't what we're talking about. If three women in this country want to get 'married'--and there are--should their union be recognized?

In three women example, I guess I would have to say that that is OK.  But this what NOT we usually think of as polygamy.  

To amend my own statement:

Although I don't have any theoretical problem with the three-women example, I think it would be OK for society to outlaw all marriages of more than two people.  This is because, in practice, the "equal" multiple-person marriages would be so rare in number, that little harm would be done by banning them just to make sure that "unequal" polygamous marriages are not permitted.

You seem to assume that inequality within marriage will automatically favor the male party - I hold the opposite view.

[opebo]

Republicans....the world's only bedroom-police political party.  

Hah, if only it were so - these types abound in many parts of the world.

[opebo]

If polygamy were allowed in an egalitarian manner I would have 2 offers of marriage from married women within a week.

No real point, just saying.

Um... you're schtuping some married ladies? Right on!