IF gay unions are state-recognized...

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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.  

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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.

Almost all societies in history that have permitted polygamy have involved one man marrying many wives.  These societies have also categorically expected women to play a submissive role in society.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Marriage doesn't have a single transcendental meaning; it means whatever society wants it to mean.  In the past, it could only be the union of two people of the same race or the same social caste.  Now, it doesn't mean that any more.  You can't just say that gay marriage is wrong because that's not what marriage is....that's only not what marriage is if we haven't changed the definition yet, so the reasoning is circular.

In decided what marriage should be, we need to look at the public policy consequences of our decision, not our own self-understand of what we think marriage is.  

- I am in favor of gay marriage because I think it promotes equality, and encourages homosexuals to engage in a healthier lifestyle of commitment and monogamy.

- I am opposed to polygamy because I think it prmotes inequality and the subjugation of women.  

Is this reasoning really that hard to understand?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

In some states, it is legal for two people who are 14 years old to get married.
In other states, it is not.

In some state, it is legal for first cousins to get married.
In other states, it is not.

In some states (alright, only one), it is legal for two men to get married.
In other states, it is not.

Why does only the last of the three divergences call into question some sort of transcendental definition of marriage?

Marriage as a state institution is whatever the state says it should be.  Marriage as a religious institution is whatever the specific religion says it should be.  There is no one definition that the word "marriage" has been magically imbued with.

I don't believe polygamy violates any sort of transcendental definition of marriage, either.  But I believe it is an institution which is unhealthy to society, and thus should be prohibited.  I believe gay marriage is ultimately healthy for society, and should be encouraged.  If you want to argue these policy judgements, that's fine.  But don't claim that my argument is internally illogical.