IF gay unions are state-recognized...

[John Dibble]

Yes, even if I think it's immoral(or just plain stupid - dealing with just one woman is hard enough).

As far as letting everything else be recognized - well, define everything else.

If you mean group marriages involving any number of people, yeah, might as well allow that, no different from polygamy really(though like polygamy we'd need to figure out some kind of tax code for it, I would just say that everyone should file as individuals).

If you mean human-animal marriages you're an idiot, because animals aren't citizens, can't pay taxes, and are regarded as property for the most part. How the hell would consent even be given?

If you mean incest, well, that's a wierd area, but there would be different grounds to say it shouldn't be allowed. Anyone who'd want to marry a direct family member would probably have some sort of psychological disorder, so consent would be impossible to give due to lack of proper mental capacity.

Same with pedophile marriages - children are too young to give consent.

EDIT - my preference would be that no form of marriage would be state recognized. Anyone who wants to consent to give another person legal power(power of attorney, to enter the emergency room, gaurdianship over children[with consent from all current gaurdians, not just one on a whim], and other rights given by state recognized unions). But I doubt it will happen.

[John Dibble]

I voted 'no'.

In a gay marriage, all (both) people are married to each other.

In the vast majority of polygamous relationships, one man is married to multiple women--all individuals are not married to each other.

That's why I say any state-recognized polygamous/group marriage should involve the consent of all parties involved. So, if  a guy has one wife, and wants another, his first wife has to approve of it first, and the new wife has to approve of the old one. That would probably keep such relationships minimal.