Well, if it’s all about who you love, and we accept people no matter who they love and all that, there is no way to be intellectually honest, and be in favor of homosexual marriage but against polygamy.
The underlying idea behind homosexual marriage is the idea that consenting adults want to live their lives as they see fit, and that they are entitled to social/governmental endorsement/approval of their living arrangements.
The idea is that we have to give “equality” to homosexual pairings.
The idea is that we are not to make moral or ethical judgements about homosexuality, as we allow homosexual marriage.
How can we use this sort of reasoning to allow homosexual marriage, but turn around and deny the same “equality” to consenting adults in polygamy??
How can we say you can’t make moral judgements about homosexuality, but then turn around and make moral or ethical judgements about polygamy???
A lawsuit is pending in Montana, where a husband wants to legally marry his 2nd wife. Stay tuned on that one.
Legally speaking, if the judges apply the same criteria to polygamy as to homosexual marriage, there’s no way you can ban polygamy.
By the way, when confronting the other side's ongoing use of the word "love" as a misdirection in the debates over homosexuality and same-sex marriage, consider this:
1. The civil state does not use love as a legal, documented, prerequisite for marriage. I believe this is the case in all 50 of the U.S. states and in no western, secular nation.
2. I suspect that on no request form for a marriage license, does any state make the applicants certify by checkbox and signature that they are in love.
3. In any event, I'm confident that none of the 50 U.S. states and no western, secular nation uses any sort of test to certify independently of the individuals' claims that true love is present. There is no test for love involved in the application for licensing. (Somebody point out if I am mistaken on these technical specifics.) Ergo, in historic and current civic practice, there has been and is no requirement for "love." This is one of two basic rebuttals to the misdirecting use of "love" as an argument in favor of same-sex marriage.