im guessing you quoted the wrong person.

so, you are against people marrying each other for love because they might have a disabled child. how says they want a child, who are you to tell them they cant have one, its their family. im guessing you are against retarded people marrying then too, im guessing you are against smokers or drinkers from marrying as well, or anyone that has an increased chance of have a baby with a disorder (which is a lot of people). people with family with a history of heart disease should as not marry i guess. fat people shouldnt marry either.

also homosexuals are at a much greater risk at getting an STD, so i guess you are against gay marriage too.

you are making assumptions now. who are you to say that in a polygomist marriage the partners wont love each other equally. and you are saying because they might not love each other as much as another, they shouldnt get married. i guess that goes for pretty much everybody. we should ban all marriage becuase someone might not love their partner enough. what about children should people only have one child as not to love their other child more than their other.

furthermore, homosexual couples are much more likely to be promiscuous, so they shouldnt marry either by your very own logic.

and actually it is shown time and time again that kids not in a stable family with a mom and a dad are much more likey to do bad in school, do drugs, get in trouble.

please explain. 

how can you be for one and not the other.

why should gay marriage be legal while others not.

it seems none of you guys have any argument for gay marriage and against others forms. 

the arguments you guys pose for gay marriage, like that guys signature could be applied to polygamy in the exact same manner. replace the word gay with the word polygamy or incest in his sig. its the same thing, but some reason i dont think he would have as many pats on the back for such a great sig he has if he did that.

with the arguments you present in support of gay marriage, you cannot by extension possibly be against polygamy, incest or what have you. you simply cant.

Nope , absolutely nothing in between.

You originally implied that same-family marriage, polygamy, and same-sex marriage are equivalent. I simply pointed out that they aren't equivalent. There are arguments against same-family marriage and polygamy that don't apply to same-sex marriage. Do you recognize my point?

Regarding the first bolded part of your reply, what is your evidence that married same-sex couples are more likely to cheat on their spouses than are married opposite-sex couples?

As for the second bolded part, to quote the American Psychological Assocation (2004) "beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002). Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly in their approaches to child rearing (Patterson, 2000; Tasker, 1999). Members of gay and lesbian couples with children have been found to divide the work involved in childcare evenly, and to be satisfied with their relationships with their partners (Patterson, 2000, 2004a)... There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation (Armesto, 2002; Patterson, 2000; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children."

Here are the references cited:

Armesto, J. C. (2002). Developmental and contextual factors that influence gay fathers' parental competence: A review of the literature. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 3, 67 - 78.

Patterson, C.J. (2000). Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 1052- 1069.

Patterson, C.J. (2004a). Lesbian and gay parents and their children: Summary of research findings. In Lesbian and gay parenting: A resource for psychologists. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Perrin, E. C., and the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health (2002). Technical Report: Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. Pediatrics, 109, 341 - 344.

Tasker, F. (1999). Children in lesbian-led families - A review. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 4, 153 - 166.

Tasker, F., & Golombok, S. (1997). Growing up in a lesbian family. New York: Guilford Press.

It's a derivative of the slippery slope fallacy. You take one element of the opposition argument and stretch it out to ridiculous extremes in an attempt to invalidate it. For the purposes of the gay marriage debate, the differences between a monogamous gay relationship and other non-conventional forms of love are significant enough to merit their exclusion from the terms of debate, and introducing them is an example of the slippery slope fallacy.

I've seen polygomy used on both sides. One, because it's "the most traditional form of marriage"; and then the argument we have here,

what makes polygamy any more ridiculous than gay marriage. its not slippery slope, when the same principle applies. its no slope it is extension.

you cannot logically  be for gay marriage, while simultaniously being against the other forms of marriage that i mentioned.

you have yet to pose any argument on why gay marriage should be legal while others not. nor have you explained why you are for gay marriage, claim that those who arent are bigots and or behind the times, while also being against other forms of marriage, and not considering yourself a bigot.

if its wrong, discrimintation, and bigotry to be against gay marriage, then it must also be so for people against other forms of marriage.

The claim is that they are not the same. Being related to someone provides the legal framework that marriage in turn provides making the legal framework unnecessary, and thus is not needed. The issues surrounding polygamy are distinct from the issues surrounding gay marriage, polygamy being an artifact of an older era and historically exploitative towards one gender.

With marriage we have an institution which is a legal framework that provides individuals with certain benefits. What we must debate on the matter of gay marriage then is that certain couples are being denied the ability to enter into this contract, who otherwise need to do so.

well if its legal frame work that is the point, then marriage is not necassary. you can have the same benefits without gay marriage, so thats a moot point.

you cant ban something because historically it was exploitative to someone. the act it self is not exploitative, what peoples individuals action are, are of no significance. if it were then i could say, marriage should be banned completely because historically men have beat their wives.

why are you discriminating against groups that simply want to profess their love for each other, and have the legal benefits of marriage, and want to have it for principle, yet support it for a group that claim the same thing.

its quite hypocritical, and countradictory.

like i said, you cant come up with any reason for why you are against marriage equality other than its not necassary, and its bad. sounds a lot like the arguments against gay marriage, the arguments you laugh at.

@killerzX

As I stated above, "Polygamy is not okay because it creates inherently unequal partnerships. For example, situations where multiple women have to share one man." That argument DOES NOT apply to same-sex marriage. Therefore, same-sex marriage and polygamy are logically and ethically different. I can support same-sex marriage without also supporting polygamy.

Here's an affirmative statement of my position: In my view, two people should be allowed to marry as long as (1) they are both consenting adults, (2) their marriage would create an equal partnership, and (3) their marriage would not put their children at substantial risk for a negative outcome that is not shared by the parents.

Same-sex marriage would pass this test. Polygamy would fail, due to criterion (2), and same-family marriage would fail due to criterion (3).